political genius of an american icon. .. , washington dc. we will be live the next three hours from the reynolds museum and education center and our special guest today is the noted war historian and washington biographer john ferling. thank you for being with us. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: you're latest book the descent of washington is where we are going to start today to explain the george washington you came to know through your research. >> guest: i actually lived with washington i think for 25 years. i wrote a biography of

washington backend 1980's. i came back to washington early in this decade and wrote a comparative study of washington, john adams and thomas jefferson during the revolution and then i turned to washington and as a politician and looked at him in the ascent of george washington and from that standpoint, and i think in each of those endeavors what strikes me about washington is he is a very complex individual and a very difficult personal to get to know. he was very careful and anything garrote, and unfortunately his widow, martha washington, destroyed all of their letters and. 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 the viewers what makes "in depth" work is your calls and we are going to calls in about ten minutes for john ferling. we welcome your questions and especially like to hear from readers of his books were also about those interested in revolutionary war, colonial america and washington in particular. eckert telephone numbers for those of you in the eastern time so, 202-737-0001 and for those in the central and mountain time zone, democratic phone call and we will makes the calls through the three hours. generally we are going to spend the hour on george washington. the second hour will be looking at revolutionary and colonial america and the third hour will be focusing more on dr. ferling's books about adams and jefferson, 1800 e. election and george washington's final years and the importance of his actually turning over of power at the end of his presidency and what that meant for the rest of our history in america. at this museum has a record

crowds coming here. they tell us the expect about a million people in 2009 and i'm wondering about what to think of the enduring popularity of washington. >> guest: 80 is really amazing. i think he is clearly i think though most popular of all of the founding fathers, at least the most revered of all of the founding fathers. in a way i think jefferson may be more popular and after david mccaul's book on john adams and the television programs on adams, adams may be even more like in washington. but washington 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 the reaganite states and then he was the first president of the united states. so there are good reasons washington should be remembered today. >> host: over my shoulder is a painting called washington and laufman yet at mount vernon done by two french painters in 1859. washington is depicted as much taller as lafayette and i would like to talk about washington's physical presence. >> guest: he had an extraordinary physical presence. he was probably about 6 feet 3 inches tall. in fact, he was always ordering his clothes from england before the revolution and sometimes afterwards and he would order clothing for in an 6-foot 2 inches tall and complain about the clothing being too short, so i think 6-foot 3 inches is probably but he was coming and when he served in the french and indian war mackey was 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 he described him as a man with a tiny waist, very broad shoulders, tremendous upper body strength, and i don't know what washington weighed at that point. there is no record. but i do know that during the revolutionary war, when washington was 50-years-old he weighed 210 pounds, so here is a guy, 6 feet 3 inches tall, 210 pounds, this is what you see on an nfl roster for players. he was in good physical condition most of his life, and many people describe washington, in fact anybody that seemed to be a around washington couldn't resist the temptation to leave a description of washington and many people describe him as the best horseman of his day. they describe his date, his

means of walking as walking in a very fluid manner. so he was thought of as an athlete might be thought of today. so i think he did have this extraordinary physical presence about him. something john adams didn't house. john adams was a man of ordinary height which was about 5 feet 7 inches 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 his presidency fell between washington who was a 6 feet three in the jefferson who was 6 feet two, adams thought highlight was the determinant factor. but washington was an imposing figure and on top of that, he was a very quiet figure.

not almost unapproachable, very grave demeanor, and i think that added to this in posing aspect of washington. >> host: the tale that you tell on the descent of washington is that his success was no way guaranteed from his birth and circumstances. would you give the highlights of that? >> guest: well, washington, the misfortune washington had an early age is his father had died when george was only 11-years-old, and george's older brothers had the benefits of a formal education including schooling and england, but when augustine by the money dried up, and washington's education will came to an end. and his inheritance was a rather modest inheritance, enough that he would have been perhaps an

important figure in a county he was growing up around fredericksburg virginia, but given the circumstances he was probably unlikely to be known beyond that county. so, molly ivins, the columnist said the george bush was born on third base, george washington was born to a 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 certainly wanted to be somebody. he was a man with considerable ambition. he strikes me in a way of the viewers have seen the movie on the waterfront remember there's a character marlon brando plays in that movie a washed up boxer named terry malloy and he threw

a fight because his brother was in the mall and the door when his chances to be a great fighter and he tells, marlon brando tells his brother, rot, and a famous scene in that movie, that if he hadn't thrown that fight he could have had an outdoor fight and i could have been somebody, he said, 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 wed, he came to mount vernon which was owned at that time by his stepbrother, half-brother lawrence, nearby mount vernon was belfort owned by the fairfax family, the wealthiest family in the northern neck of virginia, and washington at mount vernon and belvoir 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, how they acted to others. that was kind of his education. and that was a means of his self improvement and his advancement. when i talk always used to tell my students look at george washington and studied george washington because here is 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 ferry and i think he was constantly trying to improve himself. >> host: for the viewers as we start to get to the telephone calls let me tell a top line about mount vernon. is just coming up to its 150th anniversary has managed by the mount vernon ladies' association. it is a private and non-profit,

not part of the presidential library system although his presidential papers are housed for historians to use for their research. as i said earlier they have over a million fisa terse this year. the center we are in, the w. reynolds research center was opened and 2006. if you come here you can still to were the mansion itself but can spend much time inside this very rich gallery and theater and as we are talking today i think you will see some of the folks visiting hour around because we are in one of the exhibit rooms that depicts washington's daily life and people are touring as we are talking, so we are part of mount vernon's operations today. for john ferling let's take our first telephone call from boston and this is john on the line. you are on the air. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask mr. ferling, when they shifted the focus of operations to the south in 1778, what

person or persons made that decision? a >> guest: i think it was a decision made by the british ministry, but largely by lord george germain, who was the american secretary. he was responsible for american affairs and can amount to what we would think of as the secretary of defense in the united states today. and it was a decision the british faced basically one of two choices by 1778, either throwing the towel and give it up or try an alternative strategy because they had waged war in the north in 1775, 76, 77 and successfully spectacularly on successfully at the end of 1777 that in general johns army surrendered answer atoka, so

they chose at that point will to alter their strategy and try to conquer the southern colonies. and at that point they didn't think they could win the more -- war but they were trying to salvage a the american empire. they thought of the four southern colonies, virginia, north carolina, south carolina, and georgia as the four most important colonies from an economic standpoint, because those were cash crop colonies that produced tobacco in the upper south and royce 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. they still held the american west, they still held canada, they held several sugar islands

in the west indies so they would still have a large american empire, and even if a few states gained independence those states above the potomac, they would be completely surrounded by british provinces. they would be hemmed in on able to grow and in essence, the british would either not lose the war and they could in a sense conceivably come out with a victory of some importance. >> host: our next question for john ferling comes from ronald watching us and marysville washington. >> caller: yes, good afternoon. it is certainly an honor to be able to talk with you, dr. ferling, and c-span i want to say this is a commendable effort particularly after all the focus on lincoln and the bicentennial. i know you've commented on the other than use the revolutionary

war often gets overshadowed by the coverage of the civil war. i've read most of your books and particularly value your emphasis on the rolph contingency in outcomes which i believe coincides with the views of one of your contemporary structures. i've got to questions basically both from personal associations and directly with the revolution. one, i spent my earliest years living in my grandparents' home in wethersfield connecticut just a block away from the street where the house existed and still exists and as you know i believe many of 1781 the conference was held between general washington and rochembeau. i know the years have involved in putting the most recent elaboration in the latest book the ascent of george washington.

i appreciate your polarization of what you understand took place particularly in light of what was actually in sood. secondly, while i am proud of of my ancestors service in the union army my wife has recently trimmed to me by her genealogy research when she came up with a fifth great-grandfather on her father's cited with the declaration can be relied on and he enlisted in the rhode island on april 19, 1775, the same day as the battle of lexington. he served eight months in boston, reenlisted in london, joined washington's forces, went to trenton and was in battle and went to princeton in battle and in morristown and reenlisted under stevan and those individuals, robert reid hawkins

service. >> host: so what is the question about? call, question is unable to corroborate through second sources to locations of those units either primary sources you could recommend where i could do for their corroboration? >> host: thank you for the questions. the first was washington's meeting with rochambeau on three occasions. >> host: can you explain who he is? >> guest: the commander of the french army. france allied with the united states in 1778. initially the french sent the navy over to america thinking that that would do the trick. the american army in conjunction with the french navy did win the war and 78, 79 went by and things looked worse and as a measure of some desperation i think the french sent an army

over to america that landed in rhode island in the summer of 1780 and rochambeau was the commander of the french army, and washington's headquarters, his headquarters were in new york at the time and he came over the first one to hartford and met with rochembeau and finally made, 71 they held their climactic conference had wethersfield and connecticut which the call e-mail id to and the was a conference designed to prepare strategy for the campaign coming in 1781. and i think both washington and rochembeau realized something decisive had to occur in 1781 or

the cause was lost. america was broke, the french were gaining nothing from the war, there was pressure on the government to withdraw from the conflict. they were being driven into bankruptcy in fact i the war so this was a crucial meeting. and at the meeting, rochembeau begins by 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 rochembeau says that's impossible. i've already explained that to you. i explained that to you when we met last september and some of the french aids that were there indicated later on rochembeau spoke very harshly to washington, and essentially what rochembeau said the british have had a very long time to prepare their defense and we york.

they are too solid. we can't take it. it would take too long. we can't keep the militia together long enough to conduct a siege operation. and so washington bowed to rochembeau and rochembeau said what would be your second choice? and washington said the let's try a campaign in canada. and rochembeau said i am not interested in canada. and then rochembeau mentioned virginia, and washington wasn't interested in a campaign in virginia at that time and so they came back to new york and rochembeau agreed with washington's supposedly agreed with washington's earliest offered, let's attack new york. washington wrote back to his headquarters and the instant washington was gone, rochembeau wrote to the french admiral in

the caribbean and said bring your fleet number but he didn't say bring it to new york. he said bring it to virginia and so rochembeau seized 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 entel there were about 8,000 british troops. and as time went on, washington began to see the opportunities and then he relented and he gave his sanctions 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: the folks at mount vernon are expecting a record stores open until 5 p.m. if you live in the washington, d.c. area and would like to come down we are in the scott gallery in the reynolds museum and education center and very much open for business today. so we have lots of folks store in mt. vernon with us as we have our life discussion with dr. ferling. next telephone call is from mackall leah texas, the viewer's name is david. what is your question for dr. ferling? >> caller: he always in his adult life george washington had bad teeth problems and i think, you know all the rest of this guy had on his plate and had to fix all the time is unbelievable. and what medicine did he take? thank you. >> host: thank you. in fact somewhere on display are

the famed washington what in teeth. so tell us -- >> guest: he did have dental problems and he told john adams when they were in the continental congress to gather 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 were just as washington did also. washington salles several dentists'. i am not sure what kind of medicine he took, but given the state of medicine in the 18th-century i doubt that he could have taken anything that would have been any good. he used lots of dangers of, and i think eventually when he was president he was wearing dentures madoff hippopotamus ivory and they were a

contraption made with a spring he would put in his mouth that had to be extremely uncomfortable, and washington himself i think was self-conscious of his teeth, false teeth that he bore and so he fell into a habit early on of keeping his lips closed and to some degree some people who were invited to dinner with washington's bouck of washington tending to speak with his hand over his mouth in that fashion which would indicate i think his of consciousness. >> host: in earlier use said he was taciturn sort. maybe that would be the reason. >> guest: that could be a factor. >> host: this could be a very detailed question and i don't mean to be because we have lots of calls waiting. but when is the first time washington broke into national consciousness and what caused it? >> guest: he actually came to

the public attention when he was 22-years-old. he was the commander of the regiment, and army raised by virginia. the problem was both great britain and france proclaimed 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. and actually thought three warsinskey 18th-century with parts of america being an aspect in those and so virginia sent an army held to the ohio country, it was actually an army to build a fortification at the head of the ohio river which is

pittsburgh today, and when the army was created washington was named the number two man in the army and joshua fry was the initial colonel, and fly by the accident, he 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 army and he took the army out and he ran into a force of french soldiers as he was advancing on pittsburgh he was still quite a ways away, 25 miles or so away from the ohio, and washington made a decision. i think probably the maldon decision, but he made a decision to try to ambush the french party and he succeeded in the ambush and ten orie 11 french soldiers were killed and then there was the french fired back

at washington but they were overpowered, and washington wrote an account, actually several accounts and sent to friends and to the governor and he said in one of the accounts i have heard the bullets fly and there's something charming about the sound, and that letter was reprinted and even reprinted in london so i think the was the first moment that people outside virginia and virginians themselves republican aware of washington. >> host: for john ferling next call comes from arkansas. if you were named allen. what's the question alan? >> caller: good morning, dr. ferling. an honor to speak with depue did it says a lot can be told about a man from his hero and i was reading gordon wood's bouck what made the founders different, and i believe he makes the point in

that book talking about washington and cincinnatus, the roman general, so my two questions or one, would you comment on the idea of washington and his heroes since we understand them to have been, and also his point is that the revolutionary war or the revolutionary founders of the country had commonality about what the government should be about and learning from the past, greek and roman civilization and not make the same mistakes. would you comment on that? >> host: may i ask as a preview to the question does your research indicate george washington was a reader? >> guest: he was a reader. he had an extensive library of. most of the books in the library dealt with eckert cultural issues. he was a former obviously at mount 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, there were a series of maxims what we would call a self-help book today that were devised by the french priests in the 17th century, and washington we know fred and in fact why he didn't own a copy of the book evidently he 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. he liked the theater and frequently on the number of occasions he saw joseph addison's play about cato, and

so washington i think looked on the 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. florence was about ten years older than washington during an oddly named war that was called the war of jenkins that propelled with spain in 1739. the americans were asked to worry is a military force, and about 3,000 americans serve to in that conflict and lawrence washington was one who served a soldier down in the west indies and south america, and george met lawrence for the first time

when george was probably 10-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, he had 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 or 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 the war broke out he would like to soldier, too. >> host: we are at mount vernon for this edition of "in depth," three hours long with john ferling, a revolutionary war historian who has spent his career delving into the complexity of that era of

history and also a washington biographer his latest book is called the ascent of george washington and we are taking your telephone calls for him. earlier, if you could briefly, the call that asked about rochembeau, also as an amateur historian he wanted to know resources one could go to learn about the units fighting in the revolutionary war. is there such a place? >> guest: they're actually are a number of books available. usually for each state. and i think what i would suggest, i don't remember what states he said his ancestor surfed, would be go to a good library and talked to a reference librarian and start digging there. because generally each state has its own volume with information on the units from that state. >> host: a colleague john kelly has a camera on his shoulder and is wandering around

some of the exhibits in the education center, and from time to time if we could help illustrate your questions we will show some of the exhibits. who lives in the town of mt. vernon new york. bob? >> caller: thank you, c-span. thank you for the programming. dr. ferling, it's a pleasure to speak with you. from my readings i've always wondered how close george washington came to losing his career and it seems his selection of nathaniel greene kind of bailed him out in different occasions. i was wondering if you could have some insight as to the personal relationship if they had any or did washington just use nathaniel greene based upon his record. thank you. >> guest: thank you. let me try -- there are two questions. let me try to answer both of those and take the question first of the opposition to

washington will if i could. washington made a lot of mistakes in the campaign of 1776 and new york, but i think most people were willing to overlook those mistakes. he was new in command, he was an amateur soldiers. but then in the campaign of 1777, there were more mistakes made by washington at brandywine, and following washington was largely inactive in his efforts to keep the british from advancing and finally taking 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 surrendered in october

of 1777. so i think a combination of a second campaign of mistakes by washington and then having an alternative commander, somebody who had succeeded in the case of general gates went to a good deal of opposition to washington. there was some opposition particularly among the foreign soldiers who were volunteering and serving in the continental army, but there were some opposition within congress as well. i remember seeing one letter by john lawrence from south carolina the was the president of the continental congress in the winter of 1777 and 78 and he wrote to his son, colonel john lawrence in january of 1778 and said i've just come from the meeting with about 24, and washington's opinions were treated with great laughter by those. so i don't think there's any

question that there were some opposition to washington. enough in fact that some have concluded there was a conspiracy to remove washington from a conspiracy they called the conaway cobol. i don't happen to agree that there was a really active conspiracy of any size to remove washington. i think most congressmen would realize that washington has many virtues. he hadn't missed used the power that he had invested with. he was fighting of the cream of the british army, better force, stronger force than gates had had to contend with. and also france was on the verge of coming into the war. if washington was dumped at that point by congress finance might

change its mind and not come in and a political firestorm could break out. so i think while there were some congressmen who probably would have liked to remove washington i think there were very few and far between and in fact, i think what does happen during the winter of 1778 is the valley forge winter by the way is there was a conscious decision made by congress and to elevate washington's status. this is the point in my estimation when washington becomes to use john adams' term, and adams certainly agreed with what i'm saying, that washington became the central arch -- the central stone rather in the american arch during that winter. this was the time when washington really becomes

untouchable so to speak from this point on. remember in the 18th-century every country but the united states had a marked and the mark was kind of the blue for the country, a central figure around people could revolved and pulls things together and of the united states didn't have that. there was no mood after thomas kane's common sense to have a monarchs and after the experiences the columnist had with george iii. but by making george washington the central stone in this art, commerce and effect sort of created and on crown american king. and the second question, i will be more brief, you asked about washington's relationship with nathanael greene. green was one of about a dozen

continental officers appointed as general officers when the continental army was created in june at 1775. and henry knox said green was the most, of all of the generals. but washington high thinks of something new in green and he saw a capability, he saw a guy growing who had talent, and by 1776 this nothing in writing i am aware of to this effect, but the buzz going on in congress at the time was that washington had let congress know if something happened to him and he did not survive he hoped that congress would name nathaniel greene as his successor, so they had a close relationship and washington relied on green very

heavily at his as pfizer will -- as his adviser and to go back to the point you made about the criticism, one of the things his critics offered is he relied too much on the advice of financial green but i think washington was exactly right, nathanael greene became the next to washington on think the best of america's generals. and in my estimation, he waged the best concerted campaign, a campaign that went on about 100 days in early 1781 in the south and i think it was the best extended campaign waged buy any american commander, washington included during the revolutionary war. >> host: we are spending independence day weekend at mount vernon virginia with washington biographer john ferling. dr. ferling was born in the

virgin young and his ph.d. is from west virginia university. he spent his teaching career at the university of west georgia and carrollton george, 33 years in the classroom and writing books along the way. some ten in total that all focus on the history and characters of the revolutionary war in colonial america. i have two calls who have been waiting patiently but i want to ask you when did you take your career in the direction of revolutionary war history? >> guest: well, can i back up a little bit about history itself? when i was in high school, i saw a documentary, have seen a sense, it wasn't a very good documentary, but i was about 16-years-old and what impressed me was david will burke documentary called the twisted cross, the rise and fall of hitler. and i became fascinated how somebody like that could get and

how were and do the things he did and did the day after i saw the documentary i went to the library for the first time in my life and i checked out a biography of hitler and started reading it. and so i became interested in history but i wasn't sure one a to do in college and i took for her required courses in history. western civilization and in u.s. history and all four of them pretty much turned me off. they were just factual memorization kind of courses, and i got into the last semester of my sophomore year. i had no idea what i was going to measure, and i had to declare a major, and unfortunately for him and fortunately for me the guy teaching the course fell ill and had to go into the hospital and the time-honored tradition they ran the low man on the

totem pole and met a ph.d. william paynter to teach the course and he tore up the class syllabus and said i want you to go to the bookstore and buy these paperback books and i don't remember all of them but i remember one of them was allen's biography of hitler, study and tyranny and one was on george washington, marcus connally spoke, george washington, man and a monument and dr. paynter didn't lecture. we just had class discussions about these books and i learned very quickly i didn't know how to read so there was an education learning how to read a book and as we would have these class discussions i found myself becoming more and more intrigued going to the library and reading 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 the course on the american revolution and i think that is what steered me in the direction of the revolution. i got very interested in that topic. >> host: next question is from oregon. the fierceness steve. hello, steve, welcome. >> caller: good morning. over 40 years ago i took a couple of survey courses from a young forest mcdonald and i continue to keep in contact with him as recently as early this year. i seem to recall him describing washington as cold, formal and on the average intelligence. then professor mcdonald research and wrote the presidency of george washington and completely turned around his respect for washington increased greatly. 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 this as an opportunity to show your biographies of washington. how many years a separate them? >> guest: the first came out in 1988 and is now out of print but it's coming back in print oxford university press purchased the rights and on president's day in february they are going to issue eight and my biography of john adams in paperback edition. so 21 years separate these books on washington. >> host: and is the viewer's theory or description of forest mcdonald similar to your experience? to your view of george washington change in that time period? >> guest: i think my view of washington has been an evolving

view. i as i have grown older there are things about washington on a appreciate that i didn't appreciate when i was younger and there are some things about him i have grown to question somewhat that i didn't question when i wrote the biography in ca these i was probably more of laudatory of washington as a military commander in the revolutionary war maxxam i am now. but on the other hand, i think as i have grown older and hopefully a bit more experience with the revolution i've come to understand some of the political problems that washington encountered. there was a conference, and each state had one vote. he had to do with all kind of congressmen with in delegations.

pennsylvania would have seven congressmen that only one vote so he would have to deal with those people in getting the one vote. he had to deal with 13 separate state governments. it was a political minefield and i've grown much more appreciative of washington as a political figure. and i think i have grown to admire washington and a sense that during the war, the officers are found 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. he won their trust and 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, rolled along sort of declaration praising washington for a number of things. so he had a real capability. obviously he was an extraordinary leader. but he had a capability of winning the confidence of people that he worked with. as far as a -- i did want to say something quickly about the scholar's question and he referred to mcdonald as one of the great historians in america, taught at the university of alabama toward the end of his career used a couple of his books as required reading and some of my courses as a matter-of-fact but when he referred to washington as being cold and formal i'm not sure he

meant that as a criticism of washington. it was in fact what almost everybody said of washington's, he was a rather cold and formal person and my own theory on that is a habit washington probably fell into when he was a young man coming to mount vernon and going to belvoir and being around people who were far better educated than. and he probably put his foot in his mouth a couple of times and he learned from that maybe it's better just not to say anything because i might say the wrong thing and just kind of stand on the side lines and watch and observe. and i think it became kind of a lifelong habits 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 the stars oregon. it's a busy day for the west coast. glad to see you out there watching and the color is blue. what's your question? >> caller: good morning. this i enjoy john ferling's looks very much and the last book was very interesting. and they really shed some light on the part one of the book, life in obscurity, and the question is multi fold, with washington's high ambition and the status in politics and the -- [inaudible] knowing he was acquainted be equal to the british and officers and things like that, his counterparts, i was just wondering if he had more insight

on knowing what was going to happen in the future and he also seemed like he had a lot to lose because of all of his gambling in these things and i was wondering if you could comment and expand on this matter a little bit and i will hang up and listen. >> host: thanks for your question. will >> guest: i don't think washington have a crystal ball. i don't think he knew what was going to happen down the road better than we do. and as a matter of fact, here in this museum that we are in a mount vernon there is a painting of washington will sitting outside of mount vernon working on blueprints of mount vernon and expanding mount vernon. and when was he doing that? 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 then you were going to be in the revolutionary war the next year. in fact when washington came home from the first continental congress which meant september and october 1774, about 6 months before the war breaks out on april 19th of 1775, washington is by a land out west. he's in contact with some people in keeneland, business contacts of his where he is sending some of his grain and other products, and the impression i get from reading washington correspondence is that he really doesn't think there will be a war at that point. he thinks 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 the richard henry lee from virginia and at bat, chris, the congress adopted an

embargo of british trade and richard henry lee made the comment the ship that one takes the news of the boycott to london will bring back the news of peace. and he thought of the british would back down and i think washington may have thought that as well. >> host: jody in memphis tennessee what is the question today? >> caller: i have to questions and i will try to be brief. putting quality aside i always felt alexander hamilton never got the credit he was do or is to as a founding father and i was wondering if you would comment on how his relationship with washington evolved over the years and my second question is did washington ever express a view regarding slavery going forward? many funding fathers filled all

the constitution did was put a band-aid on at and there were obviously going to be problems down the road and i was wondering if washington ever commented on how he fought slavery would evolve over the years. thank you very much and enjoying the program. >> guest: thank you. let me take the first part of the question first, and that's washington's relationship with alexandre hamilton. hamilton became an aide to washington in 1772. so early in the war. it's just after trenton and princeton and hamilton served with washington as a soldier the next four who years and i think they developed quite a close and trusting relationship. washington was in the habit when they were in a crisis situation most of the time, she was in a

habit in the evening of relaxing with his aides and washington will have a class of wine and may be able love knots 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 negative became quite close to hamilton and i think to understand hamiltons grasp of economic issues so that ultimately when washington became the president he chose hamilton to be his secretary of treasury. i've forgotten the second part. >> host: about slavery, the big topic, slavery. >> guest: i hope in fact as we go along today to be able to talk about washington and slavery. i think the question you asked listed washington ever say much

about and the answer is no, he didn't until the last year of his life when he read through his will. washington was a slave owner. he inherited 12 sleeves when he was still an adolescent, when augustine, his father died. when he married martha washington in 1759, he acquired a great many sleeves so 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 she never really says very much i think you have to look at his actions and there were two things about his actions before he redrew his will that leap

out. one is after the revolutionary war he did not purchase additional slaves. you could argue he didn't do that for economic reasons that he had a surplus of labour 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 sleaves, dividing slave families, which indicates there had been a change in washington's thinking with regard to at least that aspect of the morality of slavery. >> host: thomas is watching in burlington vermont. hello, thomas. >> caller: hello. 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 and nova scotia and back as colonies?

>> guest: no, the on foynes ascent what to france were instructed not to give that away if it was at all possible. obviously they wanted france and to the board. that was the big thing they needed france in order to gain victory and by now it was clear it was going to be a long war and once the negotiations began, it became clear the french were not interested in retaking canada and in the treaty itself because what the french said, not to any pressure put on them by the united states, the french renounced canada, and in fact and years and years after the revolutionary war in the

archives were opened what historians learned was that france hoped great britain would retain canada because if british canada sat on america's northern border in the united states would have to remain tied what france for protection and the french were hoping that the united states would be a client state deep into the 19th century. >> host: this will hopefully be a short question because we have one minute. this is a call from joseph in martinez california. >> caller: yes, hello, thank you for taking my question you mentioned the dissatisfaction with washington as commander. this is whether specific. do you have information about james swibel of boston's involvement with the dissatisfaction and if not james wealthy astronaut. [laughter]

"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' he had a long, very interesting relationship, by the way, just through correspondence, with abigail adams. they were close friends, and my good friend edie, abigail adams'

biographer, wrote a wonderful story about the relationship a few years ago. >> host: that's our first hour of a conversation live on this independence day weekend. we will be back after a short break, and during that break we will show you some of the mansion here open to visitors for tour. >> one of our assignments when we do the tour is talk about the character and the leadership and accomplishments of george washington. i think as you know jim mentioned one time the main emphasis was on the deckcrattive arts, and now we're trying to see how the home is a reflection

of his character and leadership and accomplishments. one of the things we ask people, what do you think about the color? they're surprised it's so bright and intense. this would have been an example of this room of his status. one of the last rooms he ads to the house, the large dining room, and he comes up with a clever name, the new room. and it has a 16-1/2 foot ceiling and if you look at the circles in each corner, and if you look at the mashle mantlepiece, he is telling you what his favorite occupation was. not being a general or president but being -- >> farmer. >> he discontinued growing tobacco so shows you his main cash crop. wheat or grains. you see that throughout. the symbolism over the doorways. the marble mantle piece sent to

him in ten different crates and he was concerned it would be too ornate, and when he saw it has farm scenes he put it in the center of his home. we believe this is the room where george washington was told he had been elected as the first president. what we like to share with student groups is how difficult it would be to be the first president. in fact, george washington was reluctant. he says, i go on untrodden ground, and we have to remember that he had to define and organize the presidency. so it isn't any wonder that george washington was a little concerned, what does a president say, do, how does a president interact with the different bodies of government. everybody else was trying hard to get elected president. george washington was almost a

reluctant president. all the furniture was moved out and in 1781 this became the war room. george washington was away from his home for 8-1/2 years, and this is where the last battle was planned, the battle of? -- i'm going to keep this group in here. i get gettings burg and waterloo too often. that's why we're building that new museum. let's go out and take a look at the oldest part of the house. by the way, did everybody see the outside of the house? it's wood. referred to as rusticate yet. george washington saw examples of that's as a young man in newport, rhode island, and it's pine in which the boards have been beveled or shaped to look

like stone, painted with ships varnish, to preserve it, which is why a significant part of the outside of the house is the original wood. painted with white paint and while the paint was wet they applied sand to make it look like stone.

>> you're watching book tv's in depth program with washington biographer john ferling. we are we're in mount vernon, the home of george and martha washington, a place that has one open for people to tour and understand the life of our nation's first president. we're in our second hour of the program with john ferling, the author of ten books or so. we weren't able to count them all. he spent his entire career on revolutionary war history. i want to get to calls because i have many people who are interested in talking with you. 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 to read he married very well and perhaps intensely. is that fair? >> guest: i'm not sure i want to

say it was intentionally. certainly looks that way. martha was regarded as the wealthiest widow in virginia. she had been married previously, and he husband passed away, and washington probably had met her when he was attending sessions of the house -- 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: two hours together before they married? >> guest: 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 is where he called on her. >> host: how old were they?

>> guest: washington was 27, and she was i think maybe a year or two younger. he was 26. i think 27 when he -- when they married. just about 28. in fact, he and john adams and thomas jefferson all married at pretty much the same age, 27 years old at the time that they married. all wanted to establish a career, i think, and establish themselves. >> host: for her part, the match was also a good one. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: publicly known and a prom nantz virginia family, so talk about the decision from her side. >> guest: 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 ended 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 marry as week or two after that. so she was marrying an extremely prominent virginiaan, and i think it was clear that here was a guy who was going places. he not only had mount vernon, he had gotten mount vernon in 1754. lawrence, who opened it, had died, 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's a guy who was in possession of a large plantation. he was one of the most prominent virginiaans because of his military service. he was on his way toward wealth and power within virginia so

from martha's standpoint he was good catch as well. people say washington married the wealthiest widow in virginia so must have been something that he was sort conniviing. 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 they were married. but they appeared 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, 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 burn -- he was the one that burned the corp yeps. the correspondence that survived among the founders the correspondence between john and abigail adams, and we know a great deal about their relationship, and we wish 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 or dr. ferling's titles including this one, leap in the dark, the struggle to create the american republic, and almost a miracle,

the american voc in the war of independence. we know many of you are military history buffs and we hope you will add your questions to our discussion. let's take a telephone call from tom in illinois. hello, tom. >> caller: how are you doing. i have a question quick. and that involves the battle of mount mont and lee's performance in that battle. i have gene to dislike charles lee. he was a foreign officer, one of those that dr. ferling mention who had did not like washington, and there are those accounts who defend lee to some extent, saying that washington never fleshed out his orders to charles lee, but of course later on during the course of the battle, washington fired him. my question is, with regards to the vigor and the way he carried

out washington's orders. i think that washington was justified, but what is your take on that, in the sake of brevity i will hang up and listen to your response. >> host: thank you. >> guest: i'm one of the few historians that really likes charles lee. 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 shepherd's town, 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 besearched

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 battle field to be a good general. and at momnomth, a battle that unfolds in the summer of 1778. the british had occupied philadelphia, they were 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, 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 or 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 momnonth, and so the council voted not to try to do too much,

just 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 desizesive victory but many inflict as men losses on the british as possible, and everything that could go wrong went wrong during the battle, not because of what lee did but because of what lee's sub -- subordinates did, and lee thought he had to retreat or he would get bottled up and face destruction. 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 battle feed, confront lee, some of the officers that 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 -- 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 omonmonth. >> host: next call is from montana. >> i recently finished a book on the french indian war and i was struck by the foresight of washington and benjamin franklin, and i would ask you to

discuss your views of their relationship and how their relationship developed. >> guest: sure. washington and franklin actually met first during the french and indian war there was a conference not for from here in alexandria, a conference arranged for providing provisions to the army 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, and then

washington was appointed commander of the continental army, and fran -- franklin remained in philadelphia and the congress, and came to where washingtons' headquarters was located in october of 1775 on congressional business, and a year or so later franklin was sent overseas as an american envoy and remained in europe for the duration of the war. so they were really 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 lions who says i am reading a novel, this is a fascinating story told from the torry point of view. what was his interaction with the for torry leadership before and after the revolution. >> guest: washington, didn't -- as far as i know he didn't really have any relationship with the torreys except a couple of the fair faxes with whom he had been close prior to the revolution had obviously remained torreys and then they had left and gone to england and

he corresponded with them. i'm unaware of washington taking any particular stance on the matter. in fact, most of what was worked out with regard to the torreys 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. as far as i'm aware washington took no steps. there's no indication that he wanted to carry out reprisals and no indication he wanted to

do anything for them either. >> host: a quick question. 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 carribean, to british isles. quite a few went to canada. some went to england. >> host: mary from lexington, good morning -- good afternoon to you. what is your question? >> caller: yes. i know that the latest 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 of lafayette? did they know each other when he was 26 years old doing surveying of -- and navigating the waters west there? >> host: thank you very much. first on the die riz. >> guest: right. the diaries that exist have been republished as part of the washington papers project at the university of virginia. dorothy tuey was one of the editors 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 opinion out that washington, at least from my standpoint, was not a

particularly good diarist. john adams was. john adams literally beared his soul in his diaries, and washington's diaries quite frequently tend to be just a compilation of 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 he -- much of -- many of the entries were along those lines, and then he also kept some records on the weather at mount vernon. we would list the temperature and tell whether it was hot day or snowed that day or whatever but it is an incomplete record,

and even though the die riz -- you sometimes wonder about the value of washington's entry. 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 is 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, and lafayette had no children, and lafayette lost his father when he was a youngster. so you can make persuasive case 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 states man or politician on

washington's part and that element was there as well, at least during the war. >> over my shoulder is a very large painting that is here in the reynolds center in mount vernon in 178 4. it was painted by two french painters, and we are here at mount vernon today with the good graces of the mount vernon establishment who has been very gracious to us many times over the years as we tried to help you understand the visit of our first president and the period in which he lived. mount vernon ladies association has been the conservator of mount vernon for almost 150 years. they're anniversary year is coming up. they have 500-acres here, which is astonishing if you think of the tensionsive of population. 45 acres are open for public

tour and this new center we're sitting in was open to the public in 2006, which furthers the educational experience of your visit to mount vernon. next telephone call from dan in new orleans. go ahead, please, dan. >> caller: how are you? i want to thank book tv and dr. ferling for such a wonderful informative program. book tv has always been remarkably consistent and dr. ferling you fit right in perfectly. now, being from louisiana, i have always been intrigued with the involvement of the spanish in the revolutionary war. if you would i would like you to give us a brief over e overview of their involvement, whether you consider it important or peripheral, and to tie it in with mr. washington, one of my personal heroes.

did he ever have any contact with the spanish government and or the military hierarchy? >> guest: okay, sure... ... an army over to america. but spain came into the war as what's technically called a co-belligerent, that is not as an ally, but they were fighting the common enemy of the united states. they did make some loans to the

united states, loans of money, and the united states was bankrupt and needed every penny it could get its hands on, so the spanish for important from that standpoint. but i think probably the biggest single aspect of the spanish entry into the war was that once spain came into the conflict then the combination of the french navy and spanish navy together gave the allies a numerical superiority on the seas. and it really changed the equation on the, on the seas from that point on. during the war to the best of my knowledge washington had no, no contact with the spanish. he certainly, of course, did as president of the united states, and one of the last acts of washington as president in the last full year of his presidency was he concluded a treaty that

was called the pinckney treaty with spain, and it was a treaty that resolved many of the western differences that had existed with spain. actually from the 1760s all the way down to the 1790s that spain agreed to the southern boundary of the united states, that the united states wanted which is more or less the boundary along georgia and alabama and the florida boundary today extending out to the mississippi river. and they opened navigation, gave the united states the right of navigation on the mississippi river which was absolutely crucial for opening the west because that was the only way that western farmers living in places like kentucky and ohio and indiana and illinois had for getting their goods to market. otherwise they had to bring

their goods across the appalachian mountains which was just not, not feasible. so washington concluded that treaty with spain, and it was one of the great triumphs of washington's presidency. >> host: our next question is >> host: next question from phoenix, arizona. go-ahead. >> caller: thank you so much dr. ferling four your time today. the next question general nathan green, was he a moderate and were the green mountain boys his troops a so to speak? and to expand upon a questions of the navy, isn't true catherine the great of russia since the russian navy to sit i believe in the ports of baltimore and possibly new york for a short period of time during the revolution? thank you so much.

>> guest: nathaniel greene was from rhode island. the green family was very powerful politically and rhode island in the late colonial period. he was not related to the green mountain boys. we usually think of ethan allen as the commander of the green mountain boys. they were from what we think of as vermont and western new hampshire at the time. i am not aware of the russian navy coming over at all during the revolutionary war. the british decided early on, if they did not have a large standing army and they were in the habit when they went to war of hiring mercenaries at the very outset of the war the british prime minister attempted to hire rush of mercenaries and made

contact with catherine the great and she refused and wanted no part of it so the lord turned to the german principalities and concluded treaties with several principalities which we usually mistakenly lumps them together and called them german soldiers who served over here as british mercenaries. >> host: this is an e-mail from nevada california. first of all, about your right thing he says i appreciate the way you present early history and is full dimension warts and all and in the end inspires ought and gratitude to the small band of brothers that earned our freedom today. as a stanford his three major i was amazed at the number of times a revolutionary army was miraculously saved by unusual weather and events and the

incompetents as the british. wondered if francis scott key line and in the have been rescued land was from the new belief that god had a hand in the improbable american victory not only in the revolutionary war but the war of 1812? >> guest: the first part of that question i think washington was an extremely lucky individual through his life. he is the proverbial guy with the clout with the silver lining hey gang above his head. certainly during the revolutionary war with a number of occasions especiallespeciall why the campaign for new york washington found himself trapped in was able to wiggle out sometimes because of whether or the the lassitude of the british of pursuing.

at one time in 1776 the london newspaper made the comment only general powell could have defeated george washington and only george washington could defeat general hall. the first part is pretty accurate he should have defeated washington in 1776. so i think washington was an extremely fortunate individual. >> host: and the providence of the line the "star spangled banner"? >> guest: i am not familiar with that. but i do know a great many people at the time certainly felt that providence had been on america's side. he did not use the word god with reverence is but he did use the term providence meaning, i think, a god or as

jefferson says nature's god intervened and when washington resides commission when he went to annapolis and resigned his commission and, he says in his remarks that providence had been on america's side for i think a great many people thought that was true during that time. perhaps the things that convinced people into the 19th century more than anything else on july 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence, adams and jefferson both served on that committee to write the declaration and jefferson was the principal author, they both died that day and even john quincy adams says during

the time of his writings it appears to be that and of providence the recognition that america was an exceptional place because ahead god's attention. >> host: real-life on this independence day weekend from mount vernon virginia with revolutionary war historian john ferling biographer of washington and adams. the next call from tulsa of oklahoma. >> caller: thank you c span's. the previous e-mail stole my question. many of my colleagues do relieve the founding of the nation and george washington was providential so i won't go with a question do you believe what was president washington's position on

slavery? did he believe he eventually would be taking care of before the civil war? >> guest: i am glad you asked that question. i cut the response short just before the break. for the revolutionary war washington did not give very much thought to slavery at all. he was a sleeve up -- slave owner and his numbers were growing. there is no indication in any of his writings that he never considered the morality but when washington came home from the revolutionary war, it was clear he had changed his outlook. i think that comes about for two reasons on the one hand a great many african-american soldiers during revolutionary war 100,000 served on the

continental army and 5,000 wrapper african-americans and most served from 1778 on and so it is 5% of its total but an even larger percentage may be close at 10% of the total in the last desperate years. think washington saw those men sold during. maybe for the first time in his life it dawned on him that if given an opportunity african americans could do everything the white americans could do per griping there was a transformative think for washington. an edition washington surrounded himself with very bright, young aides during the war. two of those aides in particular alexander hamilton and colonel lawrence from south carolina were anti-slavery in their outlook.

and with washington in the evenings after a long workday they must have talked about slavery on occasion. i think they may have convinced washington of the morality and hamilton in particular i think may have convinced washington that slavery was not a good economic system with a free labor system was a more productive labor system. after all free labor that have the opportunity to rise by working hard would do more for the person he was working hard and a slave labor. when washington came home from the revolutionary war i think his attitude toward slavery had changed so much. but he continued to own slaves. think he felt he had sacrificed for eight years during the war he thought he did not have very much time to

live he was in his 50s at that time. men in the washington family had a terrible habit of dying at a young age his grandfather was 39, his father in his mid-40s and george is in his 50s i think he thought he probably would not live to a ripe old age and he wanted to enjoy a and a live-in, for those years that remained. so he did not think about slavery until the last year of his life then he changed his will at that point* providing for the release of all slaves following his death lorimar says, whichever came last. >> host: we're live in the education center in museum at mount vernon if you live in the washington d.c. area and

interested in this conversation, john ferling will stay on after our program to sign copies of his book. you are welcome to come down and visit the museum and tour the mansion and with our guests to will spend three hours with us. the painting over his shoulder is a mid 19th century copy of a very recognizable portrait a george washington. the original painting by gilbert stuart to this is a copy by james stewart, a daughter of and painted and 1850. would you talk about the depictions of george washington by his contemporaries and immediately after his death that helped revolve the image we have of washington today? >> guest: he was painted for the first time in 1772, 40 years old.

he had charles wilson, a painter from maryland come to mount vernon to paint him. washington wrote a couple of letters while he was sitting for the portrait and he says this is the first and the last time i will never be painted. it is interesting he had that soldiered in 15 years and a successful planter and businessman at the point* but he obviously wanted to be remembered as a soldier so he went to his trunk and dugout his regiment uniform out of mothballs and that is what he wore when he was painted. it turns out he was obviously wrong it was not the only portrait that was made he was developing almost a cottage industry painting washington and i am not sure how many

times washington was painted during his lifetime but obviously multiple times. gilbert, this was the most famous painter of washington during the revolutionary years. hi action like john trumbull's works better because george washington, met his step grandson who live here for a time with him said he thought trumbull captured washington better than anybody else. peel had a tendency to paint everybody with a middle age spread or a paunch to them. if you look at the trumbull painting and there is a copy of it in my book, washington is very light and trimmed the of the commander of the continental army. but if they were the major painters of washington during

the revolutionary period, a gilbert stuart was the principal painting of washington during washington's presidency. it really has taken, fed is the first portrait of washington and you can see he has his virginia regiment uniform on and although that was 15 years before. the john trumbull painting of washington, that is it. you can see where peel tended to make washington look upon it should washington is slim and thin in good shape. around this time washington who is six-foot three inches tall and weighed 200 10 pounds

days 210 pounds would be like and trim. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. with national treasure and the upcoming novel the idea that has come to the forefront of pop culture. i have seen how washington has enjoyed the staff and i was wondering if you could comment on washington's life a as the founder of the country? >> guest: washington was a member of the masons he was active before the revolutionary war for certain.

several other figures in the revolution including john paul jones were masons as well. at least in the early years it is important for washington. >> host: the next call from california. you are on the air. >> caller: dr. ferling i was wondering if you could comment about a story that i had read, this was above the indian chief who spoke to george washington later in life and concerned when he was a 23 year-old colonel and the french indian war ended consider both dazed was friday battle of long gala. fed chief told washington he had told his warriors to a level with guns at him but the

chief soon saw it was in vain and told them to stop firing because he was a favor of heaven who could never die in battle. i will take your comment on the tv. >> guest: i think that is apocryphal story i have never heard that. but during the french and indian war washington looked for indian allies and did have that allies had worked with day indian chieftain that english called him a the haft team. they were allies with washington and that first meeting where they ambushed the french the indians were part of that attack on the french english soldiers formed a circle around the french and

indians formed in our circle around the virginians. and in the hopes for any french you were able to escape through the virginia lines. washington with them then. most of washington's fighting during the french indian war was the against the french but against the indians per or think washington probably spent many a lonely our writing down the passage in the wilderness in the western areas of virginia at the time. not knowing whether he would be attacked by the indians. there was one case i might mention during the battle of brandywine during the

revolutionary war when a british officer named ferguson who eventually developed a rifle of his son and was regarded as one of the great sharpshooters had a chance to shoot to washington. on the battlefield washington and his aides came riding across the battlefield and ferguson had a shot up washington and could have shot him in the back three he thought that would be a dishonorable thing to do so he did not. i don't think he knew it was washington but a high-ranking american commander. later that day or the next he learned it was washington that he could have shot. he chose obviously not to and he said he was glad he had not done it he thought it was honorable rather not to shoot a man in the back it is a very different standard of for freer at that time.

but on that same topic i should mention a couple of encounters during the revolutionary war including the battle where washington leads his troops into battle writing ahead of his men right into british forces who are firing muskets at him and he is no further away from the adversary who is shooting at him and a pitcher's mound from home plate on a baseball diamond if you can imagine that. it took enormous courage to do that and considerable luck to escape unscathed. >> host: john ferling joining us live from mount vernon virginia he is the author of 10 books on the revolutionary war history and the the people who helped to shape the colonial mason's united states the latest book is called "the ascent of

george washington" and widely available at the favor bookseller. the next phone call is from new jersey. >> caller: dr. ferling thank you for your insight, affirmation. discussing the diary keeping of washington and the other founding fathers like adams and of course, jefferson and hamilton, was that a behavior that was consistent through just in the early years of the founding of the country? did that wax and wane through history? even today we have contemporary politicians aside from presidents that are usually recorded keeping diaries that are the foundation for the future history? >> guest: i think it is an individual matter. i think president reagan kept

a diary that was published not too long ago and a couple of members of franklin roosevelt's cabinet kept diaries that were published after the 1930's. but i think it has always been an individual matter. in the case of john adams from new england, from massachusetts, one of the things the puritans did in the 17th century many kept diaries and it was a way to keep personal track of their godly lives of the transgressions that may have committed more what they may do to improve their relationship with god and their lives and so forth. so to a certain degree i think john adams diary keeping came out of the. -- out of that tradition. a few members of the

continental congress kept diaries as well and those of us who are historians and work on the continental congress are particularly grateful because it does provide some indication of the debates of what congressmen felt toward one another and what was happening of particular times when congress learned of certain information. historians always wish that more people would have kept diaries. suspect more people did keep them than have survived. those got passed along into the family then somewhere along the way they were lost in a house fire or flood or descendants thought they were useless and tossed them out. if i could take 10 seconds and make a personal appeal if you have been a kind of historical

record that is important in the letters from relatives from world were to or career or vietnam even today with iraq, put them in an archive someplace so they can be preserved for future generations can look at them and affair contemporary letters from my rack for afghanistan or serving in the u.s. government today the letters may be important to can we stipulate these are not to be opened 50 or 75 years if you want to preserve the privacy of the person. >> host: printed the e-mails and save them? we just have three minutes left in our second hour of our three our conversation this question comes from california. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. washington was elected by

president first by the electoral college in 1789 and 1792 which is only curiously three years but what is the political process? who was able to vote among the public to choose the electoral college which then chose washington as the president? >> guest: it depended on this day. some states had a state assembly chose the 11 stores and in some states they were chosen popularity. and devolved of the the 1790s virginia did it one way in one election been changed and it did it another. and in washington's case, the fact that less than four years separated the two

elections, remember there could not be an election never president until the constitution was ratified and it was finally ratified in june of 88 and then steps had to be taken to get the electoral college elected. there was just not enough time to get that done by november of 1788. so washington's first term was a little short of the normal length of time the reynolds education center, and people here are able to get a more in depth look of the life and times of our fist president. during our break we're going to show you more of mount vernon mansion.

>> this is what george washington referred to as the heart of the house. this is the original farmhouse that george washington would have inherited as a young man. remember george washington at age 22 inherits mount vernon from his older brother. george washington's father died when george was only 11 years old, and he had a half brother, lawrence washington, and lawrence really becomes his role model, helps to raise george washington, has a tremendous influence on george washington and as a result of that, they become very close. and lawrence washington dies at age 34, and that's why george washington at age 22 inherits mount vernon, and it is a long hallway. two rooms on the right, two rooms on the left, and the roof that probably just went to the top of the stairs. so as his life changes, the house changes. remember, he's a bachelor. and it wasn't unusual in virginia to have this long hallway. you'd have both doors open, have

a nice breeze going in in the summer time. in the winter time it would, of course, become an additional room. not exactly sure how it was appointed when george washington was a young man. we do know what it looks like december 14, 1799, so you'd have had the parlor. george washington called that the best room in the house, and you have a music room with the original harp si cord that he purchased for his granddaughter who apparently was excited until she found out she had to practice four hours a day. .. we have a document that even wrote a letter that said if

no one shows up in the next half hour, martha and i will dine alone for the first time in 20 years. oh, my gosh. just to give you somed and -- some idea of the number of visitors. he said i would love to go to the table and see a familiar guest. he he said treat your room as you would your own apartment i must suggest to you breakfast fast at 7 main meal at 3 and lighter fare at 8. and i must suggest the meals are served upon the arrival of the hour not the guest. you had to be prompt and be on time. probably something of the most historical significance is this key on the wall. and it's a key to the french prison and you see a sketch below and oftentimes people say well, why would george washington have the key to the french prison? well, what country helped us win our independence? >> france. >> and what frenchman was

probably the closest to george washington? you guys get to answer all the questions. you g p -- get to go to the next level. the marquis lafayette. kmond commander in chief of the french national guard 1789 july 14th. when that is torn down he sends the key to george washington by way of thomas paine and in a letter indicates that he considered george washington his adopted father. his spiritual father. his american general but most importantly he considered george washington the father of american liberty and george washington parently is extremely proud of it. puts it on the wall. been there since 1790. it did take a trip to the to france on the 200th anniversary of the fall of be a still and nice gentleman named george bush senior took it over and brought it back.

this summer "booktv" is

asking what are you reading? >> susan weinberg publisher of publish affairs books. what's on your summer reading list? >> well, the first book on my list is real change of pace for me because we publish nonfiction and i read a lot of nonfiction but i hope this summer i get to read the master. it's a book that i know the publisher and she gave me a copy and she gives me a copy of a book very often. we trade books and talk about each other's books but when she found out i hadn't gotten around to reading that one. she was quite vexed i thought boy, publisher believes in the book that much i do have to read it. i also just read and am going to read another one of our books this summer that we happen to have two books coming out that are wonderful looks at the islamic world one is called destiny disrupted history of the world through islamic eyes and it is a wonderful narrative history of the -- we all know the western narrative the ancient greeks

the romance this is the islamic's world narrative how in the 19th century they claim to clash so tragedy. i -- tragically. i loved every word and read the book and recommended to my reading book which i also rarely do as a pubbish her they are reading it too we'll be discussion it next month. another book is by neil "the new york times" united nations bureau chief now he's had other jobs i had to think fb the ar minute. for 20 years reported in the mideast. cairo bureau chief. reported on islam in the u.s. and neil actually grew up as an oil brat and he, after he came back to this country for college and decided he wanted to go back and learn arabic and really understand this area this land where he had grown up and he's written a wonderful book. the media relations department of hezbollah wishes you a happy birthday. and i've read some of that book as neil was developing it but wasn't the editor and didn't have time to read the whole thing yet, but i loved

so much what i read that i decided i really want to give the whole thing a great read and i love hearing what people are saying and talk about that book. and the third book that i have to admit has been next to my bedside many a summer but maybe this is the summer when i'll finally read the power broker by robert. his book on robert moses. it is something i wanted to read for a long time and it is the kind of book where you need a nice summer month to find the time to read it. >> on this sunday the 5th of july you're looking at some of the crowds at mount vernon mansion. the home of george and martha washington. we are at mount vernon today with author and biographer john ferling to learn more about his writings on

revolutionary war history and some of the famous people who helped shape it. we are inside the reynolds education center. we're in our third hour as we begin our third hour of questions with your phone calls. we'll put the phone numbers on the screen. some of the biographies important to note from this period of time are two on adams this john adams a life by john ferling and also adams and jefferson and his latest book is this biography of george washington which we have been talk about throughout our program. "the ascent of george washington" the hidden political genius of an american icon. john ferling as we begin this third hour, let me ask you, we've been talking a lot of details and specifics with people's questions but over the course of your 30 plus years of research, what is your overarching view of the moeted vagss of most of our founding fathers? -- motivations of most of our founding fathers? were they driven by political ideology, did they have grander view of a new nation or were commercial interests and private

interests a big part of the process? >> well, actually i think it is probably a combination of all those things. i think it depends on the individual. i tend as a historian to be what historians call an economic determinist. that is i think economic factors are probably the biggest single motivating factor. in driving someone. and i think you can make a case for example that washington eventually came to the conclusion that the relationship with great britain was harmful to him personally from an economic standpoint because it inhibited the settlement of the west and his lands that he only owned about 60,000 acres out west weren't selling. i think jefferson had some of those same feelings as well. but i mean, i would never for a moment suggest that

those were the only things that drove those people. i think probably washington was inbittered by the way he was treated by the british during the french and indian war. he's a very proud man. he had been treated as a second class person by the british. i think he was an american nationalist. his great grandfather had come to america so several generations of washingtons lived here. he thought of himself increasingly as an american, not as an englishman and he wanted americans to be able to control their own destiny. and i think all of these people, washington, adams, jefferson all of the others who were major players among the founders really believed that the british were victim americans.

that their taxes were wrong that they were trying to establish unwarrant control over america. they wanted greater autonomy for america. they genuinely believe the prisht were acting -- british were acting in a manner. i think all of those people probably led people to become active in the revolutionary movement. >> host: we're going to try to take as many calls as we can during this final hour. have to get a couple quick facts on the table. george washington was what age when he served as president of the united states? >> well, let's see he was born in 1732 and he became president in 1789. so what 57 i think maybe is that right? >> host: 57 depending upon the month. and when he at the conclusion of his second term, was there debate over whether or not he would leave the presidency? >> guest: well, not debate.

i think more speculation whether he would leave or not. but he made clear about a year before he was leaving that he intended to step down. i don't think he made that clear pub will bely u -- publicly, but he approached hamilton about writing a farewell address for him in the spring of 1799 which was -- 1796 which was the year before he leave the presidency. and it's difficult to keep that kind of thing secret. especially since hamilton was highly involved in politics and would be interested in naming washington successor and so forth. so i don't think there was debate but there was speculation over whether washington would stay on for a third term. but i think he wanted to get away. he wanted to come back to mount vernon. he really knew by that time he probably didn't have very much time remaining.

he had suffered two very serious illnesses while he was president. probably had pneumonia during his second year as president. and he himself said that he never had as much physical vigor in the aftermath of that illness as he had previously. and so i think he saw the sand was running out and he wanted to come back and live out whatever time he had remaining in as much comfort as possible. he was coming under increasing public attacks as president too. that was an unusual thing for washington. but the republican party the fauxes of the federalists were attacking him openly at this point. and he was a thin skinned individual. i think he wanted to get away from that. but he knew his historical reputation was solid and this was a time to go out

and unlike a good ma athletes -- many athletes who linger on too long, he got out at the right time. >> our next question comes from romeo, michigan our viewer's name is ed. >> caller: hello. >> host: i'm pretty well up in age so i don't speak quickly. excuse me. so there's a lot of news about detroit you know cadillac founded detroit 1701. and pontiac indian chief. in case i forget i want you to recommend some reading. i come from an old french pioneer family. came here with cadillac. he died in detroit 1733. and then our genealogy one of his grandsons just had an indian woman and we think that would be the mother of george gerard.

some people mispronounce it. he was head scholar luis. a@ú like and some of the characters that you write about who helped shape that. >> guest: that's really a little bit outside of my area but what i would recommend i think is to look

into the writings of a historian named fred anderson who has written extension ufly on -- extensively on the french and indian war and look at the bibliography and the footnotes in anderson's books and i think that would probably be a good starting place for moving in the direction that you wish to go in. >> host: our next question is from woodbury, pennsylvania. our viewer's name is eduardo. hello eduardo. are you there? >> caller: yes, thank you professor ferling for receiving my call. i like the share true fact story that's never been heard erased from history and that is -- the true father of the american liberty. he not only defeated the british invincible, mobile, alabama battle in 1781 but he planned with francisco

the defeat in yorktown. he was well recognized in europe. his name is enshrined in the arch of triumph in paris not george. george was also considered a bastard child with indian woman. please comment on those two facts never heard story sorely erased from history. >> host: thank you very much. >> guest: well, i'm certainly familiar with miranda and particularly with alexander hamilton's interest in miranda. there is some evidence that in the 1790s that hamilton thought that, or hoped that the united states might be in contact with miranda and try to acquire some of the property in the southwest that the spanish had control. the second part of your

question i don't recall. >> host: it really was about george, he has a different view of george washington. i heard him say that he's viewed by these proponents of the general miranda as actually being an illegitimate child. >> guest: okay. i thought that's what he said. that i've never heard of and certainly it's not true. we know that august tin washington was married twice. his first wife died and then he married mary ball washington and she was washington's mother and he was clearly a product of that marriage. >> host: our next question is from san diego. our viewer is clay. >> caller: yes, thank you. i wanted to ask a question. do you consider washington to have been more of a classical christian or did he have ds leanings like jefferson and some of the other founding fathers? thank you very much.

>> sure. i think washington was a a deeist. he believed in a supreme being. but by and large like most i think he did not believe in a god that directly intervened in human affairs. having said that as i mentioned earlier, washington did from time-to-time refer to the hand of providence and so there's certainly some contradiction in washington's thinking in that regard. he general 4r -- generally did not take communion. he and martha would attend the ang gane chur. he was raised as anglican which would be the episcopal yan church today. he was a church officer. but he generally would not take communion.

>> host: we are spending three hours with john ferling at mount vernon. this is our monthly in-depth program. every month a noted american nonfiction author with the breadth of their writings and we're very pleased to be on this 4th of july weekend talking about revolutionary and colonial america. nextel phone call is from lee in greensboro, north carolina. hello lee. >> caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i am interested in the concept of shall we say fall from grace. there have been several books written lately about thomas jefferson that have portrayed him as really not so wonderful person. i wonder if you could comment on what you first of all opinion and then maybe what you know about this man and referring back to the kmishl question in this --

initial question in this hour. what was his motivation? thank you. i'll listen on the television. bye. >> guest: i'm a little uncertain -- was it about jefferson? >> host: it was about thomas jefferson and the concepts of falling from grace as we know more about these figures. >> guest: okay. i think what the caller probably is referring to is that it's now widely believed. i certainly believe it that jefferson had a long-term relationship, intimate relationship with one of his female slaves. sally. the story was around in the 19th century but historians just looked the other way and didn't give it credence and then in a biography a -- that appeared about 30-35 years ago by fawn brody called thomas jefferson an intimate history. she made a very persuasive

case for that relationship and annette gordon read in a couple of books recently on jefferson and helpings and on the helpings family has i think along with dna test pretty conclusively established that that relationship and it certainly races -- raises questions about jefferson. we don't know much about the relationship. we don't know whether jefferson compelled her to have the relationship or whether it was a loving relationship between the two. but it has introduced some new features into what we know and think about. thomas jefferson today. there's no indication i should say of any kind of intimate relationship on washington's part with any

of his slaves. that's been studied but there certainly is no evidence for that and i don't know any serious historian who would take that position regarding washington. >> host: i'd like to take her question to a different level. she was talking about the concept chul -- concept chul idea of historical figures falling from grace and here is an early depiction of george bah -- george washington that you feature in your book and you can see there's a great deal of glorification of him as a historical subject with the angel and the light from above. i'm also remembering washington in the capitol. the same has been done with abraham lincoln in the early depiction of him after his assassination. it's a question about the study of history in america. who are the figures that are treated in this larger than life way somewhat mythical way and it is our changing

ability to study history that adds more dimension and more reality to these figures? >> i don't think it's that so much as just changing attitudes by generations so that reputations come and go or they grow and they decline over time. benjamin franklin for example was extraordinarily famous and beloved at the time he died and then his reputation was eclipsed somewhat and then grew as america industrialized in the late 19th century. franklin's reputation began to grow. here was a guy an inventor like thomas edison and whatever. so his reputation increased. john adams' reputation sank not so much because of anything that he did i don't think. but just that others grew

more important. at the end of the revolution the great american triumphant at least in the minds of the french were washington and adams and franklin. and then adams became eclipsed in the early 19th century by jefferson. and i think it probably wasn't until david mccullough came along and wrote the biography of adams 10 years or whenever ago it was and the recent series on adams on hbo i think it was that has helped to revive adams' reputation. so i think as people change. in our case we've gone through the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. and since then and all historians who have come along since then have been much more aware of slavery

and of the founding fathers as slave owners and what they did and didn't do and said and didn't say about slavery than were historians before that time. and as we go on through the 21st century new problems are going to arise and new challenges and those things will cause people to look back at all of the founders in a somewhat different way. we just can't anticipate what it is going to be. >> host: for john ferling next is chelsea, michigan this is a caller named harold. go ahead please. >> caller: thank you. professor, washington had some problem with his officers. so-called conway and i'd be interested to know how he handled it and particularly with regard to horatio gates who i read was one of the

conspirators behind it. how did washington handle it if he did handle it? and i'll listen on my television. thank you. >> host: thank you. >> guest: yeah, sure. i don't think gates was a part of the conspiracy. some historians would disagree with that. i think gates was the object of the conspiracy but i don't think he was part of an act of con pearcy -- conspiracy against washington. washington's reaction and the way he handled it was interesting and a drid and one of the things i did go into in the book. the book is subtitled "the hidden political genius of george washington" and i think his political genius shows up in his response to the challenges. washington for example made it very clear to congress that he regarded gates as his enemy.

he was in effect telling congress choose gates or choose me. one of the two. he also i think turned to his aids to -- his aides to people like alexander hamilton for example. most importantly hamilton. and they turned their pens and hamilton had a poisonous pen. he turned it loose on gates and tried to disparage gates, tried to belittle gates' victory at saratoga and say any american general could have won that victory. what i find interesting and one of the things i go into this -- in this book is a number of people who were close to washington called on people who were thought perhaps to be part of a cabal against washington and challenge them. henry knox went to john adams' house and here's big henry knox about 300 pounds. a big imposing man and he

says categorically to adams, what do you think of george washington? do you support washington? i'm not sure what adams' thought at the time but adams never forgot that and 25 years later when he wrote his memoirs he mentioned that visit in his memoirs. there was a man who was a member of what was called the board of war which is kind of congress' oversight committee that looked at the continental army and general daniel morgan a big imposing frontiers man rough heartty tough guy went to peters and called on peters and berated him for supposedly being part of the cabal and peters was absolutely terrified. and when morgan left peters wrote everything that -- everybody he could possibly

think to write saying i support george washington. i was never against george washington. i love george washington.@@ú@úpt with the lord buchanan that received a wooden box from wallace. they claimed that george washington had sent it back and he was supposed to give it to his, whoever is going to be next in commands. but he sent it back. and the funny part of this

is they gave a -- little ceramic statues that they have purchased in the united states to speakers. do you know about these dinners and the connection of this wooden box? >> no. no. this is news to me. >> and great deal of detail interesting to see how george washington is memorialized in other places than the united states. i was wondering if you have a favorite among the second or third tier characters in this period of history? >> host: well, actually -- >>g well, i'm not sure i'd call them second or third. >> host: the folks of whom biographyes are not often written in their entirety. >> guest: well, my students used to always ask me a long with do we have to know this for a test. which one of these people would you like to have spent an evening with. and i usually said i think if i could go to dinner with

any of them it would either be franklin or john adams. >> host: see, i am actually looking beyond the great lights. that's really why i was trying to find a word to describe them. but the people who are the secondary characters in the story of the revolution and the founding of america that not whole books are written about. do you have a favorite among them? >> guest: well, i know it sounds kind of corny to say this but i really do have a great deal of admiration for the people who served in the continental army at the time. i think you mentioned the term band of brothers. >> host: that was a viewer's question. >> guest: oh, okay. earlier i remember it being mentioned and there's actually a memoir written by a continental soldier named joseph plum martin from milford, connecticut that was published around 1830 or so and he uses the term band of brothers in that book to describe his fellow

soldiers. they really endured a lot. they weren't paid very much. they suffered e nor pri vags. not to mention the dangers they suffered about 25% of them died in the course of the war. the mortality rate was absolutely incredible compared to the mortality rate suffered by u.s. servicemen in world war i, world war ii. korea, vietnam or iraq or afghanistan. and so i do have a great deal of admiration for them. beyond that. among the figures and you might think of him as a first rate figure. i would probably is thomas paine. i have payne's writings in the library -- library of america series at home and

every once in a while i'll pull it off the shelf and reread some of the paine and i think he was just a colossal figure. not just in common sense in an american crisis but in some of the other writings of his as well. >> host: on this independence day weekend we're live from mount vernon, virginia. we'reen side the reynolds education center and museum which is a new exhibit area opened in 2006 on the grounds of mount vernon. mount vernon, virginia is overseen by the mount vernon ladies association as it has been for almost 150 years. almost a million visitors every year to this spot that is 16 miles away from washington, d.c. along the potomac river. we're talking to john ferling who is a revolutionary war history yab and -- historian and buy -- biographer of george washington. next call is david in mississippi. >> caller: hello.

thank you it's an honor the talk with you. >> thank you. >> caller: i'm more of a civil war historian but i'm interested in the typical handling of prisoner of war and it extrapolates down to or up to the revolution. i wondered what the disposition was for corn wallace army and the army surrendered at saratoga. whether they were paroled or whether there were places they were sent such as happened to the americans gareth and charleston. thank you. >> guest: sure. when they surrendered at saratoga the convention that handed -- handled the surrender called for the army to be released and sent back to england and both washington and congress objected to that. those soldiers couldn't serve in america again under the terms of the surrender but they could serve somewhere else and the

people they replace could be sent to america. so congress refused to release that army and they were kept outside of boston for a while and then they were brought down to virginia and they actually spent most of the revolutionary war following their captivity in late 1777 in virginia. until the british army came in to virginia in late 1780 and then they were moved outside of virginia. but they weren't released until the end of the conflict. and the same was true with corn wallace's army which was taken at yorktown. after yorktown there were considerable discussions that went on between the americans and the british over the exchange of prisoners and finally an agreement was worked out in

the summer of 1783. so this would have been about 20 months or so after yorktown and at that point the prisoners were released on both sides and so it was very slow and coming. >> john for listening's book -- ferling's book about the revolutionary war "almost a miracle" in 2007 was recognized by the american revolution roundtable in new york as its best book on the american revolution. he also received a lifetime achievement award for his history cal studies and -- historical studies and writings from that organization. next call from atlanta this is her shell. hello. >> caller: dr. officialling i wanted to tell -- dr. ferling i wanted to tell you it's an honor to speak with you also wanted to let you know i have a masters degree in education from west georgia. proud of that and my question is did martha and george have any children. if so, what happened to them?

i'll hang up and listen. >> guest: no, they had no children. martha had two children from her first marriage. john park or jackie as he was called and patsy and patsy developed 'leprosy and -- epilepsy and died just before the revolutionary war. john park or jackie lived. he married and had children of his own and unfortunately when the siege of yorktown was being set up jackie asked his step grandfather george washington if he could come and serve as an aide to him during the siege and george consented. so jackie came over to yorktown and unfortunately he contracted a camp disease and died just after corn

wallace's surrender. but he had children of his own and those children were very close to washington and two of the children in particular lived with george and martha during much of the time and one of those children was washington's step grandson named george washington park constance who had a daughter and his daughter eventually married robert e. lee. and in fact he build an estate. a mansion of his own that now sits above the arlington cemetery and in fact if you look sometimes at the eternal flame of john kennedy up behind that you

can see a mansion and it's called the cuss us the lee mansion named for george washington park custis and then robert e. lee. >> host: while we're at biographical discussion let me ask you, you mentioned earlier that george washington came back after the presidency having a sense that he had not many years left. how long did he live and how did he die? >> guest: well, he came back. he got back in march of 1797 and he died in december of 1799. so 30 months or something like that. he actually remained in good health during all of that time. he had some problems with rheumatism or arthritis but nothing serious. nothing major that was debilitating and he was actually contemplating another trip out west which was an extremely arduous trip that somebody in bad health could not have

undertaken and he fell ill very suddenly in december of 1799. i think a historian named peter who taught at george mason university and has written extensively on washington nailed down probably the cause and it was i guess a bacterial infection that caused a swelling which essentially led to just a very slow suffocation of washington. he developed a sore throat i think at first he thought it was nothing more than a sore throat that would last for two or three days. went to bed that night woke up about 2:00 in the morning and realized that he was desperately ill and died probably 17-18 hours later. >> jay-z watching in st.

petersburg, florida e-mailed this question did you come across any info that could be construed as medical doctors facilitating the advancement of washington's death? >> no. physicians were called in and they engaged in bleeding early that morning. certainly didn't do him any good but i doubt that it caused his death. there was some debate in the afternoon about doing what would essentially 3w a tracheotomy -- be a track yotmy and remember -- tracheotomy and remember they didn't have anesthesia at the time. it was an operation that people that physicians didn't routinely perform and the physicians refused to do it. whether they could have done it successfully or not is a question whether they could have prevented an infection

from setting up would certainly be a question. but i think the general feeling is that no doctor wanted to do that to washington for fear that the physician would be then branded as having been the culprit who killed george washington. >> host: next question is from marthawatching us in belgrade lakes maine. hello martha. >> caller: hi susan and thank you for c-span's top-notch work as usual. i have a question about one of the books that influenced your writing. it was listed that david herbert donald lincoln reconsidered influenced your work and since this is the by centennial -- bicentennial year i'm especially interested how it influenced your scholarship. thank you for your scholarship. >> guest: sure. i think when i prepared the list i was just trying to

think of books that influenced me at different stages of my career and i actually read that book before i began graduate school. i was enthralled with the civil war at the time. i read a lot of bruce's books on the civil war but donald's book was a collection of essays on lincoln and i think he took different topics related to lincoln and then boroughed into every aspect of those topics. some of them wound up being critical of lincoln. some of them took new view points. different view points about lincoln. and i think i was probably 21 or 22 years old when i read the book and i think it was one of those things that was informative for me about what historians do and made

pñ!ç this time for research and writing this book. i can't wait to get there's a story i've heard about george washington for many years. i haven't been able to read about it. maybe just one of those mythical things. that before the crossing of the delaware he was so worried about the crossing

and that he had a vision of how to achieve it and the vision of the future of america and i've never been able to find him anywhere to read about that. is that just one of those stories that go around? >> guest: yeah, i think it probably is a story. washington was in desperate straights towards the end of 1776. he had been defeated. he had been chased aross -- across new jersey. his army was composed of men who enlisted for one year. they were all leaving the army. he had to recruit a new army. who was going to come into the continental army that had lost just about every battle that it had fought. not to mention the soldiers would have to suffer deprivation and so washington was desperately anxious to score a victory

that would enable him to recruit that army and he also knew there were people around who were questioning his capability as a commander and he wanted very badly to gain a victory and so i think he saw this opportunity. he used his intelligence network. he realized it was christmas night they might lay down their guard somewhat and he pulled off a surprise attack and it was one of the great daring attacks waged by an american commander in all of american history. he certainly deserves great credit for that and he followed it up with an attack on the british at princeton just a few days later about a week later that was successful as well. >> next question is from am valley, minnesota. our view ser ross. what's your question ross? >> caller: dr. official for --

dr. ferling thank you very much for taking my call i'm interested if you have insight level of confidence washington placed into the various state militia relative or compared to the more formally trained army he had at his disposal when he had certain key missions that needed to be accomplished. for example the connecticut rangers under colonel thomas. just curious how his levels of con fip dense differed between those militia and more formally trained army at his disposal. thank you. >> sure. i'm glad you brought up those as one of the things i go into in the book. washington had very little confidence in the militia. they weren't highly trained soldiers. at most they served for about three months at a time and he just he said repeatedly that he had no confidence in

them. you couldn't put any dependents on them at all. and in fact when he resigned his commission as commander of the army and went through the reasons that the army, that the americans were successful and gained independence, he didn't mention the militia at all. when he was president of the united states. he told jefferson at one point. he had gone down and looked at the battlefield guilford courthouse which was one of nathaniel green's victories. in the early 1781. it was fought in north carolina around greensboro, north carolina today and green had waged a brilliant campaign and he fought a great battle that did great harm to corn wallace's army and even then washington

said to jefferson if only he had positioned those militiamen differently than he did. he would have scored a better victory. required a great deal on washington's part to say something like that. i don't think there's a any question the continentals were better soldiers than the militiamen, but washington didn't give them their full credit. they did a great many other things. they really sort of pacified the homefront that kept, they disarmed the loyalists. they kept them in check when the british conducted raids on seaports. it was usually the militia who came out and the militia was called to active-duty repeatedly during the war to augment the continental army and without them and their numbers washington could not have done as well as he did. >> barbara is watching us in santa barbara. california.

hello barbara. all right. we're going to move on with apologies. our next phone call is edward in new jersey. go ahead edward. >> caller: yes, dr. ferling there was a woman in new york who posted she was the only woman whoed a heifer -- who had ever slept with george washington and napoleon. i'm wondering a lot of places had george washington slept here. they were homes i'm sure and was it customary for women to sleep with the officers in those days and how did that affect the intelligence that was getting to the british or vice versa when british officers did the same thing. intelligence getting to the patriots. >> guest: well, i'm sure it went on. human nature being what it is. but there's no evidence of

washington doing that and as a matter of fact i think there's no evidence in general of american officers doing it. as i said, i'm sure probably has. i'm not saying it happened with washington. but i'm sure when you look at all of the officers that were in the continental army, i'm sure it probably happened but it wasn't something that became public knowledge. maybe if there had been cable television in those days as there is tofd -- today, maybe it would have gotten reported but that wasn't the case. >> host: eight minutes left. what was george washington's view from his writings of political parties? >> guest: washington did not like political parties and they were something that was a new phenomenon at the time. there had actually been what people called factions in the colonial period. usually they call them the court party or the country party.

but they weren't really organized political parties until during washington's presidency and early on in washington's presidency jefferson and james madison just became absolutely convinced that congress was doing everything that the faction around alexander hamilton wanted to be enact. they were passing those acts. they approved hamilton's economic program. they created a bank of the united states and whatever. and jefferson tried to organize and -- an opposition. tried to organize really the election in 1792 of congress in such a way that the fauxes of hamilton's programs and the foes of the direction that he felt hamilton was taking the country could be elected to congress. i don't think jefferson really thought in terms of ang organized split -- an

organized political party in the sense that it worked out but beginning with that step in the spring of 1792 parties began to come into being. and jefferson's party was called the republican party at the time which makes it confusing because it's really not the forerunner of the current republican party. it was really the forerunner of the present democratic party and then hamilton countered by forming his own party which he called the federalist party. and washington saw the parties as being at least official. he saw them as being destructive. that they worked for narrow selfish ends and not for the national interests. but one of the things i try to argue in this book. despite what warr -- what washington says, washington i think was really a federalist. he supported the fell ralist program -- federalist program while he was president and in large measure supported the

federalist program during the 30 months or so after his presidency. >> lisa in sacramento. >> caller: hi, i'd like to read more about daniel morgan and was wondering if you have any suggestions. thank you. >> guest: well there is a good biography of daniel morgan. it was written by don who is one of the great historians of the revolutionary war. he talking at the university of north carolina chapel hill for many years. i think it is just called daniel mori gane. but he was an interesting figure served in the french and indian war then became leader of virginia rifleman in the early fades of the revolutionary war and worked his way up from i believe a rank of captain all the way to general officer during the campaign for saratoga,

washington who was down in pennsylvania wrote to gates who was commanding the american army and asked that he and his men 3w rede -- be redeployed back to pennsylvania. and gates responded you wouldn't have me get rid of the american soldiers at -- that the british are most frightened of. so gates was regarded, morgan was regarded as i think invaluable by gates by washington and especially by daniel -- by nathaniel green under whom he served in 1781 in the campaign in south carolina. >> host: we're out of time. we have one minute in that final minute give people the essential george washington please. >> guest: okay. well, the central george washington i think was a man who was an american nationalist. he was committed to the

united states and survival of the united states. he wanted a strong national government that would be capable of preserving the united states against these predatory strong powers in europe. and he wanted the united states to move down the road toward manufacturing. i don't know that he completely envisioned the industrial revolution but he saw that in a sense in the future and he want the united states to be capable of moving in that direction. and in some ways i think of george, that the country was lucky to have survived george washington because of the mistake that he made as commander in the revolutionary war. but the country was also engs tromly -- extremely fortunate to have had george washington as its commander during the revolutionary war and especially as president.

>> for the full list of john ferling's books about the revolutionary war period you can find them on "booktv"'s web site. booktv.org. we want to thank him and the staff of mount vernon, virginia. here george washington's home for being with us on this sunday and independence day weekend. thanks for watching. thank you.