>> up next, author and historian john ferling joins book tv for a three-hour in-depth interview from mount vernon. the next three hours is your chance to take part in a discussion with author and historian, john ferling. joins as in depth welcomes the author of 10 books, including, "almost a miracle, the american industry and war in independen independence." and adams versus jefferson, the tumultuous election of 1800. mr. ferling's latest book is the ascents of george washington, the hidden political genius of

an american icon. >> good afternoon and welcome to this special edition of book tv's "in-depth" on this independence day weekend. we have live today from the home of george and martha washington, mounts vernon, 16 miles down the potomac river. at mounts vernon, we'll be live for the next three hours from the reynolds museum and education center and our special guest today is the noted revolutionary war historian and washington biographer, john ferling. dr. ferling, thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> your latest book, the ascents of george washington, is where we're going to start today and i will like you to explain to people the george washington you came to note through your research. >> sure. i have actually sort of lived with washington, i think, for about 25 years. i wrote a biography of washington back in the 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 as a politician, and looked at him in the ascent of george washington from that standpoint. and i think in each of those endeavors, what strikes me about washington is he's a very complex individual, he's a very difficult person to get to know. he was very careful in anything that he wrote, and unfortunately, his widow, martha washington, destroyed all of their letters, so we can't really see a private side to washington. and i think that's what fascinates me more than anything about washington, is to keep digging and digging to try to learn what i can about washington. >> to our viewers, what makes in-depth work are your calls and

we're going to be going to calls in about 10 minutes for john ferling and we welcome your questions. we especially like to hear from readers of his book, but also people who are very interested in colonial america and george washington in particular. our telephone numbers are for those of you who live in the eastern and central same zones, 202-377-0002. and we'll mix your calls in throughout our three hours. generally, we're going to spend our first hours on the biography of george washington, our second hour we'll be looking at revolutionary and colonial america and our third how long, we'll be focusing more on dr. ferling's books, on adams and jefferson, its 1800 election and george washington's final years and the importance of his actually turning over power at the end of the presidency and what that meant for the rest of our history in america. this museum has a record crowd coming here, they tell us that they expect about a million

people in 2009, and i'm wondering what you think about the enduring popularity of george washington. >> it is really amazing. i think he is clearly the 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 mccollough's book on john adams, adams may be more liked than 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 and then he was the first president of the united states.

so there are good reasons why washington should be remembered today. >> over my should certificate a painting that's called washington and lafayette at mount vernon, done by two french painters in 1859. washington is depicted as much taller than lafayette and i would like you to talk about washington's physical presence. >> well, he had an extraordinary physical presence. he was probably about 6'3" tall, in fact, he was always ordering his clothes from england before the revolution, and sometimes afterwards, and he would order clothing for a man who was 6'2" tall and then he would complain about the clothing being too short, so i think 6'3" is probably what he was, and when he served in the french and indian war, he was 22 years old when he planned 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 tiny waist, very broad shoulders, tremendous upper body strength and i don't know what washington weighed at that point, there's no record, but i do know during the revolutionary war, when washington was 50 years old, he weighed 210 pounds. that's what you see on an nfl roster for lots of players. he was in good physical condition most of his life, and many people described washington -- in fact, everybody seemed to be around washington, couldn't resist the temptation to leave a description of washington, and many people described himmals the best horseman of his day, they described his gait, 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 just extraordinary physical presence about him. there was something john adams didn't have. john adams was a man of just other height, which was about 5'7" tall, and adams spent a great deal of time trying to determine what was it that made somebody stand out and be great and somebody else not reach that point, and since he -- his presidency fell between washington, who was 6'3" and jefferson, who was 6'2", adams thought heighth was the determining factor. but washington was an imposing figure. and on top of that, he was a very quiet figure, almost unapproachabl

approachable. very grave demeanor and i think that added to this imposing aspect of washington. >> the tail that you tell in the ascent of george washington was that his success was in no way guaranteed from his birth and his circumstances. would you give us the highlights of that? >> sure. well, washington, the misfortune that washington had at an early age was that his father died when george was only 11 years old and george's older brothers had had the benefits of a formal education, including schooling in england, but when his father died, the money dried up and washington's education came to an end, so -- 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 ivans, the columnist, said george bush was born on third base. george washington was born really, to continue the baseball metaphor, with a couple of strikes against him, and he had to work to try to be somebody, if he wanted to be somebody, and he most assuredly wanted to be somebody. he was a man with considerable ambitions. he strikes me in a way, if the viewers have seen the movie "on the waterfront," remember, there's a character that marlon brando a plays in a movie, a washed up boxer named terry ma loy, and terry ma loy, through a fight, because his brother was in the mob and that ruined his chances to be a great fighter,

and he tells -- marlon brando tells his brother, rod steiger, in 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's what washington wanted. he wanted to be somebody, and i think through his youth, he worked very hard to improve himself. he read, he came to mount vernon, which was owned at the time by his step brother, half brother-in-law wednesday, nearby mount vernon was owned by the fairfax family, the wealthiest family in the northern neck of virginia, and washington at mount vernon and at bellvore was in the company of wealthy, powerful people and i think you watch those people, observe them trying to determine what they did, how they spoke to others, how they acted to others.

he really kind -- that was his education. and that was a means of his self-improvement and his advancement. when i taught, i used to always tell my students, look at george washington, and study george washington, because here's a guy who really had to struggle to succeed and watch what he did. he was a guy who was really concerned with self-improvement, and to the very end, i think, he was constantly trying to improve himself. >> for our viewers, as we start to get into telephone calls, let's me tell you just a very tough line about mount vernon, it is just coming up to its 150th anniversary as managed by the mount ladies -- mount vernon ladies association, it is a private and non-profit, not part of the presidential library system, although his presidential papers are housed here for historians to use for

their research. they, as i said earlier, have over a million visitors a year. this center that we're in, the donald w. reynolds museum and education center was opened in 2006. if you come here, you can still tour the mansion itself but can spend much time inside this very rich gallery and theater here and as we're talking today, you will see some of the folks horvisitting mounts vernon around us, because we are in one of the exhibit rooms here that depicts washington's daily life and people are touring as we're talking, so we're really part of mount vernon's whole operations here today. for john ferling, let's take our first telephone call. it comes from boston and this is john on its line with us here on the air. >> yes. i would like to ask mr. ferling, when the british shifted their focus of operations to the south in 1778, what person or persons made that decision? >> well, i think it was a

decision that was made by the british ministry, but largely by lord george jermaine, who was the american secretary. he was responsible for american affairs and tantamount to what we would think of as secretary of defense. in the united states today. and it was a decision -- the british faced basically one of two choices by 1778, either throw in the towel and give it up, or try an alternative strategy, because they had waged war in the north in 1775, 1776, 1777 unsuccessfully, spectacularly unsuccessfully at the end of 1777 and the general john bergoine's enemy surrendered at saratoga, so they chose hat that point to alter

their strategy and try to conquer the southern colonies. i think they probably at that point didn't think that they could win the war, but they -- what they were trying to do was salvage an american empire. they thought of the four southern colonies, virginia, north carolina, south carolina, and georgia, as their four most important colonies from an economic standpoint, because those were cash crop colonies that produced tobacco in the upper south and rice and i understand -- indigo in the northern colonies. 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 held the canada islands, they held sugar islands in the west in december, so they would have a large north american empire and even if a

few states gained independence, those states above the potomac, let's say, they would be completely surrounded by british provinces. they would be hemmed in, unable to grow, and in essence, the british would either not -- would not lose the war, and they could in a sense, conceivably come out with a victory of some importance. >> our next question for john ferling comes from ronald, who's watching us, in mariesville, virginia. >> good afternoon. certainly an honor to be able to talk with you, dr. ferling, and c-span, i want to say, this is a really commendable effort, particularly after all the focus on lincoln in this buy centennial. i know you've commented in other venues that the revolutionary war gets overshadowed by the coverage of the civil war. i've read most of your books and

i particularly value your emphasis on the role of contingency and historical outcomes, which i a believe coincides with dr. david fisher. i've got two questions basically, both from personal associations and directly with the revolution. one, i spent my earliest years, living in my grandparents' home in old weathersfield, connecticut, a block eye way from where the welcome back house existed and still exists and as you know in may of 1781, the conference was held between generals washington and roshambeaugh. i read conflicting stories of what happened at that meeting and your views have evolved, including your most recent elaboration in your book, so i would appreciate your summarization of what took place there, particularly in light of

what actually ensued. secondly, while i have been proud of one of my ancestor's services in its union armies my wife has recently trumped me by her genealogy research. she came up with a fifth great grandfather on her father's side, who if his later declaration can be relied on, he enlisted in the rhode island blind on april 19th, 1775, the same day as the battle of lexington and concord no less. he served eight months in boston, re-enlisted, served in new london, white plains, joined washington's forces, went to trenton, he was in battle there, he went to princeton, in battle there, then to morristown, re-enlisted under steven olny and steven angel, who i documented were at those locations and those two individuals corroborated hawkins' service. >> so what's the question about him, sir? >> so my question is, i've been able to corroborate through

secondary sources the locations of those units. are there primary sources that your could recommend to me where i could do further corroboration? >> host: all right, thank you so much for your question. >> guest: washington met with row sham bow on three occasions. >> host: who was row sham bow. >> guest: he was the commander of the french army. france allied with the united states in 1778. initially, the french sent a navy over to america, thinking that that would do the trick, the american army in conjunction with the french navy could win the war, and 1778, 1779 went buy 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 row sham bow what's the commander of the french army and washington's headquarters, his headquarters was in new york at the time and he came over to first to hartford and met with row sham bow, then met with him a second time, a couple of months later, and finally in may of 1781, they held their climactic conference at weathersfield in connecticut, which the caller alluded to and that was a conference that was designed to compare strategy for the campaign that was coming in 1781 and i think both washington and row sham bow realized that something decisive had to owe cor in 1781 or the cause was lost. america was broke, the french were gaining nothing from the war, there was great pressure on the french government to

withdraw from the conflict, they were being driven in to bankruptcy, in fact, by the war, and so this was a crucial meeting and at the meeting, row sham bow began 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 row sham bow says, that's impossible, we can't take -- i've already explained that to you. i explained that to you when we met last september, and in fact, some of the french aides who were there indicated later on that row sham bow spoke very harshly to washington and essentially what row sham bow said, the british have had a very long time to prepare their defenses in new york, they're too solid, we can't take it, it would take too long, you can't

keep a militia together long enough to conduct a siege operation and so washington vowed to row sham bow and row sham bow said well, what would be your second choice and washington said, let's try campaign in canada. and row sham bow said no, i'm not interested in canada. and then row sham bow mentioned virginia, and washington wasn't interested in a campaign in virginia at that time. and so they came back to new york and row sham bow agreed with washington's supposedly agreed with washington's earliest offer, let's attack new york. washington wrote back to his headquarters and the instant washington was gone, row sham bow wrote to the french admiral degraw in the caribbean and said bring your fleet north, but he

didn't say bring it to new york, he said bring it to virginia. and so row sham bow really 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 corn wallace came up from the carolinas, and as time went on, washington began to see the opportunity and then he relented and he gave his sanction to a campaign in virginia, and of course, that campaign resulted in yorktown in october of 1781, and the decisive victory that secured independence for the united states. >> the folks at mount vernon are

expecting record tour i am today. it's open until 5:00 p.m. if you live in the washington, d.c. area and would like to come down. we're in the scott gallery in the reynolds museum and education center, and very much open for business today, so we have lots of folks who are touring mount vernon with us, as we have our live discussion with dr. ferling today. next, telephone call is from magnolia, texas, our viewer's name is david. what's your question for dr. ferling. >> i believe where he always, in his adult life, george washington had bad teeth problems and i think, you know, all the stuff that this guy had on his plate, and the fact that he had -- [inaudible] was unbelievable and what medicines did he take. >> host: thank you very much. in fact, somewhere on display here are the famed washington wooden teeth, so tell us about -- >> guest: he did have dental

problems, and he told john adams when they were in the continental congress together that the problem went back to him cracking walnuts with his teeth, but i suspect he probably had some sort of gum disease that caused the problem, which adams also had, and adams lost most of his teeth, just as washington did as well. washington saw several dentists, i'm not sure what kind of medicine he took, but given the state of medicine in the 18t 18th century, i doubt that he could have taken anything that would have been very good. he used lots of dentures, and i think eventually when he was president, he was wearing dentures that were made of hippo pat must ivory and they were made with a contraption that was put in his mouth.

they had to be extremely uncomfortable and washington himself i think was self self-conscious of his teeth and of the false teeth that he wore, and so he fell into a habit early on of keeping his lips closed and to some degree, i think some people who were invited to dinner with washington spoke of washington tending to speak with his hand over his mouth, in that fashion, which would indicate, i think, his self-consciousness. >> and maybe, earlier, you said, he was really versus tacitern. >> that could possibly be a factor. >> this could be a very detailed question and i don't mean it to be, because we have lots of callers waiting for you, but when is the first time that george washington broke in to national consciousness and what caused it. >> well, he actually came to the public's attention when he was 22 years old. he was the commander of the

virginia regiment, an army raised by virginia. the problem was that both great britain and france claimed what was called the ohio country. and the ohio country was essentially what we think of today as ohio and indiana and illinois and -- so there was a struggle going on between those two countries. they had actually fought three wars since the late 17t 17th century, with parts of america being an aspect in those wars. and so virginia sent an army out to the ohio country, it was actually an army that was to build a forth fir indication at the head of the -- fortification at the head of the ohio river which is pittsburgh today and with the army was created, washington was named the number two man in the army and joshua

frey was the initial colonel and frey died in an accident, he fell off his horse, and was killed in the accident. washington was elevated at the age of 22 to be the commander of the virginia 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 from the head of the ohio, and washington made a decision, i think probably a flawed decision, but he made a decision to try to ambush that french party. and he succeeded in the ambush and 10 or 11 french soldiers were killed and then there was -- and the french fired back at washington, but they were overpowered. and washington wrote an account,

he actually wrote several accounts of that and sent it to friends and to the governor, and he said in one of the accounts that i have heard the bullets fly and there's something charming about the sound. and that letter was reprinted and even reprinted in london, so i think that was the first moment that people outside virginia and virginiaans themselves probably generally became aware of george washington. >> for john ferling, our next question comes from mountain home, arkansas, this is a viewer named alan. what's your question. >> good morning, dr. ferling. honored to speak with you. it said that a lot can be told about a man by his heroes, and i was reading gordon wood's book recently, revolutionary characters, what made the founders different, and i believe he makes a point in that book of talking about washington and cincinnatis, the roman

general, so my question are one, would you comments on the idea of washington and his hero as we understand them to have been and also, woods' points is that the revolutionary war or the revolutionary founders of the country had a commonality of outlook about what government should be about and trying to learn from the past, greek and roman civilizations and not make the same mistakes. would you comments on that? >> host: may i ask sort of a palliative question. does your research indicate that george washington was a reader? >> guest: he was a reader. he had an extensive library. most of the books in the library dealt with agricultural issues. he was a farmer obviously at mount vernon, but he did read other things as well. we know for example, that washington read something whether he was a young man called rules of civility and

those rules had -- there were a series of "maxims," what we would call a self-help book today, that were devised by french priests in the 17t 17th century, and washington, we know, read it, and in fact, while he didn't own a copy of the book, he evidently borrowed it from somebody and he 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 a number of occasions, he saw joseph addison's play about cato, and so washington, i thi think, looked on cicero, as

something of an early hero, but i think washington's great hero was a living person, and that great hero to washington and role model was his step brother-in-law lawrence. lawrence was about 10 years older than washington, during an oddly named war that was called the war of jenkins ear, a war that broke out with spain in 1779, the americans were asked to raise a military force and about 3,000 americans served in that conflict, and lawrence washington was one who served and he soldiered down in the west indies and in south america and george met lawrence for the first time with george was probably about 10 years old, lawrence was probably if his early 20's 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 cut a dashing figure, and i think perhaps more than anything, wealthy and powerful virginiaans deferred to lawrence. not because he was brighter than they were, not because he was more wealthy than they were, but because he had been a soldier and i think that resonated with washington and i think that was probably the moment that washington decided that if possible, if a war broke out, he would like to soldier that. >> we are at mount vernon for this edition of in depth, three hours long with john ferling, who is a revolutionly war historian, has spent all of his career delving in to the complexity of that era of our history, and is also a washington biographer. his latest book is called "the ascent of george washington" and

we're taking your telephone calls for him. earlier, if you could brief, the caller that asked about row sham bow, he also as an amateur historian wanted to know rich sources that one could go to about the units fighting in the revolutionary war. is there such a place? >> guest: there are actually a number of books available, usually for each state, and i think what i would suggest to him, because i don't remember what states he said his ancestor had served in, would be go to a good library and talk to a reference librarian, and start digging there. because generally, each state has its own volume with information on the units from that state. >> host: our colleague kelly has a camera on his shoulder and he is wandering around some of the exhibits here hat the mount vernon education center and from time to time if we can help he will straight your questions, we

will show you some of the exhibits here. next is bob who lives in the town of mount vernon, new york. bob. go ahead, please. >> caller: good afternoon, c-span. thank you for your programming. dr. ferling, it's a pleasure to speak with you. from my readings, i've always wondered how close george washington came to actually losing his command during various times during the war, and it seems to me that his selection of nathaniel green kind of bailed him out on different occasions. i was wondering if you could have some insight as to their personal relationship, if they had any, or did washington just use nathaniel green based upon his record? thank you. >> guest: sure. let me try to -- because there are two questions there. let me try to answer both of those and take the question first of the opposition to washington, if i could. washington made a lot of mistakes, in the campaign of

1776 in new york, but i think most people were willing to overlook those mistakes. he was new in command, he was an amateur soldier, but then in the campaign of 1777, there were more mistakes made by washington at brandy wine and following brandy wine washington was largely inactive in his effort to keep the british from advancing on and finally taking philadelphia. and at the same time general 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 has succeeded in the case of general gates, led to a good deal of opposition to washington. there was some opposition, particularly among foreign soldiers, who were volunteering and serving with the continental army, but there was some opposition within congress as well. i remember seeing one letter by john lawrence from south carolina, who was the president of the continental congress in the winter of 1777 and 1778 and he wrote to his son, colonel john lawrence, in january of 1778, and he said, i've just come from a meeting, with about 20 other congressmen, and washington's opinions were treated with great laughter by those congressmen, so i don't think there's any question that there was -- there was some opposition to washington. enough that some historians in

fact have concluded that there was an actual conspiracy to remove washington, a conspiracy that they called a conway kabul. i don't happen to agree that there was a really active conspiracy of any size to remove washington. i think most congressmen realized that washington had many virtues, he hadn't misuse the power that he had been vested with, he was fighting the cream of the british army, a better force, stronger force than gates had had to contend with, and also, france was on the verge of coming in to the war. if washington was dumped at that point by congress, france might change its mind hand not come in, and a political firestorm could break out. so i think that wile there were

some congressmen who were -- who probably would have liked to remove washington, i think they were very few and far in between, and in fact, i think what does happen during the winter of 1778, which is the valley forge winter, by the way, was that there was a conscious decision made by congress 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 in the american -- the central stone, rather, in the american arch, during that winter. this is the time when washington really becomes untouchable, so to speak, from this point on. remember that in the 18t

18th century, every country but the united states had a monarch, and the monarch was kind of the glue for the country. he was the central figure around which people could revolve and he could hold things together and the united states didn't have that, there was no mood after thomas paine's common sense to have a monday hark in the united states and -- monarch in the united states and after the experiences that the united states had with george iii, but by making george washington, the central stone in this arch, congress in effect, sort of created an american -- an uncrowned american king. and the second question that -- i'll be more brief with this, was you asked about washington's relationship with nathaniel green. green was one of about a dozen continental officers who were appointed as general officers, when the continental army was

created in june of 1775 and henry knox said that green was the most tallow of all the generals, but washington, i think, saw something in green and he saw a capability, he saw a guy who was growing, who had talent and by 1776, there's nothing in writing that i'm aware of to this effect, but the buzz that was going around in congress at the time was that washington had let congress know that if something happened to him, and he did not survive, he hoped that congress would name nationallen green as his successor. so they had a close relationship and washington relied on green very heavily, as his adviser. to go back to the first point that you made, the criticism of

washington, one of the great criticisms that his critics offered, was that he relied too much on the advice of green, but i think washington was exactly right. green became next to washington, i think the best of america's generals, and in my estimation, he waged the best concerted campaign, a campaign that went on for 100 days in the south, and i think it was the best extended campaign, waged by any american commander, washington included, during the revolutionary war. >> host: we are spending independence weekend at mount haven't none, washington, with washington biographer john ferling. dr. ferling was grew up in texas, his ph.d. in history is from west virginia university, he spent his teaching career at the university of west georgia

and carlton, georgia, 33 years in the classroom and writing books paul along the way, some 10 if total that also sits on the history and characters of the revolutionary war and colonial america. i have two callers who have been waiting patiently, but i wanted to ask you, when did you take your career in the direction of revolutionary war history, wha? >> guest: can i back up a little bit about history itself? >> host: sure. >> guest: when i was in high school, i saw a documentary, i've seen it since, it wasn't pa very good documentary, but i was about 16 years old, and it impressed me, david wollper called the twisted cross on the rise and fall of hitler and i became fascinated how somebody like that could get if power and do things after that and the day after i saw that documentary, i went to the library for the first time in my life of my hone

volition and i checked out a biography of hitler and started reading, and so i became interested in history, but when i went to college, i wasn't sure way wanted to do, and i took four required courses in history, western civilization and u.s. history, and all four of them pretty much turned me off. they were just factual memorization kinds of courses, and i got through the last semester of my sophomore year, i had no idea what i was going to major in, i had to declare a major, an unfortunately for him, unfortunately for me, the guy who was teaching the course that i was taking in western civilization fell ill and he had to go into the hospital, and the time line and tradition of academia, and they ran the lowest man on the totem pole to

teach the course andy tore up the class syllabus and he said i want you to go to the book store and buy these paper book books and i don't remember all of them but i remember one of them was alan bullock's biography of hitler. hitler was studying tierney and one of them was a book on george washington, "george washington, man and monument," and dr. painter 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 -- it was an education in learning how to read a book and as we would have these class discussions, i found myself becoming more and more intrigued and going to the library and reading, and i became very interested in american history for the first time really, and decided that i would go to graduate school and history, and when i was working on my master's degree, i took a

course on the american revolution, and i think that was what really steered me inest direction of the revolution. i got very interested in that topic. >> host: next question is from med ford, oregon, our viewer's name is steve. steve. welcome. >> caller: good morning. over 40 years ago, i took a couple of survey courses from a very young forest mcdonald, and i continue to keep in contact with him, as recently as earlier this year. i seem to recall professor mcdonald describing washington as cold, formal, and of only average intelligence. then professor mcdonald researched and wrote the presidency of george washington and he completely turned around on that. 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, ok?

>> host: well, thank you. i would like to use this as an opportunities to show your two biographies of washington. how many years separate them and -- >> guest: "the first of men" came out in 1998, it's now out of prints but coming back in print, oxford university press has purchased the rights to it and on president's day in february, they're going to issue it and my biography of john adams in paper book ear digs, so 21 years -- edition, so 21 years separate these two books on washington. >> host: and is that viewer theory or description of mcdonald similar to your experience, did your view of george washington change in that time period? >> guest: my view of washington has been an evolving soup. i think, as -- view. i think as i've grown older, there are things about washington that i appreciate,

that i didn't appreciate when i was younger, and there are some things about him that i've grown to question somewhat that i probably didn't question. when i wrote the biography in the 1980's, i was probably more laudetory of washington as a military commander in the revolutionary war than i am now, but on the other hand, i think as i've grown older and hopefully a bit more experienced with the revolution, i've come to understand some of the political problems that washington encountered. i mean, there was a congress, but -- and each state had one vote, he had to deal with all kinds of congressmen within delegations, pennsylvania would have seven congressmen, but only one vote, so he would have to

deal with those people in getting that one vote. he had to deal with 13 separate state governments. i mean, it was a political minefield, and i've grown much more appreciative of washington as a political figure. and i think, i've grown to admire washington in a sense, too, in that during the war, the officers who were around washington, i mentioned earlier that a lot of the foreign officers who are critical of washington, but most of the native born american officers almost worshiped washington, i think. he won their trust, he won their confidence. he even did that during the french and indian war, when he left the virginia reg meant in 1758, his officers, many of whom were older men, who had much more military experience than

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

everybody said of washington. he was a rather cold and formal person. my own theory on that is it goes back to a habit that washington probably fell into when he was the young man, coming up to mount vernon and being around people who were far better educated than he was, and he probably put his foot in his mouth a couple of times and he learned from that, maybe it's better just not to say anything because i may 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 habit on washington's part, and it led people who met him to see him as extraordinarily reserved and cold and formal. >> >> host: our next question comes from oregon. it's a busy day out on the west

coast. and our caller's name is lou. what's your question, lou? >> caller: good morning. i enjoyed john ferling's book very much and his last book is very interesting and really sheds some light on part one of his book "rise from obscurity," and the question is multifold. was washington's high ambition and status in politics and military time that he spent being a planner, trader and also a big land speculator, knowing that he was a colonial and not going to be equal to the british officers and things like that, his counterparts, i'm 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 his dabblings in all of these things and i wonder if you could comment and expand on this matter a little bit and i'll just hang up and listen. >> thanks for your question. >> sure. i don't think washington had a crystal ball. i don't think he knew any more about what was going to happen down the road than we do. and as a matter of fact, here in this museum that we're in in mount vernon, there's a painting of washington sitting outside of mount vernon and he's working on blueprints of mount vernon and he's expanding mount vernon, and when was he doing that? he was doing it in 1774, the year before the revolutionary war broke out. which wouldn't be the year that one would want to start a huge renovation job on your house, if you knew that he were going to be in the revolutionary war the next year. when washington came home from

the first continental congress, which met in september and october of 1774, so it's about six months before the war breaks out on april 19th of 1775, washington is buying land out west, he's in contact with some people in england, this is your business contacts of his where he's sending some of his grain and other products and the impression i get from washington's correspondence is he really doesn't think that there will be a war at that point. he thinks that the british will back down and that there will be some sort of settlement. in fact, when he went to the first continental congress, he travel with richard henry lee, and at that congress, the congress adopted an embargo of british trade and richard henry lee made the comment, the ship

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

there was obviously going to be problems down the road and i was wondering if washington ever commented on how he thought slavery would evolve over the years? thank you very much, i'm enjoying your program. >> guest: okay. thank you. let me take the first part of the question first, and t >> let me take the first part of a question first. hamilton became the eighth in february 1772. it was early in the war. just after trends to an end -- trenton and princeton occur. hamilton service washington as a soldier for the next four years and i think they develop a close trusting relationship probe washington was in the habit when not in a crisis situation which was most of the time, he was in the habit in the evening relaxing with

his aides and washington would have a bold of wine and maybe a glass of wine and they would talk. hamilton was one of those people who dominated every conversation he was never an. so washington i think became quite close to hamilton and i think grew to understand his grasp of economic issues. so ultimately when washington became the president, he chose hamilton to be his secretary of treasury per driver got the second part. >> host: it is about slavery >> guest: i hope as we go one we can talk about slavery in depth but did washington never say much about it? the answer is no, he didn't

until the last year of his life when he redrew his will. he inherited 10 slaves when he was still an adolescent when his father died. when he married martha washington in 1759, he acquired a great many slaves so he owned about 100 when he left to become commander of the revolutionary war. with the tata came home he did not purchase them but they were reproducing and he ended up owning more than 300. but he never really says very much about that. i think you have to look at his actions and there were two things about his actions before he wrote redrew his well, after the revolutionary

war he did not purchase additional slaves. you could argue he did not do that for economic reasons that he had a surplus, but i think part of it was the indication he had come to questions slavery. second, washington after the revolutionary war no longer sold slaves or divided the family's which indicates there was a change in washington's thinking with regard at least to that aspect of the morality. >> host: at burlington vermont? >> caller: in the continental congress when they were trying to persuade france to join the war, was there talk of maybe letting france have being quebec and nova scotia back as colonies?

>> guest: no. the envoys' that were sent to france were instructed not to give that away if all possible. of is they wanted france into the war that was the big thing that they needed in order to gain victory which by now clearly was going to be a lot more. once the negotiations began, it became clear the french were not interested in retaking canada. in the treaty itself because of what the french said, not put on a pressure by the united states, the french renounced given up. and fact years and years later after the archives were

opened, france hoped that great britain would retain canada because if british canada sat on america's northern border, then the united states would have to remain tied to france for protection and the french were hoping the united states would be a client state to go into the 19th century. >> host: hopefully a short question this is a call from california. >> caller: dr. you mentioned the dissatisfaction with washington as commander. this is rather specific you have any information about j'mison lebeau involvement? it is not the astronauts. [laughter] >> guest: i always

pronounced it james lovell but i am not sure of the pronunciation. he was a congressman from boston and he was dissatisfied with washington. like good great many new englanders he thought horatio gates was the answer and in fact, he wrote a letter in which she hoped gates would come south from new york and at least assist washington. level was not particularly friendly to washington as a military commander. he had a very long and very interesting relationship by the way just through correspondence with abigail adams. they were close friends. my good friend who was seven

gallop adams biographer roach day wonderful article on the relationship between afghan adams a few years ago. >> host: that is a 41st hour days for our first hour 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 four [no tour. >> one of our assignments is talk about the character and leadership and accomplishments of washington. one time the main emphasis was on the decorative arts now we say how the home is a reflection of his life and character and leadership and

accomplishments. we ask people whether they think about the color? they are surprised it is so bright and intense this is an example of george washington's status. one of the last rooms he adds to the house, it is the large dining room he calls it the new room with a 16 and a half what ceiling and the circles in each corner and the marble mantelpiece it is rather interesting he is telling you in this room with the symbolism was his favorite occupation was prepared not necessarily being a general or a president. remember he discontinued growing tobacco so his main cash crop was wheat or grain did you will see the with the symbolism over the doorways and the man told move mantelpiece.

that cayman 10 different crates then he was concerned it was too ornate but then as soon as it had a farm scene it was in the center of the room. we do believe this is the room where washington was informed by the secretary of congress he was unanimously elected the first president. how difficult would it be to be the first president? george washington is even a little reluctant. i go on and trodden ground. have to remember he had to define and organize the presidency so it is no wonder he is so little concern that what is a president say or do or interact with the different bodies of government works everybody else was trying really hard to get elected george washington is almost a reluctant president. almost all of the furniture

was moved out a and is 1781 this became the war room. washington is away from his home in 80 years this is where the last battle of the revolutionary war was planned. this is where the plan was where we defeated the british i gettysburg and waterloo way too often that is why we're building the new museum. let's go out and look at the oldest parts of the house. did a ready see the outside of the house? it is would. it is referred to as rusticated washing sought examples of this that the governor's mansion in the massachusetts and it is pine in which the boards have been doubled or shaped to look like

stone and painted with ships and garnish to preserve that is why the significant amount of the house's original wood painted with white paint then a while is still what they apply stand to make it look like stone.

>> host: you're watching

booktv "in-depth" with the washington biographer john ferling weir live from mount vernon virginia the home of george and martha washington the potomac a place that has would open many years for people to tour to understand why of the nation's first president. we're in the second hour of 33 hour program he is the author of 10 books or so. he has spent his entire career in revolutionary war history and figures of the period his latest book "the ascent of george washington" i want to get calls because many people are interested in talking with you but we are here at george and martha washington's home and we have not spent one momentum and martha washington and we must. i was interested to learn that he married very well and intentionally. is that fair? >> guest: i am not to say

that but it certainly looks that way. martha was regarded as the wealthiest widow in virginia. she had been married previously and her husband had passed away. washington had probably met her when he was attending sessions in the virginia assembly. certainly he began to call are heard during 1758 and it was a very rapid court ship and they married in january 1759. >> host: 20 hours together? >> guest: that is probably about right. sheet lived down on the river in a place called wherehouse ironically. -- white house ironically that was the name of fir plantation. >> host: how old were they?

>> washington was 27 she me was one or two younger. actually 26 but 27 when they married. in fact, adams and thomas jefferson pretty much a married all at about the same age, about 27. they all wanted to establish a career and establish themselves. >> host: but the match was a good one from a prominent virginia family. talk about the decision from her side. >> guest: george was the commander of the virginia regiment so he was the leading soldier, he said i can get married until we accomplish our offense and the bad is to take the head of the ohio. that was accomplished in

november 1758 he resigned his commission to worth three weeks later and comes back to virginia and mary is one or two weeks after that. she was marrying at an extremely prominent virginia and and i think it was clear here's a guy who was going places. he not only had mount vernon, he had gotten that in a 1754. lawrence died. he and his wife did not have a male heir and when the widow remarried, then mount vernon past two george. he was in possession of a large plantation, one of the most prominent virginians because of his military service, he was on his way toward wealth and power with virginia so from martha's

standpoint he was a good catch as well. people want to say washington married the wealthiest widow in virginia so it must seven something that he was conniving. there is no evidence for that. we don't know exactly what went into his thinking at the time but what appears to be the case is they did have a very close relationship. they were married until he died in 1799. my math is not very good, i guess 40 years. but they appear to have had a close and loving relationship as best we can tell during the revolutionary war. for example, washington, when the armies went into winter quarters he would always have more to come and stay with him at headquarters and then when the campaign season was coming on, then she would march home.

so they did spend some time together than. the unfortunate thing as a mentioned earlier, martha burned all of their correspondence. the same thing happened with jefferson but in that case he burned all correspondence. the correspondence that has survived the of the founders is john and abigail adams and we know a great deal about their relationship and we wish that we knew more about washington and martha. >> host: during this hour we hope to focus a little more on the revolutionary war period of u.s. history and some of dr. ferling titles include "a leap in the dark" and almost a miracle.

" end quote. we hope you'll add your questions to our discussion lipstick a call from illinois. >> caller: i have a question that involves the performance of the battle i have grown through my greetings to dislike charles lee who was the for an officer that dr. ferling already mentioned he did not like washington. some defend him to some extends that washington never fleshed out his orders to charles lee but reno later during the course of the battle washington fired him. my question is with regards to the bigger and the way he

carried out washington's orders, i think washington was justified but what is your take? i will hang up and listen to your response to a. >> guest: i am one of the few historians that like charles lee. he was a british officer and he left in the british army, resigned his commission and he moved to virginia and he settled in what is now shoppers down west virginia not too far from mount diverted as a matter of fact when it appeared the revolutionary war was going to break out in the last days, and maybe even after lexington and concord it was clear the national army would be a ford, charles lee came to

mount vernon and the siege washington to go to bat for him and get congress to name him as a general officer when the army was created. washington agreed to do that. i think in the early part of the war washington had a good relationship with charles lee. he regarded him as the best military mind in the continental army at the outset of the war. t to a 12 grew to be disappointed in washington and body was too indecisive to be a good general. at monmouth which is one of the few operations during the revolutionary war it is a battle but unfolds in the summer of 1778 the british had occupied philadelphia and are giving it up and the british army is marching from the

philadelphia back to new york and washington is trailing that are being. he is in possession of an army that has been retrained and rebuilt at valley forge and washington wants to use that army in some way and he convenes his generals as congress ordered him to do what was called the council of war and asked the council what should i do with the army? how should i attack the british? the council recommended the the washington not absurd to much. france was coming to an allied air and a french fleet was expected to arrive shortly added did about 10 days after monmouth park gs of the council voted not to try to do too much but just make an

attack on the rear of the british army. that is what lee attempted to do hoping to score maybe not a decisive victory, but to reflect as many losses or the british as washington had inflected of them at trenton back on christmas night, 1776 for everything there could go wrong it did. not because of what lee did but his subordinates. and he ultimately decided during the battle he had to retreat or he would get caught up by a series of every piece that ran across the battlefield and he would face destruction. when washington learned that lee was retreating from he just became furious. he had a monumental temper to begin with and washington rode

out are the battlefield and confronted lee some officers said washington cursed lee and he cursed that day until the leaves show, the trees. -- shuck on the trees he did not fire him but he released his commander then took over himself. then he did but lee was trying to do so he retreated and set up defenses and set up to battle. >> host: the next call is from montana. >> caller: i was struck by the military foresight of washington and political force side of benjamin franklin but very different people with different personalities probably do discuss your views of the washington franklin

relationship how they view each other and how that developed? >> washington and franklin first met during the french and indian war there was a conference not far from here in mount vernon in alexandria, a conference to a range to provide provisions for the army that was being sent under general james braddock out to the head of the ohio. washington was president -- and franklin was president and they mad at that point*. as far as i know they do not meet again until franklin entered the second continental congress in me of 1775 and they did not see very much of one another. there were colleagues in congress for about one month in me zero record june of 1775

in washington was appointed commander of the continental army but franklin did come to cambridge in massing 10 -- massachusetts where the headquarters was located in october on congressional business. than one year later franklin was sent overseas as the american and on '08 and he remained in europe for the duration of the war. they were never in each other's presence very often but washington and new of franklin's reputation and a new him personally may be slightly. they corresponded a little bit. would have to go back and count of the letters but there are not that many between them during the water. and as far as i know, both

respected one another. i am unaware a pretty thing that franklin said that was critical of washington or anything washington said that was critical of franklin. >> host: this is from email. >> i am reading the historical novel published in 1940 oliver was well it is told from the tory point* debut in regards to george washington political acumen what was the tory leadership during and after the revolution? >> guest: washington as far as i know didn't have any relationship with the tories except a couple of the fairfax with whom he was close prior to the revolution had obviously remained tories if they left and went to england

and they corresponded with them. i am not aware of washington taking any particular stance. most of what was worked out with either worked out with a peace settlement where the united states refused to give any compensation for the property losses that the loyalists sustained, so the british did that themselves. then in each state their actions taken at least in some of the states to prevent retribution against a lawyer less. but as far as i am aware, washington took no steps. there is no indication that he pointed to carry out reprisals but no indication he wanted to do anything for them. >> host: a quick question

comes after the outcome was known did many loyalists return to england? >> guest: yes. several thousand left, some laughter from savannah some laughed from charleston the largest number left from new york get the very end of the war in december of 1783. actually several thousand left the united states. they did not all go to england some went to the caribbean, a british sheils, quite a few went to canada and some went to england. >> host: good afternoon. what is your question? a. >> caller: i know the association there keeps his diaries. i was just wondering did you know, there were several volumes missing?

and what is his relationship with lafayette? did they know each other when he was 26 years old during the surveying and navigating of the waters west? >> host: first on washington's tyrese? >> guest: the washington diaries that exist have been republished as part of the washington papers project at the university of virginia. dorothy was one of the editors and they run of six volumes. you are correct, not all of the washington diaries have survived. there are gaps. having said that i should also point* out that washington and least from my standpoint was not a particularly good

direst. john adams was and literally baird his soul in his diaries and washington's diaries quite frequently tend to be a compilation of who was out mount vernon that day he would list the names of people and some of them would go on to be well known for example, he said there was a no webster here today. in tokyo chalet there were people bad he did not get their names. he would say to women who why do not recall their names were here. many of the entries were alarmed those lines. then he also kept some records are the weather. he would list the temperature and say whether it was a hot day or if it snowed or whenever but it is an

incomplete record. even though you sometimes wonder the value of washington's entries historians always want more information. with the second question of lafayette washington did not meet him until lafayette volunteered to come to america as a soldier during the revolutionary war and that was fined 17772 years after washington was made the commander of the continental army. they developed an extremely close relationship. one of the most intriguing most people portrayed as a father-son relationship washington was old enough to be lafayette's father, by maybe 20 some odd years and washington had no children and

the lafayette have lost his father when he was still a youngster parker you can certainly make a persuasive case that there was almost a father-son relationship between the two. but washington was a public and political figure who had to make political decisions and lafayette was a frenchman and washington was first trying to and hope very much that france would become an ally of the united states and a second lane trying to keep fat ally happy once it did for the alliance sell one always has to wonder in looking at this relationship how much of it what is really a true personal relationship? i think it was and how much of it was purely that of a diplomat or statesmen or

politicians? i think that element was there as well at least during the war. >> over my shoulder is a very large painting that is in the center that the picks washington and lafayette and painted buy two french painters. we are here at mount of fort -- in mount vernon today. the establishment has been very gracious to us over the years as we try to help you understand the first president and a period in which he lived. the ladies' association has been the concern better for almost 150 years the anniversary year is coming up, they have 500 acres which is astonishing if you think of the density of the population area in northern virginia, of this new center reset pin is

open to the public in 2006 which furthers the educational experience of your visit to mount vernon. the next call is from new orleans as we listen to john ferling biographer of george washington. >> caller: how are you? i would like to thank booktv and dr. ferling for such a wonderful and informative program. booktv has always been remarkably consistent and dr. ferling you fitted perfectly. being from louisiana i have always been intrigued with the involvement of the spanish in the revolutionary war broke i like to give you a brief overview of their involvement. did you consider important or peripheral and do tied in with mr. washington, one of my personal heroes did he ever have any contact with the

spanish government or the military hierarchy? >> sure. spain comes into the war early in 1779 i believe but not as the ally of the united states. they came in as the ally of the french it was an indication that things are not going well in the war for france. there was part of the matter that i addressed in the first hour of the program when things were going badly enough the french had to step up their activity and ascended army over to america. but spain came into the war what is technically called as a:belligerent not as the allied but fighting the common enemy of the united states. they did make some loans of

money and the united states was bankrupt and needed every penny it could get its hands on purpose of the spanish were important from that standpoint. but dissing single biggest injury is balance spain came into the conflict then the combination of the french navy and spanish navy together gave the allies a numerical superiority of the seas. it really changed the equation on the seas from that point* on. during the award to the best of my knowledge washington had no contact with the spanish. he certainly did as president of the united states. one of the last acts of washington as president in the last full year of his presidency is he concluded a treaty that was called the

pinckney treaty with spain. it was a treaty that resolved many of the western difference is that had existed from the 17 sixties through the 1790s and 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 stemming out to the mississippi river borough they opened navigation in 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 illinois had for getting their goods to market otherwise they had to bring them across the appellation

mountains which was not feasible. washington concluded the treaty with spain and it was one of the great triumphs of quote washington's presidency. >> host: the next question is from phoenix. >> caller: think you dr. ferling for your time. i have a simple question the general nathan agreed was the green mountain boys is in his troops so to speak? and to expand upon the questions on the navy isn't jury big picture catherine the great of russia sent the russian navy to sit in the ports of baltimore and possibly new york for a short period of time during the revolution? thank you so much. >> host: nathaniel greene was from rhode island. the green family was very

powerful politically as a matter of fact 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 of vermont and western new hampshire at this time. i am unaware of the russian navy coming over at all during the revolutionary war. the british decided early on they did not have a large standing army and they were in the habit when they went to war hiring mercenaries at the very outset the british prime minister attempted to hire brescia mercenaries and made contact with catherine the

great and she refused and wanted no part of it so the board turned to the german principalities and concluded treaties with several principalities which we usually mistakenly but nevertheless a duet from a lump them together and call them the german soldiers who served over here as british mercenaries. >> host: this is any real watching us in california first of all but you're right thing he says i appreciate the way in which you present our early history and is full dimension warts and all and in the end it fires of gratitude to the small band of brothers who earned our freedom today. as a stanford history major i was amazed at the number of times the revolutionary army was miraculously saved by unusual weather and, events and incompetence of the british. i wonder if francis scott key

line and that have been rescued land was inspired by the curb belief in the new america back god had a hand in the improbable american victory not only with the revolutionary war but the war of 1812? >> i think the first part of the question i think washington was an extremely lucky individual all through his life. he is the proverbial cry with the cod with the silver lining paying above his head and certainly during the revolutionary war on a number of locations especially in the campaign for new york washington found himself trapped and he was able to wiggle out sometimes because of whether or sometimes because of the lassitude of the british in pursuing. in fact, it 1.in 1776 a

british why growth in a newspaper in london made the comment only general howell could defeat to george washington and only he could defeat general powell. think the first part is pretty accurate. tried to think he should have defeated washington and at 1776. so i think washington was extremely fortunate individual. >> host: the providence of the line of the "star spangled banner" cracks. >> guest: i am not familiar with that but i do know that a great many people at the time certainly felt that providence happen on america's side. washing tin usually did not use the term god in his references. he did on occasion but usually used providence meaning i think has got our jefferson's

says nature or natures god intervened on his side and when washington resigned his commission at the end of the revolutionary war and went to annapolis he says in his remarks that providence had been on america's side. people do that period thought that was true. perhaps the things that convinced people even into the 19th century more than anything else was from july 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence adams and jefferson both new served on that committee to write the declaration, both died that day even john quincy adams says at the time in his writings that this appears to be the hand of providence, a

recognition that america was an exceptional place and had it god's attention. >> host: we are live on this independence day weekend from melbourne in virginia with revolutionary war historian john ferling biographer of washington and adams. the next call is from tulsa oklahoma. >> caller: thank-you for c-span. the previous e-mail stole my question as i teach history and many of my colleagues do believe that the founding of the nation and george washington was providential so i will go with a question, do you believe, what was president washington's position on slavery? did he believe the eventually it would be taken care of

before the civil war? >> guest: i am glad you asked that question broke i cut a response short-term just before the break on a question. i think before the revolutionary war, washington did not give very much thought to slavery at all. he was a slave owner and a number of his slaves were growing. there is no indication in any of his right things he ever consider the morality of slavery but when washington came home from the revolutionary war, it was clear he had changed his outlook. i think it comes about for two reasons. on the one hand a great many african-americans soldiered during the revolutionary war. there were 100,000 men serving in the continental army and 5,000 were african americans.

boast surge from 1778 on and so they constituted 5% of the total but an even larger percentage even closer to 10% of the total in the last desperate years of the war. i think washington saw those men sold during. maybe for the first time in his life it dawned on washington that if given the opportunity, african americans could do everything that white americans could do provide think that was a transformative thing for washington. but in addition washington surrounded himself with very bright, young aides during the war. two of those aides in particular alexander hamilton and colonel john lawrence from south carolina were anti-slavery in their outlook. think when they were with washington in the evenings after a long work day they must have talked about slavery

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

his 50s at that point*. men in the washington family had a terrible habit of dying at a young age, washington's grandfather was 39, his father was in his mid-40s and george was in his 50s but i think he thought he probably would not live to a ripe old age and he wanted to enjoy and live in comfort those years that remained. he did nothing about slavery until the last year of his life then he changed his will pop up point* providing poor the release of all of his slaves following his death or more of the, whichever came last. >> host: we're in the reynolds education center 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

ends to sign copies of his book for your most with zero days welcome to come down and two were the mansion and meet our guests to is so kind to spend three hours with us today. let's tell you about the painting over the shoulder it is a mid 19th century copy of a very recognizable portrait of george washington. the original was painted by gilbert stuart this is a copy by james stewart painted 1850. would you talk about the depictions of george washington by his contemporary and immediately after his death that helped to evolve the imagery have of washington today? >> guest: washington was painted for the first time in 1772, he was 40 years old.

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

during his lifetime but obviously multiple times. peel was the most famous painter of asphalt like john trumbull's work better because washington's step grandson and lived here for a time with him said that he thought trumbull captured washington better than anybody else. peale had a tendency to paint everybody with eight middle age spread, a paunch and if you look at the trumbull painting and there is a copy of it in my book, washington is very light and trim as the commander of the continental army but if peale and trouble were the major painters during the revolutirevoluti onary

war, gilbert stuart was the principal painting of washington during his presidency. it is really taken from. yes that is the first portrait of washington and you can see he has his virginia regiment uniform on although that was 15 years before. of the other one is the john trumbull painting of washington. that is it. you can see where peale looked washington made paunchy but he is in shape but it is around this time that washington who is six-foot three inches tall weighed 210 pounds and he is 50 years old. he would have ben light and

drama -- to ramp. >> host: if thank you for holding on the line. >> caller: bank you taking my call. with what national treasurer the ada of freemasonry has come to the forefront of pop culture and from personal research washington how large meetings i am wondering if you could comment on the freemasonry in washington for the founder of the country? >> washington was a member of the masons. he was in a chapter in an alexandria at and active before the revolutionary war and several other figures in

the revolution including john paul jones were masons at least in the early years it was important for washington. >> host: the next call is from california up. you are on the air. >> caller: dr. ferling i am wondering if you could comment about a story but i have read about an indian chief who spoke to george washington this was when he was a 23 year-old colonel in the french and indian war concerning the battle of the of -- payless. the chief told washington that the guns were leveled at him and to kill him but said she saw it was invaded and told

them to stop firing because he was a particular favor of heaven who can never die in battle. >> host: that is probably the apocryphal story i have never heard that before. but i do know and of french and indian war they looked for indian allies prepare he did have allies with the seneca he worked with an indian chieftain the english called him that hath king. they were allies with washington the first engagement i'm mentioned earlier when washington ambush of the french and indians were part of that attack on the french linguists soldiers formed a circle around the french and indians and formed

an outer circle around the virginians in the hopes of getting any french are able to escape through the virginia lines. washington fought with them then. been most of washington's fighting during the french and indian war was not against the french but it was against the indians. i think washington probably spend many a lonely our writing down palace in the wilderness out in the western areas of virginia. at that time not knowing whether he would be attacked pearl there is a case i might mention during the battle of brandywine during the revolutionary war, when a british officer named patrick

'02 initially developed a rifle of minnesota and was regarded as one of the great sharpshooters have a chance to shoot washington broke he was on the battlefield and washington and his aides came riding out across the battlefield and patrick had a shot at washington and could have shot him in the back and he thought that would be a dishonorable thing to do so he did not shoot him. i don't think he knew it was washington at the time but just a high-ranking american commander and later that day or the next the learned it was washington he could have shot and he chose obviously not to and ferguson said he was glad he had not done it. he thought it was honorable rather to not to shoot a man in the back a very different standard of warfare at that time. on that topic i should mention

during a couple of the encounters during the revolutionary war including the battle of princeton washington leads his troops into battle and is writing at the head of the men right into british forces who are firing muskets at him and he is no further away from the adversary fewer shooting at him than a pitcher's mound from home plate on the baseball diamond if you can imagine. it took the enormous courage to do that and considerable oft to escape unscathed. >> host: joining us from mount vernon virginia the author comity nine on revolutionary war history and the people who help shape colonial and the united states. his latest book is called "the ascent of george washington" and widely available at your favorite bookseller the next

call is from new jersey. >> caller: hello dr. ferling thank you for your insight for information. previously you discuss the diary keeping of washington and the other founding fathers like adams and jefferson and hamilton. was that a behavior that was consistent just a the early years founding the country or did that wax and wane throughout history and even today we have contemporary politicians aside from the president's that are usually accorded from what i understand to keep diaries that are perhaps the foundation for future history? >> guest: i the kid is an individual matter i think reagan kept a diary that was published not too long ago and

a couple members of franklin roosevelt's cabinet kept diaries that were published after the 1930's. i think it is always the individual matter. in the case of john adams he was from new rabbit -- massachusetts and one of the things appear to as did in the 17th century but mini kept diaries and it was a way of keeping personal track of their cause the lives of our the transgressions that may have committed or what they might do to improve their relationship with god in their lives. to a certain degree i think john adams diary keeping came out of that tradition a few members of the continental congress kept diaries as well.

and were those of us who i think our historians and work, the continental congress are particularly grateful because it does provide some indication of the debates of what congress felt toward one another and what was happening at particular times when congress learned of certain information and whenever so historians always wish more people would have kept diaries. i suspect more people did keep them and how surprised. they were passed along in two families than somewhere along the way they were lost in a house fire or flood gordy sentence thought they were useless and toss them out so i can take 10 seconds to make a personal appeal would you have any kind of historical record that is important any letters

from relatives and world war ii or three or vietnam's even today and iraq, put them in the archives someplace. so they can be preserved and future generations can look at them and if they are canterbury letters from somebody in iraq for afghanistan or serving in the u.s. government today and they may be important you can stipulate these are not to be opened for 50 or 75 years if you want to preserve the privacy of the person. >> host: printout the e-mails and save them? . . washington biographer john ferling, and this question comes from david in cose that mesa, california. >> caller: good afternoon. thank you for taking my call. washington was elected as president first in 1789 and then

in 1792 which, curiously, was only three years. but what was the political process, and who was actually able to vote among the public to choose eventually the electoral college which then chose washington as the president? thank you very much. >> guest: well, it depended on the state. >> it depended on the state. in some states, the state assembly chose, the electors, in other states the electors were chosen popularly and devolved through the 1790s. virginia did it one way in one election and then changed and did it another way at another time. in washington's case,

elections. remember, there couldn't be an election of a president until the constitution was ratified, it was finally ratified in june of the 8. there wasn't enouthere wasn't it done, the first term was short of the normal length of time. >> a very afternoon at mount vernon, va.. we are at the reynolds education center, people able to get a more in-depth look at the life and times of our first president. we are going to show you more of mount vernon mentioned during our break.

>> this is the farmhouse george washington would have inherited as a young man. he inherited mount vernon from his older brother, who is very important in his life. george washington's father died when he was 11-year-old. he had a half brother, lawrence washington. lawrence becomes his role model, helps to raise george washington as a tremendous influence, as a result of that, they become very close. lawrence washington dies at age 34. that is what george washington at age 22 inherits mount vernon and it is a long hallway gama 2 rooms on the right, two rooms on the left, this went to the top of the stairs.

you have a nice breeze going in, in the wintertime it would be an additional room. i don't know how it was appointed when george washington was a young man. we know what it looked like on december 14th, 1799, so you have the parlor, george washington called that the best room in the house and the music room with the original harpsichord that george washington purchased for his stepgranddaughter who was excited about that until she found out she had to practice. the guest room on the first floor and a small dining room where they took most of their meals. that was a very popular color, it didn't fade as quickly as other colors. that is where they took most of their meals. george washington and martha washington entertained many people, he is the most famous person in the world, famous for their hospitality, people come by the hundreds. we have a document, he 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 twenty years. that gives you an idea of the number of visitors. he said of love to go to the table and see a familiar face. he tells his guests, treat your room as you with your own apartment. but i must suggest to you that breakfast is at 7:00, the main meal is at 3:00, some lighter fare at 8:00 and i must suggest to you that the meals are served upon the arrival of the hour, not a guest, so you had to be prompt, beyond time. something of the most significant historical significance is this key on the wall. it is the key to the french prison, the bastille. france helped us win a revolution. it was closest to george

washington? the marquee lafayette. on july 14th, when that is torn down, he sends the key to george washington by way of thomas paine. in a letter, indicates he considered george washington his adopted father. his spiritual father. his american general. most importantly, he considered george washington the father of american liberty. george washington is extremely proud of it, puts it on the wall, been there since 1790, it took a trip to france, 200 anniversary of the fall of the best deal. nice gentleman by the end of -- by the name of george bush sr. brought it back.

>> book tv is asking what are you reading?

>> susan weinberg, publisher of public affairs books, what is on your summer reading list? >> the first book on my list is a change of pace for me because we publish non-fiction and i read a lot of nonfiction but i really of this summer i get to read the master by colm toibin. we trade books and talk to each other, when she found out i hadn't gotten around to that one, she was quite vexed. of a publisher believes in a book that much i have to read it. i just read, and of going to be another of our books this summer, that we haven't had two books coming out about the islamic world, one is called destiny disrupted, the history of the world through islamic eyes, it is by tamim ansarfy. we all know the western narrative, this is the islamic world's narrative, how

nineteenth century they came so tragically, i loved every word of that and i read the book and recommended to my reading group which i rarely do as a publisher but they're living in too so we will be discussing it next month. another book in that vein is by neil mcfarquhar. he has recorded in the middle east, he was the cairo bureau chief, he reported on islam in the u.s.. he grew up as an oil graduate in bolivia. he came back for college and decided he wanted to go back and learn arabic and understand this area, where he had grown up. he has written a wonderful book, the media relations department of his the lot which is you happy birthday. i read some of that book as he was developing it but wasn't the editor and didn't have time to read the whole thing but i love what i read, i decided i want to give the whole thing a great read.

i love hearing what people are saying and talking about that book. in the third book that i have to admit has been -- maybe this is the summer when i will finally read the powerbroker, the book on robert moses. it is something of wanted to read for a long time and it is the kind of book where you need to find the time to read it. >> to see more program information visit our web site at booktv.org. >> this sunday, the fifth of july, you are looking at 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 writing on revolutionary war history and the famous people

who helped shape it. we are inside the education center. we will put the phone numbers on the screen. from this period of time, two on john adams, a life by john ferling, adams and jefferson, and his latest book is this biography of george washington which we have been talking about throughout our program, the ascent of george washington:the hidden political genius of american icon. as we begin this third hour, let me ask you, we have been talking and a lot of detail about people ask questions but over the course of your 30 years of research, what is your overarching view of the motivation of the founding fathers? were they driven by political ideology? did they have a grand view of a new nation or work commercial interests and private interests a big part of the process? >> i think it is probably a

combination of all of those things. it depends on the individual. as a historian i tend to be what historians call an economic determinist. i think economic factors are probably the biggest single motivating factor in driving someone. 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, he and 60,000 acres out west that weren't selling, jefferson had some of those same feelings as well. i would never for a moment suggest those were the only things that drove those people.

probably washington was embittered by the way he was treated by the british during the french and indian war. he was a very proud man, he had been treated as a second class person by the british. i think he was an american nationalists. his great-grandfather had come to america, so several generations of washingtons lived here. he thought himself increasingly as an american, not as an englishmen 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 victimizing americans, their taxes were wrong, they

were trying to establish unwarranted control over america, they graded -- they wanted greater autonomy for america, they genuinely believed that the british were acting in a tyrannical manner, and i think all of those things probably lead people to become active in the revolutionary movement. >> we are going to take as many calls as we can during this final hour. george washington was what age when he served as president of the united states? >> guest: he was born in 1732 and became president in 1789 so 57, i think. >> host: depending upon the month. at the conclusion of his second term, was there a debate over whether or not he would leave the presidency? >> guest: not debate, more

speculation whether he would leave or not. he made clear about a year before he was leaving that he intended to stepped down. i don't think he made that clear publicly, but he approached hamilton about writing a farewell address for him in the spring of 1799, which was the year before he left the presidency. it is difficult to keep that kind of thing secret, especially since hamilton was highly involved in politics and would be interested in naming washington's successor. i don't think there was debate but there was speculation over whether washington would stay on for a third term. i think he wanted to get away. he wanted to come back to mount vernon. he didn't have very much time remaining. he had suffered two 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 has he had previously, so i think he saw this and 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. that was an unusual thing for washington but the republican party, the foes of the federalists, were attacking him openly at this point. he was a thin individual. he wanted to get away from that, but he knew his historical reputation was solid, this was the time to go out. on like a good many athletes who

linger on too long, he got out at the right time. >> the next question is from michigan. cannon house office building -- >> caller: floridian/detroit, pontiac, the indian chief, in case i forget, i wanted to recommend some reading. and come from an old french pioneer family, my progenitor came here with cadillac, died in detroit, 1733. and one of his grandson's, an indian woman, we think that would be the mother of george drew yards.

he was head scout, sacajawea's husband, i also -- the story of the fleet describes the founding. i was wondering if you could recommend a reading of anything that was said about these people who were living here for a hundred years, everything seems to be going on east of us. >> host: let me have dr. ferling respond. he is interested in the earliest history of detroit including the indian histories and the characters you write about that helped shape that. >> guest: what i would recommend is to look into the writings of

a historian named fred anderson who has been extensively on the french and indian war, look at the bibliography and the footnotes in anderson's book, and that will probably be a good starting place for moving in the direction you wish to go in. >> guest: hello, are you there? >> thank you for receiving my call. i would like to share a story that has never been heard away from history. the true father of the american liberty not only defeated the british's insensible armada in 1781, but he planned to defeat in yorktown, he was well recognized in europe, his name

is enshrined in paris, george was considered a bastard child of an indian woman. please comment on those two fact of the never heard story erased from history. >> guest: i am familiar with alexander hamilton's interest in miranda. there is some evidence that in the 1790s, hamilton 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 controlled. the second part of your question i don't recall.

>> host: he has a different view of george washington, that he is viewed by these proponents as actually being an illegitimate child. >> i thought that was what he said. that i have never heard. it is not true. we know that a gust and washington was married twice, his first wife died and then he married mary ball washington, she was washington's mother and he was clearly a product of that marriage. >> host: the next caller is from san diego. >> caller: do you consider washington to have been more of a classical christian? or did he have deist leanings like jefferson and the other founding fathers?

>> i think washington was a deist. he believe in a supreme being, but by and large, like most diaz, 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, referred to the hand of providence. very sternly some contradiction in washington's thinking in that regard. but he generally did not take communion. he and martha would attend the anglican church. he was raised as an anglican which would be the episcopalian church in the united states today. he was a church officer but he generally would not take

communion. >> guest: this is our monthly index program. we are very pleased to be talking about revolutionary and colonial america. next tone--telephone call from north carolina. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i am interested in the concept of fall from grace. there have been several books written lately about thomas jefferson that have portrayed him as a not so wonderful person. i wonder if you could comment on your opinion and maybe what you know about these men and referring to the initial question, what was his motivation, i will listen on the

television. >> host: it was about the concept of falling from grace as we know more about these figures. >> guest: what the caller is probably referring to is that it is widely believed, i certainly believe it, that jefferson had a long term relationship, intimate relationship with one of his female slaves put in an, sally hammons, the story was around in nineteenth century but historians just looked the other way and didn't give it credence, and in a biography that appeared about 35 years ago called thomas jefferson:an intimate history, she made a very persuasive case

for that relationship. a couple of books recently on jefferson and the headings family, along with dna tests, pretty conclusively established that that relationship -- it certainly raises questions about jefferson, we don't know much about the relationship. we don't know whether jefferson compelled her to have the relationship for 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 of any kind of intimate relationship on washington's part with any of his slaves.

that has been studied, but there is certainly no evidence for that and i don't know any serious historian who would take that position regarding washington. for >> host: she was talking about the conceptual idea of historical figures falling from grace. here's an early detection of george washington that you feature in your book. the glorification. this has been done with abraham lincoln, the early detection of him after his assassination. 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 our changing ability to study

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

he did. the great american triumphant in the minds of the french were washington, adams, and franklin. and adams became eclipse in the early nineteenth century by jefferson. it probably wasn't until david mccullough came along and wrote the biography of atoms's 10 years and the recent series on addams on hbo, helped to revive his reputation. as people change, in our case, we went through the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, and since then, and all historians who have come along since and have been much more aware of

slavery and 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. as we go on through the twenty-first century, new problems are going to arise, 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: this is a caller named harold. >> caller: prof. washington had some problem with his officers, i would be interested to know how he handled it, particularly with regard to horacio gates, who was one of the conspirators behind it.

how did washington handle it, if he did handle it. i will listen on my television. thank you. >> guest: i don't think gates was part of a conspiracy. some would disagree with that. i think he was the object of a conspiracy but i don't think he was part of an active 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 -j,ñ 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. and so i think washington fought it in a number of sult ways and overt ways and he did it the way he usually did things with political fighters he let other people do a lot of the h >> host: we have 30 minutes left in our three our conversation with john ferling. to, washington? >> caller: hello. thank you very much. i attended and spoke at a dinner in scotland. it was about with the lord of cannon i received a wooden box from wallace they claim george washington had scented back and he knew he was supposed to guarantee -- and give it to the next in command but they gave it back but they gave little ceramic statues that

you did purchase in the united states to speakers or could you know, of these dinners or the connection of the wooden box? >> guest: no. it is news to me. >> host: and a great deal interesting to see how george washington is memorialized in other places than the united states. do have a favorite among the second or third year characters in this history? >> . >> guest: i would not call them second or third year. >> host: buy it inlet hour viewers at home that biographies are not often written in its entirety. >> guest: but students would say do we have to know this for a test? which of these people who would you like to have spent an evening with? i usually said if i can go to dinner with any of them it would be franklin or john

adams. >> host: i was trying to find a word to describe them but the secondary characters in the story of the revolution or the founding in america that not all books are written about. do you have a favorite? >> guest: it sounds kind cordierite i do have a great deal of admiration for the people who served in the continental army at the time. you mentioned the term at band of brothers. >> host: that was a viewers' questions. >> guest: i remember that. there is actually a memoir written by a continental soldier from josephthal march and the published around 1830 or so. and he uses the term band of brothers in the book to describe his fellow soldiers they endured a lot.

they were not paid very much. they suffered enormous not to mention of the dangers that they suffered. about 25% of them died in the course of the war. the mortality rate was of so incredible compared to the mortality rates suffered by u.s. servicemen of world war i or world war ii, a career, vietnam's or iraq or afghanistan. i do have a great deal of admiration for them but among the figures and maybe may think of him as a first-rate figure by would probably say thomas paine. i do have his writings in the library of america series at home and every wants in awhile i will pull off and read some

of the thomas paine. i think he was a colossal figure, not just in common sense of the american a crisis but in some of the other ratings of his as well. >> host: on this independence day weekend we're live inside mount vernon live inside the educational area opened in 2006 on the grounds of mount vernon it is overseen by the ladies' association as it has been for almost 150 years almost 1 million visitors every year to this spot 16 miles away from washington d.c. along the potomac river we're talking to john ferling a revolutionary war historian and biographer of george washington the next call comes from jackson mississippi. >> caller: dr. ferling it is an honor to talk with you. i am more of a civil war historian but i am interested

in the handling of prisoners of war if it is extrapolates up to or down to the revolution, i wondered what the disposition was a for the cornwallis' army and the army that surrendered at saratoga ave were paroled or places they were sent such as happened to the american and garrison and charleston? >> guest: when surrender at saratoga of the convention that handled called for the army to be released and sent back to england and both washington and congress objected to that. those soldiers could not serve in america again under the terms of the surrender but they could serve summer isles and the people they replaced could be sent to america so

congress refused to release that army and they were kept outside of boston for a while then they were brought down to virginia they spent most of the revolutionary war following their captivity in late 1777 in virginia until the british army came into virginia in late 1780 then they were moved outside of virginia. but they were not released until the end of the conflict. the same was true with cornwallis' army which was taken at yorktown. after yorktown, there were considerable discussions that went on between the americans and british over the exchange of prisoners. and finally an agreement was worked out in the summer of 1783.

this would have been about 20 months after yorktown when the prisoners were released on both sides. it was very slow. >> host: john ferling book about the revolutionary war, almost a mirror gold was recognized by the american revolution round table of new york as the best book on the american revolution also achieved a lifetime achievement award for historical writings from that organization. the next call is from atlanta of. >> caller: dr. ferling it is an honor to speak with you i also want to let you know, i have a master's degree in education from west georgia. i am proud of that. did more fat and george have any children? if so, what happened to them? >> guest: no. they had no children.

martha had two children from her first marriage, or jackie as he was called and patsy developed of epilepsy and die before the revolutionary war, jackie lived and he married and had children of his own. unfortunately with the siege of yorktown when it was being set up, jackie asked his step grandfather, george washington defeated serve as an aide and a george consented. so jackie came to your town and unfortunately he contracted the camp the disease and died just after cornwallis' 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 a time. one of the children was washington's step grandson named george washington prestigious who had a daughter and his daughter even show a married robert e. lee. in fact, he built an estate or a mansion of his own that now sits above and that -- of the arlington cemetery trivial look at the e eternal flame of the john kennedy, up behind that you can see a mansion that is called but justice lee

mansion named for george washington customs and robber tv. >> host: that may ask you you said george washington came back having a sense that he had not many years left. how long did you live and how did he die? >> guest: he got back march 1797 and decide december he remained thin good health so all of that time he had some problem with rheumatism arthritis that nothing serious our major that was debilitating. he was actually contemplating another trip out west which was an arduous trip that somebody in bad health could not have undertaken. he fell ill berry sudden they

in december 1799. one historian named peter who taught at george mason university has written extensively on washington nail down probably but cause of the a bacterial infection that caused a swelling of the epiglottis which is essentially lead to just a very slow suffocation. he developed a sore throat up first the thought it was nothing more than a sore throat that would last for two or three days then went to bed and woke up at 2:00 in the morning and realized he was desperately ill and died probably about 17 or 18 hours later. >> host: st. petersburg e-mails the question did you come across

any, underlined, information to be construed as doctors in advancing his death? >> guest: positions were called and and dazed positions in engaged in bleating fat morning it did not do him any good but i doubt that it caused his death there was some debate in the afternoon about what would be doing essentially a tracheotomy. they did not have modern and disease at the time, it was an operation that the ball or physicians did not routinely perform. they refused to do it. whether they could have done it successfully or not is a question of the they could have prevented the infection from setting up, it is certainly would be a question

but the general feeling is no doctor wanted to do that to washington for fear that the position would then be branded as having been the culprits who killed george washington. >> host: then the next quashing make my question is from morissette in me and genre thank you for your top-notch work as usual. i have a question about one of the books that influence your writing. it was david herbert donald c. that influence your work since this is the bicentennial year i'm especially interested how it influenced your scholarship. thank you for your scholarship. >> guest: when i prepared the list i was just trying to think of books that influenced me at different stages of my

career. i actually read the book before i began graduate school. i was enthralled with the civil war but donald's book was a collection of essays on lincoln. i think he took different topics related to link and then burrowed into every aspects summit wound up being critical of some took a new viewpoint or a different viewpoint about lincoln. i was probably 21 or 22 when i read the book. it was one of those things that was a informative to leave for what historians do and made may 12 be a historian

and do something like david donald did. he eventually not too long ago, he is deceased now but 10 years ago he wrote an extraordinarily good biography of washington. he was one of the major historians of the civil war period. >> host: he wrote a barber three of washington? >> guest: i am sorry of abraham lincoln. [laughter] >> host: live from mount vernon the next call watching. >> caller: thank you for taking all of this time to research and write this book. i cannot wait to get a. the story i have heard about george washington for many years i have not been able to read about it but before the crossing of the double where he was so worried about the crossing and he had a vision of how to achieve it? and the vision of the future

of america and i have never been able to find it anywhere. is that a story that goes around? >> guest: i think there probably is the apocryphal story. washington was in a desperate straits toward the end of 1776 he had been defeated, chased across new jersey, his army was composed of men who were listed for one year and they were all leaving the army. he had to recruit a new army who would come in to the continental army that have lost just about every battle it had fought not to mention the soldiers would have to suffer deprivation. 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. he wanted very badly to gain a victory. i think he saw this opportunity. used his intelligence, network, a christmas night, they may laydown their guard someone and he pulled off a surprise attack and it was one of the agreed during taste great daring attacks and waged by an american commander in all of history. >> host: they deserves great credit for that and followed it up with an attack on the british and princeton a few days later, one week later that was successful as well. >> host: apple valley minnesota? at. >> caller: thank you very much. i am interested if you have been a insight into the level of confidence that washington

placed in the various states malicious a relative or compared to the more formally trained army that he had at his disposal with certain key missions that needed to be accomplished? for example, the connecticut rangers or any other state militias? just curious how the level of confidence difference between those militias and the more formally trained army at his disposal. thank you. >> guest: i am glad you brought up that point*. it is one of the things that i go into in the book. washington had very little confidence in the of malicious up. they were not highly trained soldiers. at most they surged three months at a time and he said repeatedly he had no confidence in then you could not put any dependence on them

at all and in fact, when he resigned his commission as commander of the army and went through the reasons the army or the americans were successful and it gained independence he did not mention in the militia at all. when he was president of the united states he told everson at one point* he had gone down and looked at the battlefield which was one of nathaniel greens and victories in early 1781 fought in north carolina around greensboro. he had waged a brilliant campaign and fought a great battle that did great harm to cornwallis' army. even than washington said to jefferson if only he had

position to those militiamen differently he would have scored a better victory. that required a great deal of funds but on washington's part to say something like that there is no question that they were better soldiers but washington did not give them their full credit. they did a great many other things and pacified the home front, they disarmed of the loyalist, they kept them in check whether british conducted raids on the seaports it was usually the militia who came out. they were 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. >> host: barbara is watching from santa barbara california. >> caller: we will move on

to new jersey. >> caller: dr. ferling there was a woman in new york who boasted that she was the only woman who would ever slept with both george washington and a napoleon. i am wondering there are a lot of places that george washington slept here. there were homes i am sure. was a customary for women to sleep with the officers in those days? how did that affect the intelligence that was getting to their british or vice versa when british officers did the same thing with intelligence getting to the patriots? >> guest: i am sure it went on with human nature but there is no evidence of washington doing that and there is no

evidence in general of the american officers doing it. i am sure that it probably happened maybe not with washington but i am sure when you look at all of the officers in the continental army i am sure it happened but it was not something that became public knowledge maybe if there was cable television in those days maybe it would have been reported but that was not the case. >> what was his view from writing of political parties? >> guest: washington did not like political parties. it was something that was a new phenomenon at the time. it was what people called factions in the colonial period usually they call them the accord party or the country party. they were not organized political parties until during

washington's presidency. early on in washington's presidency, jefferson and james madison just became absolutely convinced that congress was doing everything the faction around alexander hamilton wanted to be enacted. they were passing and they approved hamilton's economic program and created a bank of the united states. jefferson and tried to organize the opposition and tried to organize the election of 1792 of congress in such a way that the foes of hamilton's programs and of the direction that he felt hamilton was taking the country could be elected to congress. i don't think jefferson thought in terms of an organized political party in the sense it were now, but

beginning with that step in the spring of 1792, parties began to come into being. jefferson's party was called the republican party at the time which makes it confusing because it is not the forerunner of the courage republican party but the president democratic party and hamilton countered by forming his own party which he called the federalist party. washington saw the parties as destructive that they work for narrow selfish ends and not for the national interest. but one of the things i tried to argue that despite what washington says, i think he was really a federalist. he supported the federal this program while the was president and in large measure supported the federal this program during the 30 months

after his presidency. >> host: sacramento? >> caller: i would like to read more about daniel morgan and you have any suggestions? >> guest: there is a good biography of daniel morgan written by dan higginbottom who was one of the degree historians of the revolutionary war who taught at the university of north carolina chapel hill park i think it is called daniel morgan but he was an interesting figure and served in the french and indian war. and then became a leader of a virginia riflemen in the early phase of the revolution report and worked his way up from the rank of captain all the way to general officer during the campaign for saratoga, washington who was

down a pennsylvania wrote and asked that morgan and his men be redeployed back to pennsylvania and gates responded you would not have to get rid of the american soldiers set the british are most frightened of. gates was regarded, at morgan was regarded i think has invaluable by gates, washington and especially by nathanael greene under whom he served in the 1781 in the campaign in the south carolina. >> host: we are out of time. we have one minute give people the essential george washington. >> guest: the central george washington i think is a man who was an american nationalist, committed to the united states and the survival

of the united states, he wanted a strong national government that would be capable of preserving the united states against the 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 he wanted the united states to be capable of moving in that direction. in some ways, i think the country was lucky to have survived george washington because of the mistakes that he made as commander of the revolutionary war but the country was also extremely fortunate to have had george washington as its commander during the revolutionary war and especially as president. .