classes that are getting enriched by global economy that see their future in interesting global economy are religious. but the kind of religion they follow is in some ways globalization friendly. the conservative, is pious, but it support s. activity and living harmoniously with others in the global economy. >> what ramifications to the business class have on american foreign policy? >> well, we don't pay as much attention to them as we ought to. we don't think of the fact that what transformed china transformed india, transformed latin america, eastern europe and asia, that created stable prosperous democracies was the middle-class is in those countries that were dependent on earth and were integrated into the global economy. and we don't think that in the muslim world you're not going to get them to where brazil,

argentina, taiwan, or could we are unless the same classic got them to where they are also becomes empowered in the muslim world. so we look inward for a solution in the muslim world, without looking at what is the force that supposed to produce blue shin. i think the change agent and the muslim world ultimately will have to come from the middle-class and from the capitalist business sector associated with it. >> author of forces of fortune. thank you. >> thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to evacuate his magnificent building, this 18th century library, which i think it's one of the architectural models of the united states and everybody should come here to see it. and i'm delighted to be back here again. now this book, which is a big fat book can be used as a doorstop if you decide not to read it. it will work that way. the title of the book comes in the statement of jefferson. he referred to the united states, jefferson being the most expansive mind and president in history. he referred to the united states and he was president as an empire of liberty, a different kind of empire is what he saw. indeed, as i said, had great visions for the growth of this united states. i've introduced this book with a little brief description of rip van winkle's -- washington irving story, rip van winkle,

which i think captures some of the extraordinary changes that took place in this. in 1789 and 1815. in fact, from the revolution to the second decade of the 19th century. irving, who was conservative and conservative sensibilities, wrote the short story which i think is his most famous short story, most of you are familiar with it. in the second decade of the 19th century. i think he was trying to express some of the awesome changes that he had experienced in his own lifetime. and they've been here developed an acute sense that his native land was no longer the same place that it had been a generation earlier. he had his character, as you recall, rip weakened from a street that had begun before the revolution and had gone on for 20 years or so. and when rip enters his own village, he immediately felt

lost. the building, the faces, the names are all strange and incomprehensible. the very village wrote irving was largely more populous except among the agent who was no longer tolerated. the very character of the people seem to change. it was a busy, bustling dissertations done about it. instead of the accustomed drowsing tranquility terrifying situation for, of course, who had an insuperable aversion for all kinds of profitable labor. that's a crucial point that labor or work had become celebrated in the short period following the revolution. even the linkage was strange to her brain. rights of citizens, liberty, in other words perfect babylonians to the bewildered van winkle. when asked we voted but he was

federal federal or democrats, he could only stand and bewilder stupidity. now, this story, rip van winkle, became the most popular irving's many stories hear it for think 18th century americans appreciated the notion that the world had been transformed in a very short period of time. superficially, the leadership seemed disdained. george washington replaced george the third on a sign outside the tavern. but beneath the surface, everything was changed and that's a quote from the story. in a few short decades, america underwent, i think, a fantastic transformation. in politics, and society, and the culture. and i think most people wanted what had happened and who they were at the end of this. in the decades following the revolution. before the revolution, america had been a collection of

desperate british colonies composed of some 2 million subjects, huddled along the atlantic coast, 3000 miles from the summit of civilization. european outpost of this peak was cultural focus is still london, the metropolitan center of the empire. the 1815, following the second war with great britain which is also referred to as the war of independence, the these big significant properties have become a single giant continental republic, with nearly 10 million citizens, many of whom would already spill over the appalachians into the western territory. the cultural focus of this new huge expensive nation was no longer a broad, but was now directed inward at its own boundless possibilities. americans should do a grand experiment in democracy, but they were confident that they could buy the run of six remake their culture, re-create what they were. we create their beliefs, their

thoughts, their revolution told them that people's birthday not limit what they might become, hence the importance to indicate education. in effect, i think this. has more publications on education relative to population and at any time in our history. many of these ideas didn't get implemented until the next generation, but the ideas were laid out like jefferson's plans for a three tiered system of public education, were laid out for others lycoris man from massachusetts to implement. suddenly, i think everything seemed possible for this post revolutionary generation. the revolutionary leaders were faced with the awesome task of creating under their own british heritage their separate national identity. and that becomes a major problem for them. how do you separate your cells

with having the same language, the same heritage, many with the same religion, how do you become americans? and that if you think about the principal issue, separating evil from america that eventually led to a war of 1812, it was impressment here it had taken a -- british taking of american sailors or sailors often from american ships in a person not into the british navy. that became the crucial issue that led to war. and it becomes a crucial issue because they can't tell a british sailor from an american sailor. and that aggravated the whole problem. americans now had an opportunity to realize an ideal world, put the broad-minded and tolerant principles of the enlightened into practice. to become a homogeneous compassionate and cosmopolitan people and to create the kind of free society in the illustrious culture that people, since the

ancient greeks and romans had only yearned for. but i think in the end, little worked out as the founders, as we call them, expected. the society became much more democratic, much more populous than anyone had expected. so when the generations time, these americans experienced this greater transformation as we've ever had i think. and now, we have a certain age remember over the last 50 years, safer 1960, early 1960's to today have undergone a tremendous cultural transformation and anyone who's old enough to remember what it was like that before the 1960's knows what i'm talking about. but i think that this generation underwent an even greater transformation in their culture, and society, and their politics. that makes -- that i think gives us some days on the changes we've experienced.

this transformation also took this before industrialization, before urbanization, before railroads, or before any of the technological inventions that we usually associate with modern social change. the decades following the revolution, americans changed so much that they became used to change and came to celebrate change, thinking that was a good day, which was rare in the history of the world hear it first of all, the population grew dramatically. doubled every 20 years or so. as it had been doing for several generations, it was growing twice as fast as any nation in europe. and people were on the move as never before, spreading themselves over half a continent at astonishing speed. between 1790 and 1820 new york's population quadrupled. kentucky multiplied eight times in a single decade, ohio

gruesome or virtual will dance except for of course the 10,000 indians or so that white american scarcely knowledge. but in that decade, it grew from no white people to become more populous than most of the century old colonies had been at the time of the resolution. in a single generation, americans occupied more territory than they had occupied for the previous 150 years. so there's this outpouring of people growing population, incredible kind of dynamic that i think is undergone much of the change. many remained farmers live in a world areas. they had come, especially in the north, and many of these examples i'm talking about the northern split that takes place. despite most people living on

farms, 19 out of 20, they were at the same time the most -- one of the most highly commercialized people in the world. they were busy not only buying and selling with the rest of the world, but increasingly with one another, which ran against -- and they came to appreciate that. that was not easily understood. it was not clear. it was counterintuitive that that person say selling a product between say work and providence that that exchange could actually increase the health of the whole stage. i was hard to believe. most people value could only increase your wealth by selling more broad then you bought. they had a zero sum sense of the congress, mercantilism conception. but they came to accept the change that to people within the same state can actually enhance the prosperity of the whole stage. nowhere else in the western

world was to make enough money business, labor, working, more celebrated than it was here in the early 19th century united states. he is stunned at how much americans are celebrating working for profit. he said frenchmen are concerned with making money, but they don't brag about it. it would be distasteful. it's too gross. that americans actually looks at officials, mayors of towns, and says this is the salary. this is unique in the world. the celebration of work made a lesion straight holding more and more anomalous. slavery was widely condemned, but it did not die in the united states. indeed, it flourished not only in the south but only in the south, and died in the north. it spread across the southern half of the country and as it

disappeared in the north it became more deeply entrenched in the south and the southern states. in a variety of ways, socially, culturally, and politically, the south began to see itself as a beleaguered minority in the bustling nation. and that's an extraordinary change because of the time of the revolution, you have to understand virginia was the big dog. it was that constitute a fifth of the nation's population. it was by far the richest, biggest, most powerful state in the union, not surprisingly for a the first five presidents of virginians. virginia was the nation, it's all nice and in the eyes of many others. but by 1815, 1820, that was no longer true. that's one of -- and virginia and the other southerners see themselves as a beleaguered minority, even though they're in control, still in control of the national government. of all these demographic commercial changes could not

help but affect every aspect of american life. and i want to just touch on some of them to give you some idea of what i think was happening in the period. politics became democratized as more americans gain the right to vote. but it just isn't the right to vote. colonists had two thirds of white american males could vote. but now it's different. there's not only the right to vote is expanded, but the interest of voters expanded. and essentially the aristocratic world of the founding fathers in which these gentry leaders stood for election. and that's the term they used, was largely replaced by a very different democratic world, a recognizably modern world is given by 1810 a recognizably modern world of competing professional politicians who ran for office under the banners of modern political parties. now we usually think of the

jacksonian era, the next generation as being the heir of the common man and a year of democracy. i think that's a mistake. i think democracy is already present by 1810, especially in the north and that the jacksonian years in some respects is an era of consolidation. if you think about the way patronage was used, the jackson and paula spoils system and the way in which jackson was held up as a monarch like presidents. these are efforts to consolidate with kind of chaos that had been expressed in the first part of the 19th century, the first two decades of the 19th century. now most of these political changes as they say took place in the northern states. they were mocked by the emergence of new man. men who lack the usual social or moral credentials that the founders had had. there's an extraordinary letter, written by benjamin troll who was the great architect and at

the same time was a surveyor of jefferson public buildings. he's a republican that is a jeffersonian, but he writes this letter in 1806 to the italian patriot philip matthey and she complains in this letter, which is hard for him to do because he's speaking about jeffersonian republicanism, about the kinds of men who are getting into the congress from the state of pennsylvania, where he lived. they were ignorant men. they were unloaded man. they were not gentlemen. not a single one of the congressman from pennsylvania was a man of letters. from the county was sent a blacksmith he said to the congress. and just over the river, a butcher was sent. now this butcher was the congressman that the secretary and the british litigation and washington were it a memoir journal that was later published. this british secretary described

this butcher as the man who abused his privileges by sending home his linen for his laundering. but as the british commentator pointed out, this was much of an abuse because he only sent it once a week. it didn't change his shipment once a week. [laughter] when invited to president jefferson's dinner at the white house, the butcher noted this british witness observing a leg of mutton of a mr. bowling decision could not help but get expressing the feelings of his profession explains that it is solid no such leg of mutton should ever be found in place. well, that kind of person was legislating in congress. i do know things have changed at all. [laughter] but it was new for the many of these people to have the numbers of these kinds of ordinary folk.

edmund randolph who was a prominent republican complains that the caucus was sold to many ordinary people. as he said, every tom, dicks, and harrys is in congress. here is how he described it. the refuge of politics that ended up in the congress. now even when political figures were not ordinary, many found it now wise to pose as being ordinary folks. and his campaign for governor of new york in 1807, daniel tompkins was a successful lawyer, columbia college graduate lawyer, no less. he betrayed himself as a simple farmer's boy, that's the term used in running for governor of the stage. in contrast to his opponent, mark lewis, who wasn't in the eye of the rivington family, so he's going to play up the fact that he's an ordinary farmer's boy when in fact he's just a lawyer with columbia college education.

in 1810, the new york federalist tried to combat tompkins and the next election with their own candidate, a man named jonas platts whose habits and manners are as plain and republican as those of his country neighbors. platt was not a city lawyer like tompkins they said two roles in splendor and while those in luxury. now this is the beginning of a kind of anti-intellectualism, anti-aristocratic feeling an anti-elitism. we will use that term. they use aristocrat. we used the leaders him. that's endemic to american culture do we still have although not to the same extent. today in pennsylvania, this should give you another example. simon snyder was a self educated man, son of a poor mechanic. he worked his way up to become governor in 180, no no education. i mean, he was autodidact. his lack of -- when his

opponents mocked his obscure arguments and called them clod hoppers, that was all he needed. he and his followers that they said well that great. i glad to be a clod hopper in a society clodhopper and use that as a successful campaign. so americans became a think so thoroughly democratic through this whole period that many of the period for the constitution was devoted to fighting means and devices to detain and mitigate that democracy. i think the most important was development of the judiciary. and i have a couple chapters on law and the use of the federalist, greatest federalist achievement, not the federalist two created the constitution, but the party was the creation of the judiciary and marshall of course was an important figure

in this, john marshall. most important perhaps i think in this period, ordinary americans developed a sense of their worth. i live in the freest nation in the world, they were anybody's equal. that sense of the quality really gets us established here. and i think it is the most powerful ideological forces in our entire history and has been used by reformers, right up to our own time. aristocracy of any sort in this. was put on defensive. any pretension at all to being socially superior was attacked as aristocratic and through people back on defensively. so in addition, and this is worth a few moments. it is what what i recall the democratization of ambition. you know, up to this point, the beginning of the 19th century and for thousands of years ambition was the aristocratic quality. people who are ambitious for the

great soul man of the past. mcbeth or the president, hamilton, burr, these are the people who have envisioned and accomplish great deeds, but they also are dangerous because they can do harm to society. these are the men involving ambition who i think were threat as well as they boom to any society. ordinary folk did not have that kind of ambition, didn't have ambition. they're more or less content with their life. there are obscure men, cardinal woolsey, for example, who do become aristocrats and great men and then they adopt aristocratic qualities of ambition. but most people, to the history of the world, were content followed in their father's footsteps and were not presumably susceptible to

ambition. what was happening in america was that ambition was spreading to the common people, have become democratized. as a mouse weekly register, which is one of the first weekly magazines america produced in this period declared there was everywhere they almost universal ambition to get ahead, not to become a great man like hard the woolsey or john adams, but just to make more money than their fathers and improve their status. this kind of ambition did not have to be feared as one had to fear the ambition of hamilton or burr. i think this moment marks the passing of the aristocratic notions of power and glory, the heroic passion that i think drove people like burr and hamilton. in the coming of the harmless and humdrum interests of ordinary moneymaking. what's amazing to me is that government changed massachusetts in 1807 saw this and grasp the

significance and was aware of what was happening. he suggested that a man who sought only to acquire property is not perhaps the great man that one who did would die but he is a character who no one needed to fear. that i think is an acute insight that sullivan has. m.d. by advancing his own particular interest in an innocuous peaceful way the ordinary man even advances the interest of the public. now celebrated -- sullivan is celebrating this fact that the older aristocratic world that the great sold ambitious hamiltons and verse two were heroic and dangerous was giving way to a new world of ordinary italy businessman who were more mundane, but safe. and i think that's an extraordinary moment in history of western culture and occurs first here in america. and i think it is the end of the

whole world that founders i think experienced of great souls. now this is just one kind of change that i think to waste in the period. i'm a just and a few others. violins of all sorts increased in unprecedented levels. personal violence was actually more common in america than in england and has continued to be from the beginning to the present. homicide rates in the chesapeake reversed in a century decline in increased rapidly in this period. homicides were not in new york city in the 17 90's. there was much domestic violence and multiple family murders, more than any time in history do the whole history of the 19th century mark occurred in this period. multiple murders for a father kills his whole family which aspired charles brought in brown's first novel.

irvine writing became much more blunt and much more destructive. trick in a part hard liquor reached a peak that has never been duplicated since. americans were consuming 5 gallons per person, the highest we've ever consumed in the history of our country. and for higher than any of the nation the world with the possible exception of scotland. [laughter] every one was drinking and if you exclude the fifth of the population who inflates didn't have much access to alcohol, that figure $5 per person really goes up. so you understand what the temperance movement came from. it takes off in the 1830's because of the drinking problem. i mean a little town like teaching, vermont, with 15 people in a tent dirty distilleries. everybody drank all day long. they say baby's liquor, whiskey,

courtroom, everybody, they passed the bottle around. and people were beginning to be alarmed by this. as john adams said a nation of drunkards. we think of the 1960's as being goodness we had such bad times and colleges, but between 1798 in 1808 american colleges were wracked by mounds of student defiance on a scale never before or since seen in america. i mean, the colleges were closed for weeks on end for riots. nassau hall in princeton was gutted by fire. students set it afire. in some cases, 40% of the student body was expelled, 40%. so this was a scale of rioting that had never been experienced and hasn't been duplicated since. religion, too, was democratized and transformed.

not only were the european-based religions declined, did some of those decline, with emergence of new religions that no one had ever heard of before. incredible outpouring of religious feeling. and by 1815 america had become the most evangelically christian nation in the world without established church as an outlet for marvel and joe feel sorry, couldn't believe it. religion thrived without being supported by the state. the anglicans and the congregations were the dominant religions. by the end of the revolutionary period. in an earthly as 1790 the two were the just with a baptist baptist and methodist. the methodists had been not a single methodist in the early 1860 and by 1790 there was already the second-largest growing and within a decade or

two would become the largest religious domination in all of the united states. largely because it had preachers who had no education and just went around preaching in the field. and they were bringing insoles left and right. evangelical religious spread everywhere. the most famous gathering of religious seekers took place in the summer of 18 no one in keene ridge, kentucky. there were huge numbers of people with dozens of ministers of several different denominations came together in one of was the greatest outpouring of the holy spirit since the beginning of christianity. crowds estimated at 15 to mac 20,004 week of frenzied conversions. the heat, the noise, the confusion were overwhelming. a half-dozen ministers preaching from wagons and hills, all at the same time in different areas of the camp shouted their

service. hundreds if not thousands of people fell on the ground moaning and wailing in the loss and they sang, laughed, balked, rolled, and in excitement. now we know some religious but nothing on this scale, nothing might have. of course the outpouring of the holy spirit was accompanied by the pouring out of lots of intoxicating spirits. and critics with the excesses of crane ridge even though many critics of course claimed that the frenzied excitement resulted in more souls being conceived and converted. at [laughter] but it was -- it became a symbol of the promises and the extravagance of this new kind of evangelical positivism spreading throughout the west. it touched all the outpouring of religious chaos and inventiveness that was unmatched then or before or ever cents in american history. at the same time, americans

thought that the high culture, they thought the torch of western civilization, the founders did, they got the torch of western civilization was being passed to them. western art, literature, and that they would make it shine brighter. but of course instead, they are literature became in vulgarized, much to the sugar and of the founders. let me give just one example of this. john marshall wrote a five volume biography of george washington, while he was chief justice. andy was expressing the ennobling art history of biography. but it didn't sell at all. nobody wanted to read these big rocks. he wants to read a big fat book? weatherly succeeded was parson weems leaves a short little biography that focused on washington's youth even if he had to make up the stories about washington's youth, he's the one that creates the cherry tree

myth. in the five volume biography, marshall spends one page on washington's youth. and weeks devotes almost his whole biography on his early years. and it's sold in it's still in print. it is the most popular biography of washington ever written. that is not what people expected. in addition, the period experienced the titanic struggle between amazonian vision of a large fiscal military state, like those of europe, that's what hamilton's vision was. that's what he was up to and tried to make the united states equal of france and britain on their own terms. and i competed with jefferson's vision, the republican vision of a limited state where little to no taxation and no standing army, nothing like the european state at all. and they have different conceptions of what war should

be, the republicans want to avoid war and they want an alternative to war. and they chose what would now call economic sanctions. jefferson's grand experiment, his liberal experiments with the embargo of 1807, 1808, 18 -- 18 months of that was brought a way of offering the world an alternative to the miseries of military force. and we are still using that. that's what you're talking about with your man. that's what we still cling to. economic sanctions as an alternative to the brutalities at the outright use of military force. hamilton thought this was just pie-in-the-sky dreaming. this is the real confrontation between these two men personally, but also intellectually what they represented envisioned of what the united states might be. at the same time, jefferson and the republicans were eager to

spread democracy throughout the world. and that notion has continued right through our whole history, right up until well to our own time. the invasion of iraq was justified as bringing democracy to the middle east. so by 1815, the world of the founders was passing them to do generations taking over. and many of the founders who lived into the 19th century were disillusioned by what they had found. he had begun, of course, with many allusions. i thought they could deal with the native peoples, the indians in a humane and respectful manner. they thought -- i mean, the letters that henry knox who was secretary of war in washington write about to each other mostly what to do with the indians are respectful of indian culture as a modern anthropologists could want. they don't want the indians to

disappear. but of course they can't control what's happening as we say, on the ground. and white settlers want that and they pushed the indians off of it. the founders, too, thought that slavery would naturally disappear. especially with the ending of the international slave trade in 1808. do that whole period, up to the second decade there's a strong feeling that slavery is on its last legs. it's going to go away and it is going to win the north. on the northern states by 1804 have abolished slavery. antelope does this the upper sell the least virginia, being the leader, is taking steps to eliminate slavery. and that's true. the missions were increasing. 30,000 free blacks were freed in the 17 80's and 90's following the revolution. there were freed in suits in

virginia which freed hundreds of slaves who could show that they had an indian ancestor. if you had one indian ancestor that for the whole family. this was the feeling that people felt was -- the war was antislavery societies in the south and the north. and this gives people the feeling that the institution was doomed and that especially it would end the slave trade. now they couldn't have been more wrong. they lived with the illusion that it was going to disappear. we live with ablutions, too. and i think that's what this important part of history is to realize and get some perspective on the past and understand that the people back then didn't know their future. they couldn't predict what was going to happen to them. we know what happened to them and so it's easy for us to indict them for not doing this, not doing that. but i think if history teaches any lesson, it teaches the

lesson of humility. but you look back and you realize they didn't know what they were doing in every way, but that should do just that we don't know entirely what we are doing. and later generations will look back at us and say, why didn't they do that? why did they do this and not that? i hope that one thing that can come out of reading history, good history, it seems to me, is the acute sense of humility. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] now i'll be happy to answer questions about any aspect of this period that i mentioned. yes, sir? >> you kind of touched on it towards the end, but i was curious in terms of the fervor for democracy, did it exist in

the south as strongly as it did, i know this whole slavery thing complicated, but putting that aside, in terms of people being elected to the congress, where they also ordinary people are the aristocratic models? >> the south does not democratize as much as the north. there are the tom, dicks, and harrys the randolph complained of, but the question was does this out differ in its degree of democratization i think it does. it does not experience the kind of democratic upheaval that you have been the north. the southern planters probably because of the nature of slavery and the nature of their single crop maintained their authority and maintains the structure of their society much better than the northern state it. by 1810, the south seems very much similar to the 18th century south.

the crop is different. it's not tobacco and write so much now, it is content. but both cotton and tobacco have similar economic handling. they are crops that don't spoil therefor you don't need distribution centers. they have simple markets, liverpool, london. and therefore, the need for towns doesn't occur. the south has very few towns. and it remains that way. and there are very few middling scenes of people. i mean, there are more newspapers by x. amount and off the top of my head may be by times as many newspapers in the state of ohio in its first decade of existence than existed in all of georgia even though georgia was a hundred years old. so you have a proliferation of hundreds of years in the north

and this just doesn't happen in the south. the south remains much more, much more like 18 century south. so when we get to the eve of the civil war and the southerners say to the north, we haven't changed. we're still the same as we were at the time. they are absolutely correct. it is the north that has changed. it is becoming very different society. in those two sections that deviated to the point where they are willing to go to war with one another. and that i think becomes apparent even in the second decade of the 19th century. so the south remains i think much more attic, much more hierarchical and of course the slavery is the institution that dictates the organization of society. >> two questions. why do you call the war of 1812 the second american revolution? and my second question is, what

was really this give them between jefferson and adams and washington? was at hamilton or the french? >> the question is why the is the work 1812 often called not just by me, it's by the contemporaries. because it seemed to finally reaffirm the original revolution of 1776 and they looked through this hole period as if americans were still colonists of great britain and for good reason. the federalist who were confined mostly to this area in new england, not so much rhode island as massachusetts and connecticut have become increasingly anglophilia can, that is their attachment to england especially as the french revolution spread in the jeffersonian republic seem to be frank so they became more

ingleside. and it looked as if the fate of these two goliath, england and france were fighting for their lives. so americans tied up with one or the other. and the feeling that we are still colonists. i mean, the bulk of the books we read were english. that is english publications. the place that people want to watch when english publications and we spoke english. it was difficult for americans to field their own nationalism. how do you do that? it seemed as if you had to kill breadth in order to establish your own identity. and that in a sense is what i said impressment was the leading when madison caused for his declaration of war in june of 1812, the leading cause was impressment. now why would that be cause for war? it isn't just the problem of losing some sailors.

it's the implication of impressment that we are still bowing to this mother country in some way. so i think it meant something to defeat england. we thought we had one, even though jackson's victory at new orleans occurs after the treaty was signed in early january and the treaty was signed in christmas night in december of 1814. but the news of it hadn't arrived yet. people were convinced that their overwhelming victory of jackson over the british invasion army even came after the war. it sort of been clinched the victory. we had actually been the greatest power in the world who i beat napoleon. so there's a tremendous sense of exuberance comes out of the revolution that i think helps explain the new sense of american nationalism that's no longer an issue or not to the

same extent after the war of 1812. .. they sincerely believed that hamilton and the federalists were trying to force the marquee on to america and there's some

evidence for this. lot of people expected american society to develop naturally, lipitor, become more hierarchical and it would need a marquee sooner or later. john adams prepares for this by suggesting we should all have titles right now all and get ahead. he was anticipating what he thought would be an increasingly european type hierarchy and it fit in with the sense of how society has progressed in the 18th-century and early nineteenth century from hunter gathering societies like the indians who were strangely frozen in that stage to agriculture and move on to the final stage which is commercial liege -- the stage england and france were in. we were presumably in the agricultural stage. hamilton and the federalists

expected us to move on and become commercial because that is what great nations were like. jefferson and madison want to freeze us in the farming stage. that is what part of the struggle is about. the federalists thought that time was on their side and we know better. time was not on their side. they died away. they thought society would become -- a number of people expected the presidency to develop into a kind of elected market. in fact it is the kind of elected monarchs when you think about it. article ii is very vague. the president exercises an enormous amount of power and in wartime conditions has really expanded his power. every president, lincoln is the caustic example but wilson and

roosevelt and truman and nixon and bush. that is exactly what jefferson and madison wanted to avoid. they said marquee reads war and work enhances market. the two are tied together. if we can make every state in the world republican or democratic, war itself could be eliminated because democracies will not go to war with one another. that is still a dream. jefferson feels we can avoid war by becoming a republican and the world to become republican. that is the hope. that is what jefferson put some much faith in the french revolution and what france is doing is spreading republicanism.

napoleon ronny invade italy. this is the spread of republicanism. it goes sour. napoleon becomes an emperor and by 1815 they're back in france and the world is back to monarchy. there is a moment when we are left feeling we are the only republican in the world and lincoln is echoing that. the last best hope. that feelings run right up to the present. ronald reagan was talking about a city on the hill. that began of democracy goes back to this period. the federalists really want to create a european type state. a bureaucracy. a standing army. hamilton would love the present

situation. the cia. meeting men and women under arms located in 50 countries at least around the world. hamilton would say that is what i wanted. jefferson would be appalled. when you say work breeds executive power you look at madison's presidency. see how he conducted it. by historian standards he was a failure. he allowed countries to be invaded and the white house burned but madison didn't see it that way. he said i didn't enhance executive power. better that the capital be burned, better than the white house burned than amplify executive authority. and people knew that. even though new england was acting treasonous people sedition everywhere, governors

in new england are in collaboration with the british government in canada. not a single person was arrested for seditious libel. not a single newspaper was closed down by madison. people realized what he had done. civil liberties were worth something. better to let new england do its thing. he had such confidence in the people, the first federalist would be overthrown by their people and he was right. that is what the struggle was about. the stakes are very high. what kind of nation will we be? what is the future of the country? the clash between these two so-called parties is a huge. there's nothing like it in our history. that is a long winded answer to your question. >> the war of 1812, delinquent

was attacked by the british? >> the british stay away because they occupied some parts -- they could have claimed that territory as conquered territory. there were negotiations that some new englanders would give them that part in return for their collaborating and not harming the new england states. the english had a tough line to follow. they did not do much -- they were opposed to the war so they had to walk a fine line. they had occupied territory, massachusetts territory. at the end, they conclude in the negotiations that we will revert

to the status quo. especially because of the victory of the gutter coming down on lake champlain. that was very crucial. the conqueror of napoleon -- wellington said tuesday -- you can't beat these americans unless you have control of the waters and lakes, the great lakes. that advice was enough to convince the british they had better settle -- yes, sir? >> when did we project our naval power? wasn't jefferson -- >> the question is when did we exert our naval power to put the pirates out of business.

jefferson was a pacifist most of the time. he didn't want to emulate the british or the french government in building the standing armies but he certainly wanted to deal with powers he felt he could deal with without enhancing the military force of the united states. small ships could exert tremendous force and these barbary pirates. he was always a hardliner on that. addams wanted to buy them off. he said it is cheaper. this is what the british did and the fringe. they just paid tribute because it was cheaper. they were pirates. the somalian pirates we have today -- they would seize american ships and enslave the sailors. we were projected -- we were protected under the british flag. they know loggerhead that

protection. they had several hundred ships, several hundred sailors in captivity through the 1780s and 90s and jefferson says enough is enough. he would start bombarding them. as soon as they released some prisoners and so on and signed the treaty they broke the treaty very quickly and we had to go back and do it again but by the end of the war of 1812 we had a sufficiently strong navy having built it up, that madison in 1815 really clinches it. he goes back with the largest squadron we ever sent abroad and forces everyone of those states to give up their prisoners including the european -- some of the european states, some of their people enslaved. john quincy adams thinks it was

a brilliant moment in american history in his experience that we had acted on behalf of the world against these scoundrels, the ancestors of khadafy and so on. there is a wonderful -- benjamin franklin's last piece, some of you may know this, he wrote in march of 1790, he had signed a petition that went to the congress asking for the abolition of slavery. congressman jackson gave an impassioned speech about how this would be impossible, it is so hot here. we brought christianity to them and he went on in this vein.

the last hoax ever written for a newspaper by franklin was imagine one of these arab leaders in coming out of tunisia or something and writing a piece saying why they had to enslave these white sailors because they needed them. they were much better workers than the mediterranean people and we are bringing islam to these souls. it is just a wonderful -- last thing he ever did. it was perfect for expression of franklin's irony and humor. yes, sir? >> is it fair to say the bitter partisanship we face today in the political world we live in is a logical extension of the hamiltonian, jeffersonian cleavage? is that too sweeping?

>> there are some elements in that. i don't think the partisanship today is comparable to what was back then. it was much more brutal back then. and the press, as much as you might condemn the media today it is nothing compared to the way in which people were attacked back then. but there is an element -- the democratic party today which looks back to jefferson as its founder reefers' economic sanctions to the use of military might. the federalists, the republicans want to see this strong government party in, that is where the octopus comes in. hamilton in his view of the world and what will work in the world is closer to the present a republican. hamilton's view and washington shared this view, the best way

to avoid war was fought to prepare for it. so you build up your army and your strength and make it impossible for other nations to attack you because you are so strong militarily. hamilton and washington thought it would take four to five decades before the united states could take on any of the european states on their own terms. jefferson does not want to go down that path. he says that is the path of marks over the past three centuries. they have in hand their power and it has destroyed liberty everywhere and we are going to have a different path. we will aim towards universal peace. if the world could become republican, translate that into democracy, if the world became democratized, work would be dated. we wouldn't have war. there's some truth to that.

tom friedman wrote once that nations that have mcdonald's never go to war with one another. it turned out we bombed belgrade and belgrade had mcdonald's so that theory went out but the notion that democracies don't go to war, no one can imagine france and germany going to war with one another. the feeling that democracy being responsive to the people will not go to war is a strong one. i don't know if that is true. hamilton would have said war is not caused by monarchs. war is inherent in human nature. people are selfish, they are aggressive and that is what brings on war and we cannot live with this green, this pipe dream that people love one another. if only monarchs get out of the way. that was jefferson's vision. hamilton and washington have a

more pessimistic or realistic view of human nature. jefferson had a magnanimous view. you could locate them on a spectrum. thomas paine and jefferson at one end and hamilton and washington at the other. thomas paine -- jefferson's view of minimum government did not come from a celebration of capitalism. he was not trying to create a laizzez-faire government. he believes people have a natural sociability and natural love for their fellow man. if we could just get the monarchy out of the way, create privilege and monopoly. and they breed resentment and anger. if you get government out of the way and allow people's natural feelings of sociability and social sense which is inherent in every human being, flow outward, the world could be a

peaceful place. it is a radical vision. the radical liberal vision of the eighteenth century. they were looking for some counterpart to the physical world, the eighteenth century discovered these hidden things like gravity, magnetism, electricity, some of these feelings can't be seen existing in the social world. that is -- the social scientist in scotland, adam smith and david hume and lord homan are looking for these kinds of feelings. that remains a strong liberal element. can't we just love one another? can't we just get along? the rodney king line. can't we all just get along? that feeling is very strong liberal feeling. it originates back in this period. jefferson is the supreme spokesman for it.

he believes every person no matter how uneducated, no matter how poor, has this inherent moral and social sense and that is what makes him despite his slave holding such a supreme apostle for democracy. we are not wrong when we celebrate jefferson even though he was an aristocratic slaveholder. he nonetheless believed that every person had this feeling--hamilton thought that was hot water but jefferson said ask a common and a professor a moral question and nine out of ten times the plowman will get it right and a professor will get it wrong. there is a source of anti intellectualism in american life. professors get caught up in abstractions and so on and a plowman just feel. it just comes from his feelings.

that is why we are not wrong and lincoln was not wrong when he said all honor to jefferson. he focused on the notion of equality. jefferson comes in for hard knocks because the hypocrisy -- aristocratic slaveholder who is a spokesman for democracy, the greatest irony in american history. but there is some truth to it. to is being our spokesman. any questions? >> i don't want this to sound contentious, but how does jefferson -- credited with founding a military academy, how does that play into the view you have just given? >> jefferson who seems to be so anti military, certainly anti standing army, e ends up

founding west point. the federalists dominated the army. federalist officers everywhere. how do you get rid of them? we have got to train a new officer corps and the way to do it is to create a school which only republicans will go to. to put it briefly that is what he thought he was doing. creating a republican school. the officer corps of the army, there are only 172 of them by the time he came to power. he is scared of this officer corps and i want to replace them with republicans. that helps explain. the seeming paradox of creating a military academy by this man who was really utterly opposed to standing armies, any kind of

sense of military force was an abomination to him. >> question on james madison. how should we think of madison in 1780 verses the madison that appears in 1790? >> there areus the madison that appears in 1790? >> there are two james madisons. madison thinks the states are the source of america's trouble and the creation of the federal government is the solution. ten years later, the end of the 1790s he thinks the federal government under hamilton's leadership has become the problem and the solution is the state's. kentucky and virginia resolutions suggest the states are the ballpark and the defender of american liberty. there's a tremendous transformation in madison's opinion. he is the man who can be

attributed -- who is the father of the constitution? james madison. he creates the federal constitution. the virginia plan is the working model for the convention. next thing you know he is in opposition to the federalists, the leaders of the national government. how do you explain that? that is not easy to explain. explained by the fact that his vision of what the national government would be is rather long. madison's division which is in the federalist papers is a dispassionate and disinterested empire who would resemble what the king should have been ideally in the empire. someone at the top, congress is going to sort out the problems like an umpire. he had a negative bill into the

virginia plan. the congress would have veto power over all state laws which is what the crown has. his image of the congress is a replacement for the crown. he doesn't get -- it is impractical. can you imagine if congress had to sort out the state laws coming in from 50 states? it was impractical. the convention in its wisdom has article i section x which is a series of prohibitions on what the states can do. madison had to be satisfied with that. he was not satisfied. his letter to jefferson in october of 1787 is full of despair. they killed my veto power. it is not just not going to work. that is how much he feared the state. that was his image of the government. hamilton has a very different

image. washington buys into hamilton's vision that we are a european tight state. it will take a while but we will build up, we will be as strong eventually as england and france and then we can take iman. in the meantime, let's just lay low. let's not create premature conflict with them until we get strong enough to take the lawn on their own terms. we will have a strong army and bureaucracy and debt and we will extract money and material wealth from our people without impoverishing them which is the english genius. that is what they have done in the eighteenth century. a third of the population of france had become the dominant power in the world. how did they do it? they learned how to extract money without impoverishing their people. the french couldn't do that and they could build up tremendous force and material wealth and

use it in law making. hamilton senses this. he senses how the debt can be used. nobody understood -- we don't understand them now but they didn't understand them either. they couldn't imagine how john adams -- john adams is not a full-fledged federal list. he is close its jefferson. he can't understand how a bank can lend out money printing pepper -- paper. we promise to pay -- washington bank was created in 1801 and still exist. we promise to pay the bearer on demand gold and silver. they can issue this paper on the understanding that most people won't come in -- hard to carry gold and silver, easy to carry the paper. the banks -- no one understood this. jefferson never understood it.

hamilton understood it. these banks made the economy work but they abuse the privilege. talk about reserves in leveraging. as the best example is here in rhode island. a book just recently out on this, this bank had $600,000 of notes, $86 to backup -- that is negligent. it fails. this is the first bank in american history to go bankrupt. setting a precedent for our own times. any other questions? i can't see everyone. do you have one? >> hope this doesn't sound too corny but of all the people you deal with in this particular book, which one would you most

like to be able to speak to? >> that is a good question. speak to. i admire a lot of them. jefferson would be wonderful to have a conversation with because he was so well read and knew so much but i think -- he was a kind of knee-jerk liberal. he didn't have a quizzical mind. he didn't question much. madison has the most interesting mind. richard rush, benjamin rush's son, said madison would come in as president, he would think about republicanism, going back to the greeks and mormons and talk about it and this is peculiar. i never heard of a politician who actually thought about issues like that and madison was

a very shy person normally and they're doing a big thing now with dolly who is much more exciting. he would be the most interesting to have a private conversation with i think. washington obviously is the most important figure of the period. in the 1790s, without him the nation would have fallen apart. he was the embodiment of the union. people had no loyalty to the united states. it is comparable to europe today. they're trying to build loyalty to something called europe. is very difficult. people are loyal to germany, france, ireland but this thing called europe, that is the problem they faced. how can you wean them from their royalty? citizens of massachusetts for 120 years or so, how can you wean them from that loyalty to

of virginia or massachusetts? and turn them to the union? washington stood for the unions so they could look up to him as a clause i mark. they had been under a monarch's their whole lives so it was likely to look to someone like washington who stood for the united states, the country itself couldn't attract that kind of loyalty. that is his claim to fame. he had an enormous amount of charisma. he had a standing with the people that no president, no subsequent president had. he was the only president that got every single electoral vote. he stood head and shoulders above the others. they are respected him. he is a charismatic figure and like a king he had that personal loyalty but he is not someone