letters from france proposing that the constitution be turned down by both the virginia and maryland ratifying conventions. he wanted a majority to ratify the constitution, but he also wanted a few others to hold out until a bill of rights was added. ..

to stand for president against john adams in 1776. not offended some arm twisting and obliged jefferson to reenter politics. he had done this once before in 1782, when he convinced jefferson to enter the diplomatic corps and join franklin and adams in europe. without madison's earlier intercession, jefferson at that point, a disgruntled ex-governor and a recent widower, what is -- might've been holed up in his private library and remade the virginia provincial. madison was ambitious as he was a man of print the bull. by 1791, he found his friend president washington turning away from his view of balanced government. checks and balances. and instead, turning towards hamilton view of cultivating -- and this was madison's view of cultivating money men and making them a privileged class with special access to the executive.

madison was no longer satisfied just to be the leader of a growing congressional opposition. he understood the power of the press. there was at this point only the pro-administration vehicle. and he recruited his college roommates, the poet philip renaud too added a critical paper. madison wrote under a pseudonym infernos paper, taking on hamilton and proclaiming the difference between what he claimed were the real friends of the republic and the would-be aristocracy. here again is what makes this book different. madison was a sturdy political operative, not merely a political thinker. >> in 1793, when war between england and france placed americans in one of two camps, there was no middle ground. hamilton wrote preciously of madison and jefferson that they have a womanish attachment to

france in the womanish resentment towards england. even more demonstrably than madison, jefferson spelled out who he thought of as their domestic enemy. the armchair speculator, a pompous, in effect to it and the civic species that produce nothing of value. none of commerce who thrived on their association with the british juggernaut and had transferred loyalty to london. jefferson habitually express a hatred for monarchy. this was the mantra of his political existence and produce an obsessive fear that hamiltonian federalists espouse republican government and i quote, only as a steppingstone to monarchy. drawing a line in the sand, jefferson claimed for his inventive side a small provincial modest hard-working of the american nation. of course, when he used the innocuous word farmers to describe america's republican core, jefferson concealed the

truth about his prime constituency, wealthy slaveowning aristocratic virginian spirit which ever since peculiar habit to personify his political enemies are meant to give them a physical form through corporeal medicare's. he dumped the federalist mana currents, in a word he coined, the combination of my cats and aristocrats. if monica is -- not a and ailments with own unique apology. it was a feminine disorder embodied in the timid, nervous constitution and a parasitic desire to worship the strong or pseudo-aristocrats were backwards in their thinking and out of step with the times, dysfunctional and doomed, like dinosaurs of jurassic part thomas jefferson defeated monica as a poison introduced into the natural environment. in a natural entity, unable to progress, unable to adapt to new ways of thinking, dr. jefferson aimed to create new healthy

cells of the body would feel completely once this disease in anachronistic minority data naturally. on the case of african-americans, unloved offspring at the institution of slavery, he preferred to purge the body of them to expel them all together and read replaced by transfusion new blood in the form of white european peasants or laborers. madison's adopted the term autocrat, the, the more likely called his opposition anglicans and with less likely to blame federalist policies on inherent defects or psychological failings. madison focused instead on social forces, errors in reason and balances of power that demanded structural solutions. so jefferson approach politics as an experimental position, recommending a healthy lifestyle. and madison saw politics from the perspective of an unrelenting chessmaster, with a

steady eye on the notes of the most pieces and the people in so many ponds. regardless of the metaphor we choose, theirs was a cutthroat business, consequently they are often devious strategy does not have to diminish the achievement of either madison or jefferson. in writing the story of their rise to power, we have tried to shift emphasis from the less tangible judgments of their private character to the culture of competition amid a nationwide struggle to define how your public should constitute itself. there is rarely a single moment in historical research, a smoking gun that permanently changes the way we think about the past. the madison jefferson relationship is too complex to be understood in soundbite. the most extraordinary misjudgment in the historical record is of course the portrayal of the cerebral madison as the perennial dullard

among the founders. while it's true that she was opaque to many observers, he was not unemotional. he had a raucous sense of humor. those who saw him up close overtime particularly in the context of political performance, knew that he could become flustered, frazzled and every so often khorasan. jefferson held onto his resentments. madison was able to move beyond them. however how both consistently felt an intense time pressure from european would-be colonizers. and so come expansion keenly absorbed them. florida, cuba, canada, the west pier at america, especially jefferson's eyes would be peaceful and resilient as the breeder nation. his political vocabulary was rich and allusions to affection, attachments, health, good air, natural abundance. and the almost hysterical rejection of that blood.

it all added up to expansion of the white american species, hardy pioneers. the personal independence with them. what nancy and i have learned most of the research process is a humbling fact that the americans past cannot be told in anyone's book, that past is dirty, messy. the regions north, south and west had an arguably and still have distinct political and cultural personalities into a significant extent, this is owing to the legacy of plantation slavery -- the plantation system and slavery. interstate relationships, especially the virginian new york access have not been studied sufficiently coming at the power dynamic there was certainly volatile. >> so that is some of what we've learned as scholars. what we learned us writers has been a dual biography is much more than a standard single biography. by focusing on two lives going on at the same time, often in

two different places, one is periodically engaged in the others disengaged from key political events. their communication reveals the pro arte to then react with. one man playing off against the other, trusting, doubting, second-guessing. it's more like real life. you see their in motion. the dual biography adds a level of intensity to their humanity. there is a collaborative tension as they consciously struggle to change the course of history. but we've also found is as virginia's, madison and jefferson never thought about the republic without taking about slavery. for most of a policy matter or effort to reform has to engage with the national thin. in 1775, madison called the institution of slavery virginia's achilles' heel. jefferson's awkwardly worded paragraphs in the declaration of

independence, blaming mccain for opposing slavery on america had to be eliminated because of opposition from the deep south. when it came to foreign policy, madison and jefferson focus not only on the european powers of england and france, but also on the tiny island of haiti, fearing slave rebellions were contagious and they fled to louisiana and the u.s. south. madison and jefferson believed the southern economy, with its dependence on slave labor was viable. they both sold slaves as a last resort, yes. but still they did so into their retirement years. jefferson especially envisioned a nation had been racially untainted hughes. on his death in 1836, madison left a considerable sum to the american colonization society, whose design was to remove black people, but to call for

colonization was disingenuously couched in terms of philanthropy. even abraham lincoln, the great emancipator saw the merits of a voluntary removal plan to widen america. the point here, as throughout her book is that america's early theaters had few long-term solutions. as all people do, they rationalize inaction. our task is historical investigators is not to insult ourselves in transferring moral judgments to the past, whether it is to glamorize the achievement and imagine a golden age that never existed, or to use their failures to express self-satisfaction about her own motives as a modern more progressive culture. our task is to recover the language, the issues and the people that matter to them. their political environment, not our fantasy of sturdy nights, whose elegant prose is reflected

in their shining armor. madison and jefferson stood out because of their campaign psyches. they knew the revolution at its time, yet they chose to remember it as a moment of promise. they realize the political success was built on productive alliances, that one man alone could not transform a nation. thank you. back to [applause] >> we look forward to your questions. go ahead. >> well, i wondered about this great distaste they have for patrick kenney. and i'm guessing it's mutual. i'm wondering how much of that is about style and investments. >> in the legislature -- the

virginia legislature before madison and jefferson shifted their focus to national matters, they found themselves stymied every step of the way whenever they saw some reform, patrick kenney would automatically be on the other side standing in their way. jefferson tried to influence william worth biography of patrick henry. in fact, that a biography that gives us the quote that may or may not be accurate. give me liberty or give me death. so much of the knowledge -- the little knowledge we have of patrick henry comes from william worth 1817 biography. and jefferson tried to correct work by making sure the biography did not gloss over henry's weaknesses and especially jefferson wanted to say, make sure we emphasize that

henry had a love of money and he would do anything for a dollar that he was ill educated, studied the law for just several weeks and barely squeaked by in his examination for the buyer. so he looked upon henry at the time and historically when he was caring about legacy as a man of minor intellect shall we say. >> i just want to add one point. one of the interesting things about myself. he writes a very important manifesto before the constitutional convention is called vices of the political system of the united states. and he includes a very important passage, where he's describing the subject of oratory. he is talking how this figure is dangerous to the republic. nec is in the life and blood henry as his model. she didn't just think in terms of abstract. he based his political theory on the encounters that he had had

in the virginia assembly. and i think one other thing you have to realize is that madison had to take on henry and the ratifying convention. and it was, you know, henry basically took over the show. he refused to follow the designated plan and the way they were going to debate issue by issue. and it's an interesting moment because there's an effort to corral people, and other votes even before the ratifying convention is held. and you know, madison even before the actual meeting in philadelphia makes this claim, we're going to have to tie henry down, tie him down by the instructions. make sure he doesn't interfere. and he even imagines for the meeting in philadelphia, that henry is funny disunion. so these are real -- that not only emotional, not only about

style, but they're also about this kind of very personal political tension that has existed among virginians. >> henry mattered very much. he died in 1799, just a few months before george washington. and not long before his death, washington urged patrick henry to run against the democratic republicans to deny national election to jefferson. and it shows that throughout their building careers, manderson injustice and based henry in every way imaginable. when after the falling out with washington, once again patrick henry bloom does a good candidate to oppose jefferson, another virginian who might oppose jefferson for the president be. it's always got?

yes. >> can you tell something -- can you elaborate on the two-man and if there was issues i went back and forth between them, how did you deal with that to make it -- continuity. >> the question is how we collaborated on writing a book about these two partners. and the simple answer is that we've been intellectual part airs for close to 15 years and we've been arguing history for all that time. so, we've taken part in the process for each of us was writing a book individually. and we happen to finish our last books at the same time. they came out of at the same time in 2007.

and it was that time when we decided to do something together and it turned out to be dirty politics in america. >> i'll just add one thing. a lot of people imagined that somehow were adopting the persona of the two people were studying. well, that's not really what drew us into this project. basically we were interested in different themes or topics. we rode almost different games and then we would get together and revise it and work on it and debated. that were not secretly pretending to be the reincarnation of madison and jefferson. >> is about as much about the virginians. edmund pendleton, edmund randolph, albert gallatin of pennsylvania, people like this to interact with madison and

jefferson. so we were always talking about a whole configuration of individuals and groups across state lines and just trying to understand the dynamics of early american politics in any way to show that madison and jefferson found that they had to ally with one another to deal with tensions that they saw across the country when they themselves very often disputed one another in private. and you get that through the beautiful body of letters that we have of them. but yes, go ahead. >> one of the themes of the book is that madison was much more distrustful, but people than jefferson. and i wondered if he wanted to elaborate on that different than some of the differences between jefferson and madison.

>> well, the new collaborative tension and we know collaborative tension. but it's a good thing. madison was less easily upset and jefferson was. jefferson -- you see -- ucd emotionality and his correspondent. sometimes madison had to quiet him down. madison had one particular dislike. he generally, like will rogers didn't let dislike people. analyst john adams. he detested atoms for years and years and this was the one cantankerous member of the founding generation of jefferson was always ready to make amends with. so there's an interesting triangular bear. i think in terms of madison's

view towards the people, this is one of the things we had trouble understanding, as he wasn't anticipating democracy. and one of the dates he carries on in the federalist papers is an anonymous writer in new york known as burgess, who really believes that the representatives have to be closely influenced by their constituency. madison was uncomfortable with that. again, based on his observations of what i come on in virginia. but he basically felt that what he really wanted, the constitution to do and the new government to do was to create a system that would filter legislation, remove impurities, remove the mistakes. and when he writes about the states in anticipation of the constitutional convention he sees them almost as if very rambunctious group of children that need to be disciplined. this is also where there's a

very important differentiation between hamlet and chant hamilton and madison. often if you find one from hamilton that somehow jefferson seduced madison the way from hamilton and hamilton can't understand why it is that madison seems to beat his opponent. well, part of it is the way they thought about government was different. madison really wanted a government that would be more disciplined, you know, that would engage in discipline, would get rid of what they saw the exodus of government or access a concentration of powers. hamilton wanted an energetic that would augment power. so their views and thinking thinking about the kind that was different. it's not particularly surprising they would part ways in the 1790's. the other thing that's really important is different from madison and jefferson is that jefferson, we know his allusions

to the allman farmer. he tended to romanticize with people. not a sissy with hanging down with them and drinking beer with them, that he knew the people intimately and somehow the cerebral madison wasn't interact with the people. jefferson basically believed in the will of the majority. he believed that should be coming you know, the ruling principle across the board. but as you also discover about jefferson is that occasionally he realized that majority rule didn't work and majority rule seemed to be opposed to the policies he was backing. but they do have abstract principles and they are looking up the government and imagining the role of the federal government in different ways. and they don't completely lose that. one of the interesting thing about madison writing for the presidency begins to value the importance of what is called public opinion, but that public

opinion as it is known in the 18th century, which is educated public opinion. he thought it was a good idea for educated people to write for the press and help influence and shape of a larger people should respond to certain issues. so, we have to take into account the madison and jefferson doberman comp and overtime. there are, i think, fundamental differences that do remain in their thinking, but we don't want to lose sight. this is one of the problems, we tend to trap the founders and one. at the time and assume this encapsulates all of their thinking. what's not true. people of all, people their views coming in now, change in certain directions as they respond to political situations. >> a good example of this history to 1812, jefferson is the next president was coaching madison, privately writing letters to him, suggesting a gift worth 1812. none of them ultimately found that the best means with deficit

spending and to go back to a hamiltonian view of the bank, which madison himself had opposed in the early 1790's. so jefferson found himself -- his ideas overturned by madison have some critical moment. so to look upon these partners as to who saw eye to eye all the time is incorrect. i'm not what makes the half century of friendship so intriguing because they did dispute one another from time to time, not just idle, but substance. >> you are talking about fair economy at the 1790's. in the midterm election in 2010. what are the similarities --

[inaudible] have things really changed that much? do we know the kind of conflict -- [inaudible] >> the question asks us to compared 1790's to politics in 2010. there is no corporate finance. [laughter] the personal attacks are what's unchanged. and what we ordinarily don't associate with this patch a logical decade of 1790's but you know, it's hard for historians -- what we do is delete 18th century newspapers we don't try to find parallels to what's going on today. so probably we won't be able to give you a really colorful answer to that. >> well, i think one point you cannot do that. you have to remember that the

contentious political style, the use of satire, the use of innuendo, the nastiness of the press we inherited from great britain. and that is not our own unique creation although i think democracy feels that. but clearly, this idea of attacking the enemy became much more politicized through the newspapers in the 1790's, although we shout enemy's intentions existed much earlier. >> the act best in the popular press were very often english and irish immigrants, who sometimes madison and jefferson felt more comfortable dealing with your intermediaries because you didn't -- you didn't campaign for office. he didn't run for office. he stood for office. a gentleman was not supposed to

appear too interested in elective office. and seven newspaperman for increasingly important in the fact that they came from our table background rather than a genteel background made democracy happen in this country a little earlier than it otherwise would perhaps. >> my question is somewhat along the same lines. as you were so immersed -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> well, how madison and jefferson are quoted in the press and in the senate chamber

today -- well, one of the things that they encouraged us to write this book into the research deeply is that madison is generally known only as the so-called father of the constitution and a co-author of the federalist papers, which as nancy mentioned earlier were the federalist papers really didn't become important national documents until the modern age. so when madison is oversimplified and looked upon as just as the egghead of the founders who wrote the constitution and thought about -- thoughts in the language and perhaps even spoke in a language that would be hard for us to understand. you know, you miss his humanity. but what we've done is to