consumers taking on debt more and more as what we are seeing is a hangover now from that period. the fallout from financial crises is very slow and recovery takes a number of years. part of what is happening today is cyclical and problems will mitigate once consumers the leverage and can spend again but that is a long process and will be longer if government hinders rather than helps but you are right. the others thing that is going on that i described in this talk is much more the business cycle. it is an acceleration of the hollow when middle-class driven by technology. that may slow down again a little bit once we come out of this period for a time but it is certainly going to continue and

that is why i think in addition to short-term measures to stimulate the economy we really need to think broadly as a nation about how for the next generation and people who are currently falling on the middle class how we can build a broad and sustainable middle-class country again because the one we have is falling apart. .. [inaudible conversations] >> this event was hosted by politics & prose bookstore in

washington d.c. you can visit them on the web at politics -- prose.com -- politics-prose.com. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. now on booktv, historian john ferling parens a history of the american -- presents a history of the american declaration of independence from britain in july of 1776. this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. thank you. i'm the director of the kansas city public library. i'd like to welcome our audience here in kansas city and across the nation thanks to booktv for an evening with john ferling. i'd like to mention a couple of

upcoming events before i introduce professor ferling. we continue a series next week, next wednesday with here at the central library that we started as much of our programming is funded by the kaufman foundation, i particularly mention them because this was their idea, and a great idea. we're doing a series called kansas city cradle of entrepreneurs. over time we'll be doing a history of entrepreneurship in kansas city, but right now we're having conversations with some of our great contemporary entrepreneurs, next wednesday john mcdonald, the brewing pioneer, founder of boulevard brewing company, the finest beer in america -- [laughter] i hesitate to say that with samuel adams being on the program tonight, but i'll be interviewing john, and you'll hear some great stories about how he created america's

greatest brewery. also, by the way, i was his banker before i became a librarian. [laughter] so i know the inside story, and carrie mcdonald, his sister, is one of our outstanding employees, and she has pictures and bail bonds receipts. [laughter] so that should be fun. also this is, obviously, a history-loving audience. we have terry beckonbaugh here on thursday, august 11th, talking about one of the most important battles of the civil war in our part of the country, maybe the most important, the battle of wilsons creek. this is part of an ongoing series we're doing with the college at fort leavenworth, and we're doing this more or less on the anniversaries of the great battles of the civil war. so look for that. and then i also want to mention we have a documentary film, an excellent film called "45 years

across the bridge" about the battle of selma, the march on selma with the film maker, and that'll be coming up at the plaza library on thursday, august 25th. we've got a lot more coming up and, please, pick up a calendar, get on our mailing list, join the friends of the library, find out about all the great stuff we have coming up. but tonight i want to introduce john ferling whose book "independence" continues a great series of books on the revolution that he's been writing. after a distinguished career as an academic at the university of west georgia as a biographer, among other things, of joseph galloway, probably the deepest study of a torrey, an opponent of the revolution, after a distinguished career, academic career he has written a series of books setting the world

ablaze, "leap in the dark: adams v. jefferson," "almost a miracle," and the book that he brought to kansas city, brought with him to kansas city to talk about here at the library a couple of years ago, "the ascent of george washington: the hidden political genius of an american icon." in the short space of seven or eight years, he's produced this wonderful series of very well-written, deeply-researched books that are popular history at their very best and academic research at its very best. a great combination. and unlike -- he's, of course, an expert as a biographer of galloway on the politics of washington, and i do have to say his writing is a big part of what makes these books so good. unlike what john dickenson said about joseph galloway, the two great opponents in pennsylvania politics along with benjamin franklin, he does not commit continual breaches of the rules

of grammar in utter ignorance of the english language, the pompous of security -- that's what dickenson said about galloway. on the contrary, he's the master of the telling quote, of the revealing anecdote, the view of richard henry lee with his velvet-gloved hand, maimed hand gesturing during his speeches or benjamin franklin standing for two hours without moving his face as he's berated by commons, the house of commons committee, a moment that may have changed the course of the american revolution. so humiliated, was franklin. he's a wonderful historian. he shines a bright light on character as the motivating factor of the american revolution, and i'll quote one of the great quotes of john

adams which he uses toward the end in his epilogue. what john ferling does so well in all of these books and continue in his next book on hamilton and jefferson that we'll get him back for in another couple of years is he explains how the revolution commenced, how the revolution was made in the minds and hearts of the people and the character of the american people and the founders. so it's a great pleasure to introduce john ferling. [applause] >> well, thank you. and thank you for coming out on this very hot evening. i feel like i'm back in atlanta again, as if i never, never left. [laughter] actually, you -- today your temperature topped anything that we've hit this year by five degrees. [laughter] but, but we can beat you on humidity.

[laughter] so tonight i want to talk a little bit about my book on independence, and let me say initially that the book actually had its origin in if -- in an article that i wrote for the smithsonian magazine that appeared back in 2004. but i was working on a long book on the revolutionary war at that time, so i couldn't, couldn't take that article forward and make a book out of it. and then i got sidetracked with george washington and looking at how and why he became an american icon. but when that one was finished, then i wanted to get back to the book on independence. and this is a book that looks at the last 30 months before

independence. it starts with the boston tea party, essentially, starts with the boston tea party in december 1773 and runs down to july of '76. and i try to look at both sides. the subtitle of the book is "the struggle to set america free." and i try to look at the struggle both in america and in great britain. tonight because of time constraints i'm only going to talk about what was going on in america, and particularly in the continental congress and see if we can come to some resolution about why those who favored independence won this struggle in if -- in july of 1776. in the predawn darkness of july 1, 1776, john adams awakened in

his rooming house in philadelphia, got up and by candle light wrote a letter to a former georgia congressman and an old friend named arkansas. bald and said today is set for the greatest debate of all. today we are going to debate whether to declare american independence. and as adams was a leader of congress and had his pulse, his finger on the pulse of congress, he knew what the outcome would be. in fact, in his next sentence to bollic, adams says in that letter, "may heaven bless the newborn repluck." -- republic. so he knew that independence was going to be declared, he just didn't know if it would be that day, july 1st, or the next day,

july the 2nd. and he was wasn't certain how many colonies would actually vote for independence. he was hoping it would be unanimous, but he did not know that for sure. and if adams knew that independence was about to be declared, he better than anyone understood just how difficult it had been to get to this point. after all, the first great american protest against british policy had occurred 11 years earlier. the british army had occupied boston eight years earlier. the boston massacre had occurred six years earlier. the boston tea party almost three years earlier. and believe it or not, and many people i think are surprised to learn this, the war had broken out 15 months earlier.

so for all of the first 15 months of the war america was not fighting for independence, it was fighting to remain within the british empire but on america's terms. so adams knew it had been a long, difficult road. and years later looking back on these events adams wrote all the great critical questions made by congress in 1774, 1775 and 1776 had been by close votes, often by only a single vote marginment of -- margin. so now congress is meeting, it's during the war in if 1775 -- in 1775, and there are two factions in congress.

i looked through the congressmen, looked through their diaries, searched high and low to see if any one of those congressmen gave names to the two factions that existed. but all i could find was that one member of congress called his faction the sensible members of congress. [laughter] and another congressman called his faction the energetic members of congress. so that just won't do. that doesn't tell us very much. i'm going to call one faction the conservative faction and the other faction the radical faction. bear in mind, those are just my terms. no one used those terms at the time. they might not even know what we were talking about if they could come back and hear us use those terms. but i'll try to explain as we go along why i think conservative and radical are pretty good terms for these two factions.

let's look at the conservatives first. in many ways i think they are the most intriguing because they, that is the faction that opposed independence. we take independence for granted, and we think it was the logical decision for congress to make, so why would anybody oppose independence? but the conservatives did oppose independence. their objective was reconciliation with the mother country, reconciliation on their terms, on america's terms to be sure, but they did not want to leave the empire, and they did not want american independence. there were probably -- skipped right here. there were two leaders of the

conservative faction. in the first continental congress, the leader of the conservative faction was joseph galloway who you heard about during the introduction. galloway was a lawyer from pennsylvania, actually became a philadelphia lawyer when he was 18 years old. and this miniature portrait of galloway must have been painted not long after he was 18 years old. he looks incredibly young in that portrait. he's in his mid 40s by the time congress meets, however. he isn't very well known today. there are no cities named for galloway, no counties named for him, no schools named for him, and the reason for that is that galloway refused to support a war against great britain. so when the war broke out, he

left congress. and ultimately, he made an egregious blunder. during 1776 when the british army was pursuing general washington across new jersey, galloway presumed that the american cause was doomed, the british were about to win the war, and be he broke his -- and he broke his neutrality and offered his services to great britain. and he served the british army as an intelligence official and as police commissioner of occupied philadelphia. so that as the war wound down, galloway was forced to go into exile to england, and he died in london in 1803. but he was the original leader of the conservative faction. once he drops out of congress, he is succeeded by john

dickenson. dickenson and galloway were very similar in many respects. both of them were born into quaker families, they were born only 10 miles or so apart in maryland, their parents moved to delaware and settled within only 10 or 12 miles of one another there. both went to philadelphia and became lawyers. both became politicians. both married the daughter of the speaker of the house, different speakers of the house, different woman. [laughter] but both married very wealthy women who were daughters of the speakers of the house of pennsylvania assembly. and both were major politicians in pennsylvania. galloway really dominated pennsylvania during the 20 years before independence. he was benjamin franklin's

political partner, and he and franklin had a political party called the assembly party that dominated pennsylvania politics. he and dickenson, you would think, with all of these similarities would have been good friends. they weren't. they hated one another. they were on opposite sides of issues back in the colonial period, and they just became inveterate enemies. and once galloway drops out of congress, dickenson replaces him as the leader of the conservative faction. dickenson is a little bit better known than galloway. there are some places named for him including a college in pennsylvania that you might be familiar with. but at the time in 1775, john dickenson was perhaps the best known american. certainly, he was the best known

american politician, i think. benjamin franklin was probably known by more people, but dickenson was probably the best known american politician. he had written a pamphlet attacking british policies back in 1768, and he became well known in political circles all through the colonies. his image was reprinted in almanacs, his image was on display at a wax museum in boston. there was a ship named for him. so dickenson was quite well known when he became the head of the conservatives. i mentioned a couple of minutes ago that it's difficult to get a handle on the conservatives or at least they're intriguing, i think. and i might say that i think there were probably as many reasons for being a conservative in congress in 1775 as there

were conservatives. but i think we can probably narrow it down to about three things. three or four things. first, they tended to come from colonies, especially places like new york and new jersey and pennsylvania, delaware where they were stronger that had great economic ties to great britain. so they were reluctant to, they were, in fact, to see those -- they were loathe, in fact, to see those economic ties receiverred. they -- severed. they wanted to continue the prosperity that theyed that known through the 18th century. there was a great love for great britain not only among conservatives, but among most of the colonists, in fact, who looked upon great britain as the freest country in the western world. probably the most liberal politically and, certainly, probably the freest in terms of

religion. they also believed in the kent, george iii. and, in fact, the conservative program, this reconciliationist program in congress was built around two notions. one was they supported the war, and they believed that america could do well in the war against great britain and that as america won battles in the war, then the mood would shift in england toward negotiating with america. but they also believed in george iii who was the king, who represented all of the interests within the empire supposedly. and so the agenda for the conservatives was to have congress appeal to the king. what became known as the olive

branch petition to appeal to the king to intervene and open negotiations with america, and those negotiations the conservatives felt would resolve matters finally. and it might not be immediately. the war might have the go on for a year or two, but they were confident that these would, that these strategies would bring about what they desire. and finally, i think, people became conservatives for one other reason, and that is that they feared social and political radicalism. they feared that if independence occurred, there would be a social and a political revolution in america. and that was why i chose to call them conservatives. they did not want a social or a

political revolution. and their fears were not misplaceed because as we know, the american revolution was accompanied by social and political revolutions. by the end of the american revolution, america is a far more egalitarian place than it was before the revolution. and following the revolution, the country was on the road to democracy where perhaps as many as 40% of the adult white males had been unable to vote before the revolution or to hold political office. all adult white males could vote and hold office by the end of the 18th century. so the conservatives were conservative for all of those

reasons. on the other side are the group that i would call the radicals. and if conservatives are intriguing, the radicals are perhaps the most difficult of the two to understand. because in 1775 when the war broke out, not all favored independence. they feared any show of weakness would harm the war effort, but not all of them favored independence. but some did favor independence. this is samuel adams. and i think samuel adams probably favored independence back in the 1760s even.

he was joined by patrick henry. and i think patrick henry probably favored american independence as early as the 1760s. and patrick henry -- let's see, i've got a problem. here. patrick henry was joined by -- see if i can -- there we go -- by richard henry lee of virginia. and richard henry lee favored independence as well in the 1760s. and the leader of the radicals was john adams. and adams, we can pretty much determine when he became -- began to favor independence. adams was approached by samuel adams back in the 1760s, but he kept samuel adams, his

cousin, at arm's length. and when adams, samuel adams tried to get john to speak in public and attack the british, john adams' response in his diary was that way madness lies. he thought that samuel adams was plotting an american revolution, and he wanted no part of it. but. >> 1773 -- but in 1773 some letters written by the governor, the royal governor of massachusetts were made public, and those letters convinced john adams that there was a conspiracy afoot between british officials in america and british officials in london to destroy american liberties. and from 1773 on john adams favored independence. i think probably george washington came around the independence -- came around to

independence in the 1760s, and i think thomas jefferson came around to independence around that same time as well. but in 1775 john adams, sam adams, george washington, thomas jefferson, all the rest did not dare say they favored independence. they did not even dare utter the word independence. and they didn't because american unity was absolutely essential for waging this war. and if they spoke of independence, they would so frighten the conservatives that many of the conservatives would leave congress and american unity would be shattered. so what's the strategy then of the radicals? if strategy of the conservatives was to fight the war and appeal to the king, the strategy of the radicals was simply to let time

work its magic. time was on their side, they believed. and it turned out that they were exactly right in that regard. because in august of 1775, the king was handed the olive branch petition. this petition asking him to negotiate. and the king's response was not to receive the olive branch petition. that pulled the rug from under the conservatives, at least temporarily. they department give up hope -- they didn't give up hope, but it certainly indicated that their faith in the king was perhaps misplaced.

as far as the radicals were concerned, time was on their side because of the war. the war did a number of things. first of all, i think a great many americans simply felt betrayed by great britain's going to war against them. after all, in the previous war -- what we call the french and indian war that was fought in the 1750s when george washington was a 20-something-year-old colonel from virginia commanding the regiment -- the americans raised about 20,000 men each year. and without those armies which, incidentally, matched the size of the armies that the british were sending over to america, without those american armies, without the sacrifice made by

american soldiers, without the sacrifice made by american civilians who paid taxes upon taxes to wage that war, the british could not have gained the victory that they won in the french and indian war. and what was the americans' payback for their loyalty? it was british taxation. and other british policies that the colonists found objectionable from 1765 onward. in addition, the war radicalized americans. every time a family lost a son, every time someone's brother died in the war, every time someone's father died, every time someone's husband died in this war the members of that

family were radicalized. and they were radicalized when their neighbors went off to fight in the war and did not come back. and they were radicalized, too, when the war fell on them each as civilians -- even as civilians. for instance, on the day after the battles of lexington and concord when the war begins on april 19, 1775, america created an army that ringed boston and besieged the british army which was inside of boston, to keep the british army from coming out and attacking them again. after a few months, almost predictably, camp diseases broke out in if both of those armies, and those diseases spread out

into the suburbs around boston. and the disease spread to braintree, massachusetts, where john adams' wife, abigail adams, was living. and when the disease hit braintree, abigail adams' mother fell victim to the disease. and perished. a servant in abigail adams' home was taken ill, and she died. one of her sons was taken ill but, fortunately, survived and abigail herself fell ill but survived. it's possible and, in fact, i think probable that more civilians died in braintree from that epidemic than was true of the men from braintree who had

actually gone off to soldier. so civilians were paying a price. and it radicalizes abigail adams. she writes a letter, a bitter letter to her husband, john, in which she rails against the british prime minister, lord north, who was presiding over this war. and she says, oh, lord north, may the groans and cries harrow up thy soul. great britain is a tyrant state. let us separate. they are unworthy to be our brethren. so many people, i think, were radicalized as was sam -- as was abigail adams. but then in short order in many december and january -- in december and january in the space of about 30 or 40 days,

sometimes on back-to-back days, a series of things happened that really unleashed the spirit of independence. first, the governor of virginia, lord dunmore, actually in november though most people didn't realize it until december, issued a problem procn freeing the slaves if they would join an army that he was forming to suppress the american rebellion. and as many congressmen pointed out, dunmore's problem proclamas it was called did more to convert southern residents over to independence than anything that had taken place to this point. because all through the south

where close to a million -- close to half a million slaves were living, there was now fear of slave insurrections leading to widespread bloodshed. then in a second week of january not more than two or three weeks after most people became aware of dunmore's proclamation, a philadelphia newspaper printed a copy of a speech that the king had recently given when he opened parliament. and in that speech the king not only did not offer to negotiate, he in fact declared the americans to be traitors, and he promised what he called punishment for those who were leading and backing the american

revolution. so the gamble, the whole strategy of the conservatives had suddenly been taken away from them, had suddenly been proven to be an incorrect strategy. the king would not negotiate. and on the very next day after the king's speech was published in a philadelphia newspaper, a pamphlet hit the streets in philadelphia, a pamphlet called "common sense" written by thomas paine. apine's pamphlet before paine's pamphlet was the most important thing, i think, published in the 17th and 18th century america. in fact, bernard bailyn at harvard a few years ago said that in the 17th, 18th and 19th century the two most important

publications in if america were harriet beecher stowe's uncle tom's cabin and thomas paine's common sense, and i think he was precisely correct in that assessment. paine's pamphlet became a runaway bestseller. dickenson's letters from a farmer in pennsylvania back in 1768 had been a bestseller, had been the best-selling pamphlet, in fact, in the this imperial battle. and he had sold about 2,000 copies. within six months paine's "common sense" had sold 100,000 copies. and since copyright laws didn't exist, it was reprinted over and over in newspapers all across america. and portions of "common sense" were read by town criers or read

to the troops who were assembled in the continental early. so -- army. so many, many americans read or heard "common sense." today probably the best-remembered portions of "common sense" are paine's attack on monarchy, a devastating attack that perhaps destroyed for all time any interest in having monarchy in america. but also paine challenged reconciliation and urged instead independence saying that america had nothing to gain from reconciliation, but it had peace and prosperity to gain from independence. but in addition to that, there is something else about "common sense" that i think was crucial.

paine gave meaning to what was going on. to this point, much of the talk had been about taxation without representation, and that sort of thing. but paine transformed this into a glorious cause. paine talked about this as being a great event that would change world history. in fact, paine uses the expression that the american revolution is the birthday of a new world and that the sweeping changes that will come in america from independence will cross the atlantic and will stimulate similar revolutions in europe as well. so he gave a meaning to the

revolution. and perhaps for the first time gave some meaning to what the united states would be like. remember the conservatives had said to declare independence is a leap in the dark. we don't know where we're going. but paine now painted this image of a united states that would gain peace and prosperity and whose example would be transformative for people living everywhere in the, in the world. and then almost immediately after "common sense," a fourth event occurred. the americans lost a battle. it was the battle of quebec fought on the last day of 1775 when an american army led by richard montgomery and benedict arnold who was still on our side

at that point attacked the british and tried to capture the city of quebec. and failed. it was the first great defeat that the americans had suffered in this war. and the news of that defeat reached philadelphia four or five days after paine's "common sense" was published. and from the moment that the news of this military setback hit congress, many in congress began to think openly and speak openly about independence. why? because they realized that victory in this war was possible only with foreign assistance. and foreign assistance was

possible only if america declared independence. france might aid america, spain might aid america and others might as well, but if objective was to be reconciled with great britain, there was nothing for these foreign powers. but if america became independent, britain would be weakened, they might gain american trade, they might be willing to come to the assistance of america. and so starting early in 1776, you can almost feel a groundswell for independence building. committees of safety call for independence. colonial assemblies pass resolutions authorizing their congressmen to vote for independence. and finally, in the may of 1775

virginia's assembly passed a resolution actually instructing their congressmen to introduce a resolution calling for congress to declare independence. and richard henry lee who was the leader of the virginia delegation on june the 7th, 1775, introduced the motion calling for independence. there was an immediate debate, a sharp debate that lasted for two days, and four of the conservatives spoke against independence; john dickenson spoke about it as you can imagine, james wilson from pennsylvania spoke against it, edmond rutledge from south carolina spoke against it -- i'll have to show you his

picture in a moment, i don't have an individual picture of robert l. livingston from new york who also spoke against independence. you might think this would be the death knell, political death knell for these four men. but think again. dickenson went on to serve in the constitutional convention and as a u.s. senator. wilson served in the constitutional convention and as a u.s. senator, and george washington appointed him to the supreme court. and rutledge became a governor of south carolina, and livingston the chief judge of new york who administered the oath of office to washington when he was inaugurated as president. they were answered by radicals, and at the end of the two-day debate congress decided not to do anything immediately other

than to appoint a, what the congressman called the committee of five. and that committee was to draft a declaration of independence. and the committee was instructed to submit the declaration on or by july the 1st. so they had three weeks. the committee met, and as best we can tell -- the record is sketchy and contradictory -- but as best we can tell the committee turned to thomas jefferson who's the tallest figure in that picture. this is john adams on the left. next to adams is roger sherman from connecticut. that's robert r. livingston who's between jefferson and sherman. then jefferson and on the far side, benjamin franklin. the committee chose jefferson to write the declaration.

the committee met, probably talked about the format and what it was to look like, made clear to jefferson that he was not to introduce a lot of new ideas, but he was to explain independence in terms that the americans understood. jefferson wrote the document very quickly, probably within three to five days, probably working here and there around the congressional sessions, maybe skipping a couple congressional sessions. and unlike most of my students, he beat the deadline. he got the declaration in -- [laughter] on june the 28th, a couple of days ahead of time. so remember when we started, i said that john adams wrote to archibald on july 1st, and he said today is set up for the greatest debate of all. and that was the date that

congress had set aside for this. so the debate began on june the 1st, dickenson was the first to speak. he had -- i forgot to show you these. this is jefferson, and here's a picture of jefferson perhaps puzzling over the declaration and benjamin franklin who was on the committee. the, when the debate begins, dickenson is the first to speak. it was a terribly hot day in philadelphia. the temperature climbed above 90, probably felt as hot or hotter than it did today. the room was closed off, all the windows were closed so no one could hear what was being said from the outside. there could be loyalists or british spies out there. and can dick -- and dickenson

spoke for two hours. and in that speech dickenson said that his once-grand stature had eroded because of his long fight against independence. but he said that he rejoiced that the burden that he had carried was almost over. and that he could not be silent even though he suspected it would lead to his political suicide. i must speak, though i should lose the affections of my countrymen. and in that two hours he gave an impassioned speech against independence. and when he sat down, it was john adams who rose and answered him first. and adams made an equally long speech. and as adams spoke, the skies darkened, thunder could be heard in the distance, then it grew

closer and closer. then spats of rain began to hit the windows in the pennsylvania statehouse where congress was meeting. and then a torrential downpour broke loose. and adams continued throughout. we don't have a record of adams' speech, but he certainly went back through all of the familiar arguments that he and paine and others had made over the years for independence. and it was, according to some of his colleagues, a great speech. richard stockton from new jersey called atlas -- called adams the atlas of independence. jefferson later called him the pillar of independence. and one congressman was so swept off his feet by adams' speech that he said he fancied an angel was let down from heaven to ill human min congress.

and when adams finished his speech, then everyone wanted to speak. everyone understood that this was an end call day, and the speeches continued on july the 1st until night began to fall, and can then the next day -- and then the next day the speeches resumed, but only briefly. congress was pretty much talked out. and on, on judgement the 2nd -- july the 2nd as best we can tell, around noon on that day, congress finally voted on the question of independence. and the vote was unanimous; 12-0. new york's delegation had not yet been authorized to vote for independence, so it abstained. but each of the other 12 colonies voted for independence. and instantly ceased to be colonies and became states within the united states. and that evening john adams wrote a letter home to abigail

adams, and he said that from this day forward, july the 2nd will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. it ought to be commemorated with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of the continent to the other from this time forward forever more. and that, for that reason my wife and i always have a cookout on july 2nd. [laughter] that's when we celebrate. why do we celebrate it on the 4th? because the next year in 1777 congress forgot, and july 2nd rolled around and somebody in congress said, oh, my god, we declared independence a year ago today. we forgot to do anything. well, wait a minute. we approved jefferson's

declaration of independence on july 4th. so they hastily cooked up the celebration for july 4th, and that became the day that we celebrate. [laughter] but thank you very much. [applause] i'll be happy top try to answer some -- to try to answer some questions, and i think they'd like for you to come down to the microphone here because the, this session is being televised, and the people at home can't hear your questions unless you're at the microphone. >> okay. i'm curious to know if before the continental congress there was any sense among the colonies of a unity? you spoke a little bit about the armies being raised individually and going off to fight the french and indian war, but did massachusetts think of south

carolina, for instance, as a sister colony? >> no. there's really no unification. i used to always tell my students to when they pictured a map, to picture the americans not facing one another, but looking across the atlantic at great britain. i don't mean to say that there was never any cooperation, but even back in the 17th century the four new england colonies got together and formed something called the new england confederation to fight and end wars. but by and large there's just no, no cooperation, and, in fact, during the french and indian war benjamin franklin introduced plan of union as he called it at a conference in albany that called for the creation of an american congress that would direct that war. and not one single colony voted in favor of that.

no colonial assembly wanted to give up one iota of power. so the continental congress is really a new phenomenon. there had been a stamp act congress back in 1765 to protest that tax, but not all of the colonies attended that. so this is really something that's new. >> thank you very much for the evening. it was very enjoyable. >> thank you. >> i'd say more on the topic, but mr. kemper took all my words in his introduction. you started off your presentation with a quote, excuse me, from a john adams letter on july 1st, i think. and i was intrigued by the words "god, may god bless the republic." i probably wouldn't have been as intrigued if it were "may god bless the country." >> well, i don't think he

said -- he didn't say god bless, he said "may heaven prosper the newborn republic." >> the word "republic" is what intrigues me. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> it suggests to me that at least at this point in time somebody had begun to consciously drill down on governance in a postrevolutionary era, and that's sort of new to me. is that, am i overreading? >> no, no the, you're right on target. they had, several colonists had used the term "republic," and there was a sense that they, that america was already sort of a de facto republic in a sense given their colonial governance. but thomas paine had written at length in "common sense," i didn't mention that, about a republican government as the antithesis of a monarchy, representative form of

government. and i think there that point on -- and i think from that point on paine really brought it out in the open, and it was just talked about widely from that point on. and the assumption was that this would be a, that the united states would be a republican nation, little r there. >> 'always been -- i've always been very fascinated by this session of these men getting together and making these important decisions. and yet as i understand there was no public record, exact minutes were not taken or at least were never published. so what you have to turn to is other ways to find out what may have happened. what happens oftentimes is that hollywood takes over, and in the one of the enjoyable movies and plays i've ever seen is "1776."

and it points out a lot of the things that happened. how accurate was that movie and hollywood to what really happened? >> okay. yeah, i think really your question has two parts that i want to address. one is congress published a journal of what it had done, but it was really a bare bones journal. they didn't publish the debates, and after all, they were at war, and there were differences within congress, and they didn't want their enemies here, the loyalists here or the british across the sea to be particularly aware of those differences. we can, i think, get a handle through some of the letters of reminiscences and some of the good diaries that were kept, especially john adams' diary, i think, provides something of a record of the debate and who was saying what. not on each and every debate,

but on many of the debates. and as far as "1776" is concerned, i haven't seen that movie in about 35 years now, but i went back and reread the play. i didn't go to blockbuster, i just reread it when i was working on this because i was interested in the depiction of caesar rodney. delaware had three delegates to congress, and one delegate, one of the three always voted with the conservatives, and the other always voted against -- with the radicals. so those two divided. and rodney was not present on july the 1st when dickenson and adams spoke in the de-- and the debate really began. so that if rodney was not present when the vote was taken,

then delaware's vote would be 1-1, and it wouldn't count. delaware wouldn't declare independence. in the, if you remember the play, "1776," or you've seen the movie, rodney is depicted as having had a stroke early in june, and he says i want to go home to die, and he tells john adams, you carry on the fight and whatever. and then it fast forwards to july the 2nd, and a very ill caesar rodney who's that third delegate from delaware is brought to philadelphia, and he arrives at the last possible moment just in time to cast the vote that puts delaware over the top as favoring independence. so i looked at caesar rodney in

some detail in the book, and i discovered that not only is there this legend of rodney being ill, but also there is a legend of caesar rodney having gone home to delaware to care for his very ill wife. .. to fight to get the legislature to change its mind and permit

the congressman to the fur independence and succeed for that. he was also a colonel in the militia in delaware and while he was home there was a huge loyalist uprising and so he sent several days out in the field suppressing that loyalist uprising and the story that was told many times, sort of embellish in 1776 is that after the debate on july 1st, just overnight, his colleagues in congress who also supported independence paid for a courier to ride down to delaware and fetch anthony and he came by. it stretches credulity that that could happen. it is a 60 mile ride from

philadelphia down there by horseback. he had to find rodney and rodney had to make a 60 mile ride back and it was a stormy night. he probably could not have done it in the eight for nine hours that all of this supposedly took place. what probably happened was around june 28th or so, a courier was dispatched, rodney got the word in advance but was still fighting loyalists and he probably left some time on july 1st and made a long ride back and did arrive during the morning of july 2nd with the best evidence that he arrived three hours before the vote was taken.

>> a couple comments. the united states, the north and the south had so many differences culturally, turfwise, slavery, i would like to have your opinion of why they became united. >> it was a difficult matter for them to become united because you couldn't be more correct. there were striking differences between the north and the south and one of the things that was talked about was that the north had fought far more wars than the south had fought back in the colonial period. and many of the conservatives were predicting that if we became independent, what would ultimately happen was there would be a civil war and that the north would invade the south

and destroy the south. and of course that he eventually did happen but not for 75 years. what some of my friends in georgia still refer to as the war of northern aggression. there were great obstacles to unity but what brought them together was this common thread. george washington said over and over again to his troops, and really worked to in still americanism in his troops when he was in command, this is not a new england problem. this is an american problem and we have to stay together. franklin allegedly said -- whether he did or not i don't know. it might be one of those 1776 type myths but franklin allegedly set we have to hang together or we will hang

separately. that helped preserve american unity. >> the second comment. several years ago in american heritage there was an article on the most underrated and the most overrated of the founding fathers. my opinion is the most underrated is john adams and the most overrated as thomas jefferson. and benjamin franklin somewhere in between. >> i wouldn't agree with you on jefferson. adams may no longer be so underrated because of the hbo movie and david mccullough's biography and many other things

that have popularized adams. i don't think we can ignore george washington as being a crucial founding father. >> when you first mentioned john adams in 1773, he felt it wasn't the right time to irritates england. >> in the late 1760s in 1773 when he is converted to independence. >> i know the declaration of independence has a whole list of things that showed tyranny of the crown over the colonists but besides taxes, were there really any plans in england to make the

colonists more disenfranchised with them by doing more to squeeze them for money or other things? >> that is a good point. the feeling was, when i taught, i used to always tell my classes taxes are what people talk about but at bottom to a considerable degree, maybe the taxes get the ball rolling, but in time it becomes a movement for greater american autonomy, feeling we can stand on our own two feet. we are capable of going it alone. we don't need british protection. we want to control our own destiny. and so i think that becomes a part of this movement as well but the british really govern with a very light hand but there

were concerns in america that if the british succeeded with taxation then there would be something else and there would be something else beyond that and certainly we can look at history and we can see any number of instances. remember hitler in the 1930s this is my last territorial demand and a year later there would be another demand. so that was the mood of people in the protest movement that we must draw a line in the sand and we must not tolerate any british taxation of america. [applause] >> for more information visit the author's and website,

johnfurling.com. >> i am an unrepentant idealist. i understand strength as a real blessing and this book as much as anything is a gesture of gratitude to the people who have given me those gifts of hopefulness and idealism. the teachers who gave me a reason to believe in a brighter future. the family and strangers who gave me a reason to believe in the power of kindness. the church ladies on the south side of chicago who gave me a reason to believe in the essence of faith. the voters for that matter who have given me a reason to believe in the politics of conviction and many others. a friend of mine describes this book as a love story which for me was the most powerful complement i could be given. i wanted to write about these people and the lessons they taught me for two reasons. first because they have done

more than help me succeed. they helped me want to be better. be a better leader, better husband and apparent. of better citizen. secondly because it is within each of us to pass these lessons to others. we have a generational responsibility to do just that. as some of you know and as was alluded in the introduction i grew up on a south side of chicago in the 50s and 60s on welfare. my mother and sister and i shared a two bed room tenement with our grandparents and various cousins who came and went. my mother lived in one of those that rooms and shared a bunk bed from the top to bottom on the floor every surge night on the floor. sometimes violent public school. we had a community. those were days when every child was under the jurisdiction of every adult on the block. remember that? umass of and for the misjudged

that she would strain you out as if you were hers and call home. what adults were trying to get across was they had a stake in us. and membership in a community was understanding the state each of us has not engine just our own dreams and struggled and our neighbor's as well. given the expectation that much of society has for poor black people i am not supposed to be where i am today. my story is improbable that is a distinctly american story. it may not get told that often as we like in this country begets more often than any other place on earth. it is a defining story. in 1970 i got a break for a program called a better chance to go to milton academy. for me that was like landing on a different planet. i thought for the first time the night before classes began in

1970 all by myself, my family didn't see it until graduation day. i had a dress code in those days. boys wore jackets and ties to class. when closing list arrived my grandparents splurged on a brand new jacket for me to wear to class but a point on the south side of chicago is a windbreaker. first day of class all the other boys were put on their blue blazers and tweed coats and i in my windbreaker. i have figured it out. i struggled to find my footing but again there were teachers and other adults who reached out. i went on to harvard college and urge my family to go to college and harvard law school. i lived in chicago and boston and los angeles and new york and d.c. and the sudan. i had business all over the world and some remarkable experiences. remarkable ones in the eyes of

many. are argued in the supreme court and hitchhiked in khartoum and counsel two presidents and served as the first black governor of massachusetts my first time running for office. as i reflect on each of these experiences each has its roots in the lessons i tried to write about in this book. lessons have given me a sense of the possible and that has made all the difference. i right in the book about the transition from the south side of the chicago to milton academy about the experience of trying to bridge very different worlds where each one seems to demand that you reject the other as the price of acceptance in the one and how important it was for me to understand ultimately that that was a false choice. i write about the way the old ladies in big hats in church back home taught me to see that faith is not so much what you say you believe but how you live. i write about the extraordinary