[inaudible conversations] >> and now on booktv, historian john ferling presents a er ho 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 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, here at central library that we started as much of our program is funded by the kauffman foundation -- i particularly mentioned 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 history of entrepreneurship in kansas city but right now we're having conversations with some of our great contemporary entrepreneurs, gail of bagel & bagel and spin pizza fame was here a few weeks ago and 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. 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 so i know the inside story and terry mcdonald, his sister, is one of our outstanding employees and she has pictures and bail bond receipts. [laughter] >> so that should be fun.

also, this is, obviously, a history-loving audience. we have terry again on august 11th talking about one of the most battles of the civil war in our part of the country, maybe the most important, the battle of wilson's creek. this is part of an ongoing series as many of you know we're doing with the command and general staff college at fort leavenworth and we're doing these 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, about the march on selma with filmmaker michael hersmark and that will be coming up on the plaza library on thursday, august 25th. i got a lot more coming up and please pick up a calendar.

get on our mailing list to join the friends of the library to find out about all of 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 the biographer of among other things of joseph galloway, the biography of the loyalist mind, probably the deepest study of a tory opponent of the revolution -- after a distinguished career, academic career, he's written a series of books setting the world ablaze, leap in the dark: adams versus 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 assent of george washington, the hidden political genius of an american icon.

in a short space of four or five 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 pennsylvania. and i do have to say his writing is a big part of what makes these books so good unlike what john dickinson said about joseph galloway the two greatest opponents in pennsylvania politics along with benjamin franklin. he does not commit continual breaches of roles of grammar and the pompous obscurity and that's what dickinson said about galloway, 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 a common house of 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 towards the end in his epilogue, what john ferling does so well in all of these books and will 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 in 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 on this very hot evening. i feel like i'm back in atlanta. [laughter] >> as if i never left. actually, today, your temperature topped anything that we've hit this year by 5 degrees. [laughter] >> 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 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. i couldn't get that article go 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 -- it 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" 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 july of 1776. in the pre-dawn darkness of july 1st, 1776, john adams awakened in his rooming house in philadelphia. got up and by candlelight wrote a letter to a former georgia congressman and an old friend named archbald bullock. and adams said in that letter

that today is set for the greatest debate of all. today we are going to debate whether to declare american independence. and as adams was the 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 bullock, adams says in that letter, may heaven bless the newborn 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 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 paula had occurred 11 years earlier. the british army had occupied boston eight years earlier. pau many people are aware that the war had broken out the war had broken out earlier. and 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 margin. so now congress is needing and it's during the war in -- congress is meeting and it's 1775. and there's two fractions in congress. i looked through the letters of the congressmen, looked through their diaries, searched high and low to see if any of those congressmen gave names to the two factions that existed.

all i could find is 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. that 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. but 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 why i go why 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 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 -- i'll skip to right here. there were two leaders of the conservative faction. in the first continental congress, the leader of the conservative faction was joseph galloway, whom you've heard about in 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's 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 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 in to exile to england and he died in london in 1803. but he was the original leader of this conservative faction. once he drops out of congress, he is succeeded by john dickinson. dickinson 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, a different woman, but both married very wealthy women who were daughters of the speakers of the house of the 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 dickinson, 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 he just became enemies. and once galloway drops out of congress, dickinson replaces him as the leader of the conservative faction. dickinson 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 dickinson was perhaps the best known american. certainly, he's the best known american politician, i think. benjamin franklin was probably known by more people, but dickinson 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 dickinson was quite well-known when he became the head of the conservatives. i mentioned a couple 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 strongest that had great economic ties to great britain. so they were reluctant -- they were loathe, in fact, to see those economic ties disturbed. they wanted to be reconciled with england and to the continue the prosperity they had known through the 18th century. there was a great love for great britain. not only among the conservatives but among most of the coloranis in fact who looked at great britain as the freest country in the rest of the world, probably the most liberal politically and certainly probably the freest in terms of religion. they also believed in the king, george iii. and, in fact, the conservative program, this reconciliationist

program 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 may not be immediately. the war might have to go on for a year or two but they were confident that these -- that these strategies would bring about what they desired. 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 misplaced 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 the 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 radicals favored independence. they favored taking a harder line than the conservatives wanted. 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. 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 got a problem here. [laughter] >> patrick henry was joined by -- 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 an independent -- 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 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 to independence in the 1760s, and i think thomas jefferson came around the 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 the 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 it olive branch petition. that pulled the rug from under the conservatives, at least temporarily. they didn't give up hope, but it certainly indicated they're 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 20-something-year-old colonel from virginia commanding the virginia regiment, the americans raised armies of 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 american's 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's died in the 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, even as civilians. for instance, on the day after the battles of lexington and concord where the war begins on april 19th, 1775, america created an army that went into boston, to keep the british army from coming out and attacking them again. after a few months, almost predictably, camp diseases broke out in 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 -- 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. ..

who they are unworthy to be our brethren. so many people i think will radicalize as was abigail adams. but then in short order in in december and january in the space of about 30 or 40 days sometimes back to back, a series of things happen that really unleashed the spirit of independence. first, the governor of virginia

actually in november, though most people didn't realize it until december issued a proclamation freeing the slaves what if they would join an army that he was forming to suppress the american rebellion and as many congressmen pointed out, his proclamation as it was called did more to convert southern residents over with to independence van anything that had taken place to this point because all through the south close to half a million slaves were living there was now year who of a slave insurrection leading to widespread bloodshed

one. then in the second week of january, not more than two or three weeks after most people became aware of the proclamation a philadelphia newspaper printed a copy were of a speech that the king had recently given when he opened parliament, and in that speech, the king who not only did not offer to negotiate with, he in effect declared traders and he promised the american revolution. the gamble of the 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.

on the next day after the king's speech was published in a philadelphia newspaper, a pamphlet hit the streets of philadelphia, a pamphlet called common sense, written by thomas paine. his pamphlet was the most important pamphlet written, most important thing i fink published in 17th and 18th century america that bernard at harvard few years ago said that the 17th, 18th and 19th century the two most important publications in america were harriet beecher stowe's on quote cabin and common sense and i think that he was precisely correct in that assessment. paine's pamphlet became a runaway best seller.

dickinson's letters from a farmer beckham 1768 had been a best seller and the best-selling pamphlet in fact in this imperial battle and he had sold about 2,000 copies. within six months, paine's common sense had sold 100,000 copies, and it was since the copyright laws didn't exist, it was reprinted over and over in newspapers all across america. and portions of common sense were read by the town criers with the troops assembled in the continental army. so many americans read or heard. today probably the best remembered portions common sense are the attack on malarkey.

a devastating attack that perhaps destroyed for all time any interest in having markey in america and also paine urged an independent saying that america had nothing to gain from reconciliation, but it had peace and prosperity to gain from independence. but, in addition to this, there was 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 payne transform this into a glorious cause. he talked about this as being a

great event that would change will history. in fact he uses the expression that the american revolution is the birthday of the new world and that the sweeping changes that will come in america from independence will cross the atlantic and stimulate similar revolutions in europe as well. so he gave a meaning to the revolution and perhaps for the first time he gave some meaning to what the united states would be like. remember the conservatives had said to declare independence means a leap in the dark. we don't know where we are going. but paine now, he did this image

of the united states that would game peace and prosperity, and his example would be transformed from for people living everywhere in the world. and then almost immediately after common sense, the fourth event occurred. the americans lost the battle. as the battle of quebec fought on the last day of 1775 when an american army led by richard montgomery and benedict arnold still on our side at that point attacked the british and tried to capture the city of quebec and field. it was the first grade to 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 foreign assistance and foreign assistance was possible only if america declared independence. france might aid america, spain might eight america, others might as well but if the objective was to be reconciled with great britain, there was nothing for these foreign powers, but if erica became independent, britain might be

weakened and they might be an american trade, they might be willing to come to the assistance of america. as a starting early in 1776 you can almost feel a groundswell for independence building. committees of safety call for independence. colonial assemblies passed resolutions authorizing the congressmen to vote for independence. and finally in may of 1775, va'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 7th, 1775 introduced the motion calling for independence. there was an immediate debate, sharpen the debate that lasted for two days, and four of the conservatives spoke against independence. dickinson spoke against it as you can imagine. james wilson from pennsylvania spoke against, edmund rauf leche from south carolina spoke against it. i will show you his picture in a moment. i don't have an individual picture of robert r. livingston from new york, who also spoke against independence. you might think this would be the political death knell for these men that think again. dickens and 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 a rock ledge became a governor of south carolina and livingston, the chief judicial judge of new york who ministered the oath of office to washington when he was inaugurated as president. they were answered by radicals and at the end of the debate, congress decided not to do anything immediately other than a point with 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 1st so they get three weeks. the committee met and as best we can tell the record is sketchy and contradictory but as best as we can tell, the committee turned to thomas jefferson, the tallest figure in that picture. this is john adams on the left. next adams is roger from connecticut and that is robert r. livingston who is between jefferson and sherman then jefferson and on the far side benjamin franklin. the committee chose jefferson to write the declaration. the committee probably talked about format and what it was to look like and they cleared jefferson that he was not to introduce a lot of new ideas, but he was to explain independence in terms of the americans understood.

jefferson wrote the document very quickly, probably within three to five days, probably working here or there are around the congressional sessions may be skipping a couple congressional sessions and unlike most of my students he beat the deadline. he got the declaration is on june 28th. remember when we start by said john adams wrote to archibald on july 1st and he said today his set up was the greatest the date of all, and that is the date that congress set aside for this. so the debate began on june 1st. dickinson was the first one to speak. i forgot to show you these. this is jefferson and here is a picture of jefferson and perhaps

puzzling over the declaration and benjamin franklin who looks on the committee. when the debate begins dickinson is the first to speak. it was a terribly hot day in philadelphia. the temperature climbed above 90, probably fell as hot or hotter than it did today. the room was closed off, all the windows were closed and no one could hear what was being said from the outside. there could be loyalists or british spies, and dickinson spoke for two hours. in that speech, dickinson said that his once grand stature had eroded because of his long fight against independence. but he said that he rejoiced at

the burden that he had carried was almost over and that he could not be silent even though he suspected a would lead to his political suicide it must be though i should lose the affections of my countrymen. and in that two hours, he gave and an impassioned speech against independence. and when he sat down, there was john adams who rose and answered him first and adams made an equally long speech, and as adams spoke, the skies darkened, founder could be heard in the distance and they grew closer and closer then rain began to hit the windows in the pennsylvania state where congress was meeting and then a torrential downpour broke loose and adams continued throughout but we don't have a record of adams' speech, but he certainly went back through all of the

familiar arguments that he and payne and others had made over the years for independence, and it was according to some of these colleagues a great speech. richard stockton from new jersey called atoms 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 and when adams finished his speech then everyone wanted to speak. everyone wanted to speak that this was an ethical day and the speech is continued on july 1st until the night began to fall and the next day this speech is resumed but congress is talked

out, and on july 2nd the best we can tell around noon on that day, congress finally voted on the question of independence and the vote was unanimous vote was 20. 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 seized the colonies and became a state within the united states. and that evening john adams wrote a letter home to abigail adams and said that from this day forward, july 22nd will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary that ought to be commemorated with parades,

shows, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and even emanations from one end of the continent to the other from this time forward forevermore. for that reason, my wife and i always have a cookout on july 2nd. [laughter] that's the way we celebrate. white we celebrate on the fourth? because of the next year in 1777 converse forgot, and july 2nd world around and somebody in congress said my god we've declared independence a year ago today. we forgot to do anything. well wait a minute, we had a proven the declaration of independence on july 4th. so they hastily cooked up the celebration for july 4th of and that became the day that we celebrate. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i would be happy to try to answer some questions and i would like to have you come down to the microphone here because session c-span and the audience can hear your question. >> i'm curious to know if before the continental congress there was any sense among the colonie? of the unity. you spoke about the army is 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? >> there is really no unification. i used to always tell my students when they pictured a map, to picture the americans not facing one another but looking across the atlantic great britain i don't mean to say that there was never any

cooperation. but even back in the 17th century the new england colonies got together and formed something called the new england confederation to fight the indian war. but by and large, there is just no cooperation. and during the french and indian war, benjamin franklin and introduced a plan of the union as he called it at the 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. as of the continental congress is really a new phenomena. there has been a stamp act in congress backend 1765 to protest that tax, but not all of the colony's attended that synthesis

really something that's new. >> thank you very much for the evening. it was very enjoyable. more on the topic that mr. kemp to call of my words in the introduction so i will second the introduction. you start off your presentation with a john adams letter on july 1st i think and i was intrigued by the words may god bless the republic. it probably wouldn't have been as intrigued if it were god bless the country. >> i don't think he said -- he said may have and prosper the newborn republic. but the word republic is what -- >> i'm sorry. >> it suggests to me that at this point in time somebody had begun to consciously drill down on the government in the pos

revolutionary era and that is sort of new to me. am i overeating that? >> no, you are right on target. several colonists used the term republic, and there was a sense that america was already sort of a defect of republic in the sense given the colonial governments. but thomas paine had written that plank and common sense i didn't mention that about republican government as the antithesis of the marquee representing a form of government and i think from that point on, paine really brought about in the open and it was just talked about it lightly from that point on the and the assumption was that this would

be -- the united states would be a republican nation, little r. >> i've always been fascinated by this session of these men getting together and making these important decisions. and yet i and understand there is no public record taken or at least were never published. but 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 one of the most enjoyable movies and plays i've ever seen in 1776, and it points out a lot of the things that happened. how accurate was that movie and in hollywood to what really happened? >> i think your question has two parts that i want to address. one is that congress published a journal of but it has done but it was a bear bones journal.

they didn't publish of the debate and after all they were at war and there were differences with congress and they didn't want their enemies here and the loyalists here or the british across the sea particularly aware of this difference is. we can i think to get a handle through some of the letters and the reminiscence and some of the good of diaries that were kept essentially john adams' diary provides something of a record of the debate and who was saying what not on each and every debate but on many debates, but i haven't seen that movie and about 35 years now but i went back and reread the play i didn't go to blockbuster i just reread that when i was working

on this because i was interested indeed the depiction of cesar rothman. delaware had three delegates to congress, and one delegate, one of the three always voted with the conservatives and the others always voted against, with the radicals. those too divided, and rodney was not on july 1st when dickinson and adams spoke in the debate really began so that if rodney was not present when the vote was taken, then delaware's vote 213 kuhl one and it wouldn't count. delaware wouldn't declare independence. if you remember the play of 1776 or as you see and the movie, rodney is depicted as having had

a stroke early in the june and he says i want to go home to die and he tells adams you carry on the price whatever. and then fast-forward to july july 2nd, and a very ill caesar rodney who is a third delegate from delaware is brought from philadelphia and other wives at the last possible moment just in time to cast the vote that puts a delaware over-the-top as favoring independence. so i looked at caesar rodney in some detail in the book, and i discovered that moly 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 and what i found is that rodney never married, so he

wasn't -- [laughter] wasn't at home caring for his wife. and also, he had not had a stroke for a few more years he was in good health, he was actually the speaker of the house on the delaware legislature and the delaware legislature had not permitted to vote for independence and he went home in early june to fight to get the legislature to change its mind and permit its congress of independence and succeeded in that. he was also a colonel in delaware, and while he was home there was a huge list uprising. so he spent several days out in the field suppressing that loyalist uprising and the story

that was told many times as sort of intelligence 1776 is that after the debate on july 1st, so overnight, his colleague in the congress who also supported independence paid for the courier to write it down to delaware and he came riding back. the credulity that that could happen a 50-mile ride from philadelphia down there by horseback in the defiant that rodney had to make the 60-mile ride back and it was a stormy night so he probably couldn't have done it in the eight or nine hours that all of this supposedly took place. so i think probably what happened is a around june 28 or

so, the courier was dispatched, rodney got the word far in advance but he was still fighting the loyalists and he probably left some time on july 1st and made a long ride back and did a ride during the morning of july 2nd. but the best evidence is that he arrived probably about three hours before the vote was taken. >> a couple comments. of the united states, the north and south had as many differences, terror flies, 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 the was talked about was the number they had fought for more wars than the south had bought in the colonial period, and many of the conservatives were predicting that if we became independent, what will ultimately happen is that there would be a civil war and that the north would invade the south and destroy, and of course that eventually did happen but not for 75 years. but some of my friends in georgia still refer to as the war of northern aggression took place, so there were great obstacles to the unity, but i think what brought them together was this a common thread has

george washington said over and over again to his troops and really i think sort of work to instill america and some during the first 15 months that he was in command at this was not a new england problem, this is an american problem, and we have to stay together. and franklin allegedly said, whether he did or not, i don't know, this may be one of the 1776, but franklin allegedly said we have to hang together or we will hang separately. so i think that helped preserve american unity. >> okay. now, the second comment. years ago in the american heritage there was an article on the most underrated and the most over rated of the founding fathers. my opinion is the most

underrated as john adams, and the most overrated as thomas jefferson. and benjamin franklin somewhere in between. [laughter] welcome i wouldn't agree with you on jefferson, and i think adams may no longer be so underrated because of the hbo movie and david mccaul of's biography and many other things that have popular -- popularized adams and i don't think we can ignore george washington as being a crucial problem. >> when you first mentioned john adams in 1773 he felt that it wasn't the right time to it take

england -- >> in the late 70's 60's, 1773 when he is converted to independence. >> right. i know the declaration of independence as a whole thing that shows tierney of the crown over the colonists, but beside the taxes, were there any other plants in england to make the colonists more disenfranchised with them by doing more to squeeze them, money or other -- >> that's a good point. i think the feeling was -- when i taught i used to always tell my class's taxes are what people talk about but it brought them

to a considerable degree may be the taxes get the ball rolling. but in time and i think it becomes a movement for greater american autonomy. the feeling that we can stand on our own 2 feet. we are capable of going it along. 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 1930's, this is my last territorial demand, and a cheerleader 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 website, johnferling.com. we explore shaara let's history and literary culture. next we talked to david gold field the author of america aflame how the civil war created a nation.

>> in your book america of flame you say the civil war is america's greatest failure. why is that? >> it was a failure because we went to war. it was a politically failure because the political process is not accommodating different viewpoints on the major issues of today. the major issues of the day were of course primarily slavery particularly in the western territories, and secondly immigration. believe it or not americans were fighting over immigration in the 1850's just as much as we are fighting over immigration now. the final immigration was the influx of about 1 million irish catholic between 1847 and 1857. now most historians when they talk about the coming of the civil war the talk about the issue of slavery.

but in fact what i found my book america aflame these issues are linked. that is anticatholic particularly antiirish catholic migration and antislavery because both of these issues face together in a new political party in the 1850's called the republican party. the republican party initially was founded as an antislavery party. one of the important things i like to tell my students is don't confuse antislavery pro because the party holds itself as the white man's party. that is they wanted to ban slavery from the territory primarily because they did not want black sleeves competing with white labor because of that were the case, then of course the slave labor would push out the working man.

you had to pay wages to the working man you don't have to pay wages to the sleeves. so, the republican party advertised itself as for the white workingman and was very popular in the midwest and in the cities of the northeast as well. now the second strain in the republican party was the anticatholic movement. in the early 1850's the new political party appeared called the know nothing party and this was in response to the irish immigration, the irish emigrated to america beginning even before the american revolution but it accelerated as british policy tended to empoverish and otherwise reduce the irish, and the irish saying absolutely no future for themselves and ireland. many were dying from a famine in

fact many were just decimated by the famine. they decided to emigrate to america, the land of the free. when they got to america, unfortunately they felt there was a great deal of prejudice against them. why? because they were roman catholic. what does collis is on have to do with prejudice in america? it has according to some people i risk catholics over their allegiance to the pope with rell, not the president of the united states and second, in the democracy individual voters have to have the freedom to make up their own mind on political issues. and the feeling was irish catholics would look to their priest and often leads to the marching orders on but to say and believe and who to vote for and this was considered of america of course it was

probably fast but nevertheless sometimes americans believe things regardless of that and that was the case and this new party, the know nothing party was dedicated to limiting immigration particularly from ireland and second, limiting the civil-rights of immigrants once they were in the united states. they were called the know nothing party because it was a secret organization and if you had approached one of the know nothings, they would have said i don't know anything about that political party so they were called know nothing. the name wasn't the american party. the american party was fairly successful in the early 1850's. but ultimately, they felt that they would be much stronger if they combined the new party i mentioned earlier periods of anticatholic anti-immigrant and

antislavery came together in the republican party. many people in the republican party, the strong evangelical opposed the irish catholic immigration and looked upon slavery as a mortal sin and slaveholders in fact as senators. and this tended to polarize the political process because your enemy or opponent was no longer merely misguided or misinformed on the issues. your enemy was evil and if you believe that america was a god blessed land and the western territories for the province of the board extended not only democracy but protestant christianity across, then fees two evils had to be vanquished. in fact in 1858 when abraham lincoln, who by the way was not but he certainly was antislavery

but abraham lincoln ran for the u.s. senate in illinois against stephen douglas a democrat in 1858 and precipitated the great lincoln-douglas debates. the republican party slogan under which abraham lincoln ran his complaint campaign bus mccuish the despotisms, catholicism and slavery. and those strains on the republican party were essentials for its success. in fact in 1860, when abraham lincoln went to the white house and was elected the 16th president of the united states, many of the votes came from protestant working men in the cities who could care less about the slavery issue but the new the republican party as the evangelical christian party stood for the rights of protestants over the rights of

capitalists and wanted to restrict the rights of the catholics. the problem was of course by injecting their religion into the political process it placed the political process. our system of government governs best from the center. our system of government governs best from moderation. if you look at all of the great legislation that we have had in our history, the legislation, civil rights legislation, they have been the result of the compromise. they have been the result of modernization. moderation was much less possible in an environment where the opponent was the devil and you were the st. religion act was brought into politics before the civil war. in fact it was booming and climaxed with the civil war as early as the 1830's evangelical movement known as the second great awakening started to

intrude in the political process. i don't think my book was a disappearance of the non. viewers may ask what in the world as a disappearing non-have to do with of the civil war? welcomed the outcome of that disappearing was the burning to the ground of the ursuline convent in charlestown massachusetts in 1844 and for renting the that hatred and arson was ryan beecher the founders. beecher stowe, the author if uncle tom's cabin, who said that roman catholics with a devil. devotee had no place in america. they were a foreign power and they should be dealt with it as such and of course that led to the burning of the ursuline convent but there was an early indication of the power and the bigotry of northern evangelicals and so, we have these great books written on the civil war where the north becomes the

republican virtue and of the south becomes the evil empire. what my book does, my book changes the equation so they were both at fault, they were both wrong in precipitating the bloodiest war in american history because what happened during the civil war was a 620,000 men had died, and told losses of treasurer and property and the men who came home were often maimed and mimed and not to mention the millions of people at home who mourned the loss of the people who lost their lives. historians say wait a minute, wait a minute. the war ended slavery. the war saved the union. i won the readers of my book to ask the question after they read my book. one, first, could this conflict have been avoided? and secondly, could those -- to

those great results of the civil war have been achieved by amines? in 1888 the great african-american leader frederick douglas gave a speech stating the emancipation proclamation was a fraud. maybe this was an overstatement after the emancipation proclamation. but as he looked around and saw the status of african-americans, particularly in the south picking the same caution that they get picked under slavery and letting a similar lives as they had lived under slavery, he wondered what was gained by the emancipation proclamation and what was gained by that bloody war. we are commemorating the 150th anniversary of the civil war this year and for the next four years. it's important that we honor those who gave their lives for their respective causes.

but it would have been a greater tribute to the nation had they lived.

im k. mccormack the associate librarian for special

collections at the jay murray atkins library. we are in the reading room and the collection consists of about 9,000 books in the american literature the 18th and 19th century of british literature and history as well as religious tax and the matter in between. some of our gems include first editions of on galt tom's cabin as well as the first additions of all foreign, hemingway, many of the major american authors. we also have a first edition of moby that was 500,000 volumes here in the library. the million the volume was the first edition of the waste land which we were very excited about coming in this large collection multivolume set of early british drama spanning the 17th and 18th century, one of the more complete sets of contemporary

drama at a time,, dever says the musical drama and this particular set belongs to princess sophia who was the daughter of queen charlotte and king george iii for whom the city of charlotte are named for and there are some of volumes that have the notes. the earliest book in our collection is a latin translation with the sermons from 1471. you can see it was probably rebound in the 19th century, but the text book itself we see the inscription's their it is the original. so this would have been created in the earliest period of printmaking as opposed to

manuscript. you still see the hand detail of the letters and the color accents. another of the earlier items is the bible, english bible from 1591 or 1599, excuse me printed in london. one of the noteworthy things about this particular edition of the bible in its time and later it was known as the breeches bible and it predates the king james version of the bible just by a few years i believe and was very popular until the publication of king james. it's called the breeches bible because in the genesis chapter three versus seven the text

states the eyes open and they knew that they were naked and they so the tree leaves together and made themselves breaches as an apron so instead of the leaf image and the change in the translation of the text for the king james version this is the first time they say breaches. another area the collections are quite rich is the poetry of phyllis wheatley. we have both phyllis wheatley's personal library another collection, so the copy of alexander paul's polemic and some other things as well as her own -- her own copy of the first edition of her poems signed by

phyllis wheatley. another strength in the collection as children's literature. the earliest examples that we have this is a hornbook that would have been used in primary education, particularly in the 17th and early 18th century when the paper was both rare. as the horned overlay on this has crowded a bit but it was a simple page of letters a through z, numbers one through zero and then one syllable words. the child would have worn it around his or her neck to be able to read it and in some

stories the hornbook was sometimes used as a paddle for romilly children. i'm not sure that this one was ever used that way. after the hornbook, the battle for from this one dates circa 1774, again, a rebound and a much later date. this one printed in philadelphia also a simple educational tool a through z, one to zero and matching letter some phrases with small illustrations for the phrases to be recycled back. we also focus on manuscript collections, university archives, world history, local documents. the manuscript collections are

primarily focused on the regional history basis so we collect charlotte, the county and the greater charlotte region. one of our areas of strength the civil rights. in those collections the present dr. hawkins, alexander, kelly alexander, senior, charles mclean involved in the naacp as well as hearing olden who was the editor of the carolina israelite three also t.j. ready to was a student here at unc charlotte who was an activist and a poet and renowned artist this is an excel of a letter that he wrote to his professor on campus shortly after the assassination of dr. martin luther king, explaining why he couldn't come to class. while not attending class today was not an education of my lack of an interest in history

history has shown me how conditions can be at times. with respect to someone i and my ear because of his staunch foothold and understanding of the spirit of human life i could not bear to sit in class winnowing and honest appraisal my heart felt emotions would not have allowed me to be. my actions and then surrender my personal memorial dedication to give more time for some reflective thought to the man i did not agree with tall times in all instances but for one nonetheless who fought financial slid on violently and the strong convictions seeking the good but a good justice and peace. james ready. i think this is a poignant example of a young man's response to the assassination of dr. martin luther king emotional

was and also reflects the activities at the time and. inductor original hawkins papers, we do have some examples of what hawkins was a civil rights activist advocated for the desegregation of the philadelphia school of the north carolina gubernatorial candidate twice in 1968 and 1972 of the student smith university who organize and civil rights actions here in charlotte and across the state. dr. martin luther king jr. sent several telegrams over the course of time regarding organizing activities on a national level dr. hawkins involvement with coordinating activities herron charlatan with the nation