Skip to main content

tv   In Depth Joanne Freeman  CSPAN  September 1, 2019 10:00pm-12:01am EDT

10:00 pm
..
10:01 pm
[laughter] it is a little daunting. i guess if you are looking at american politics from the beginning past the civil war talking about a paradox and a conflict and the. i tend to focus on is the early part of that arc and the improvisational nature because the nation was founded and the united states was a republic and what that means at that moment so we are not creating
10:02 pm
a monarchy but beyond that there is a ton of open ground. so in the early decade how it functions the tone of the government, how the nations would stand up what does it mean to be a republican in the ngworld of monarchy how do they get respect and equally what kind of nation will it be? so there is the broad ideological level so how democratic of a nation will this be? how is that land literally going to be arrested from other people?
10:03 pm
what kind of life of others not have it all? to have questionsin we are grappling with now questions about equity and equality those go back to the beginning of the republic and beyond so living in the moment we are living in no now, we deal with these big question and the legacy of undecided things and go all the way back. >> where we inherently democratic? >> no. [laughter] we were not a monarchy and you have a very strong sense of that elite strong sense of their white and that they are creating a more democratic
10:04 pm
regime so there is the reason there is a bill of rights attached to the constitution so they were thinking about rights but with people thinking everyone has rights i don't like to call them parties but there were two different founders with the federalist and the republicans and those were the two camps in each had a different view of how they should be but even so with thoseic limited views so when i teach about this. tell my students there are all kinds of words you have to think about because you can see it didn't mean the same thing as it did and to calculate what you are talking about looking at those
10:05 pm
buzzwords. >> how many points of view were there>> back then? democrats and republicans and independents? was that the case back then? >> it is more complex than that. we think of party the structure is the organization and back to the mindset first of all they assume the national party the nation that could get something that overarching to buy int into, that did not even occur to them but beyond that it assumed there are republic meant viewpoints banging up against each other and the national consensus with
10:06 pm
ultimately some kind of a decision or compromise and that was the point of how that banging up ofin opinions initially there should be there were federalist and republicans but even under the umbrella of political thought there were vast differences as a federalist in south carolina that could meann something different. >> what were some of the improvisations? >> and what we teach about from political culture one of the wonderful things is they
10:07 pm
put all kinds of things in writing. john adams writing to a friend how should an american politician dress? to look at those british or french european aristocrats is that too much lace to be american? how many horses with the carriage which sounds trivial and goofy but on the other hand to seriously think about the fact those stylistic decisions will shape the tone and the character of the government and the nation and to set the precedent to have a
10:08 pm
big impact on the one hand it's comical but the other is that it is not trivial. >> so we had several hundred white males elites with the buy-in from the 4 million peopl people. >> on the one hand is a small group but on the otherd hand a hpopular let revolution so it's important to remember whatever's going on at this time. about maintaining power there is a lot happening around them and part of that challenge isn't difficulties but challenges of that. is the american people figuring out how to demand what they want and how the system works for them and if itw doesn't what can we do to
10:09 pm
make it work for them better? but they have the power in the american people understand that they had rights in some ways different people had a different understanding with a broader sense of what was goingri on but it was something that was determined more widely than what had come before. >> what was the whig party and what do they d believe. >> i will answer by moving ahead in time. so with parties and categories people like to go back in time between the parties present it
10:10 pm
goes all the way back to jefferson. and there are no lines and it comes to political b parties but the whig party for a while we had the democratic party and then the anti- jacksonians people who really are not that but that becomes the whig party two main parties to jackson democratic with the common man and then on the other side with the bigen national government and with a
10:11 pm
erdifferent point of view. >> if you are governor of massachusetts or president of the united states who had more political power? whenever you want it to be. ll[laughter] >> going back to the real founding there are people like the federalist who assume the bulk of the power is with the state and not with the national governmentt and if that it compassed really above and beyond the constitution is brief on what it does they'll but they probably the governor of massachusetts with their
10:12 pm
loyalties and sense of belonging and pretty much would be grounded but in the 19h century if you are to pick up a newspaper from that. then congress would be getting a lot more attention we assume now the president that really iisn't the early american way. >> at off its purposeful or if i missed it but the president doesn't play a large role as he plays today. >> right. partly deliver and partly reflects my interest and that is true that clearly the americans understood during
10:13 pm
the early founding. trying to find out what that means people understand that congress if it is worked out at the ground-level kind of rway with a member of congress and then to get into 18 forties then to see that they were speaking to their constituents and then creating that conversation back and forth so now we are focused on different reasons now we focus on the president with the 19th century. >> would be recognized congress today as it was in the early republic. >> and we think what we assume
10:14 pm
congress should look like. it is a group of white men above and beyond that that are making decisions and having legislation in the united states is a lot more divided and in that case looks like what we would not accept. >> in your book the house and senate in the decades before the civil war yes this oratory on occasion yes union shaking decisions being made but
10:15 pm
underneath that pontificating and politicking was a rug the antebellum congress but it was not an assembly of demagogues in the institution with very human failings. >> that was an important point for me to make because of most people think about. of clay and webster congress was people in black suits. and it's very tough to say right off the cuff to say no. and it is unruly. and the book is about this union institution and not just
10:16 pm
the nations politics but america's understanding. >> what is the affair of honor? >> that is another fundamental thing that i talk about. and people assume that's all there was part of the point that i make is that the affair of honor was bigger than that. it's counterintuitive but then get people are running around with guns shooting and then to prove that you are willing to die for your honor.
10:17 pm
it is now a series of exchanges and negotiations with their names and reputation and their honor and once you get past that point that isn't the point that is a terrifying thing. and then allow somebody to shoot at you for those that is willing to die. and thoseup hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people. >> why are we taught at the beginning of us history about
10:18 pm
the burr and hamilton dual? >> partly because there is a thing about good stories and then jefferson versus hamilton and the king in those dramatic stories but if people teach that it's these two men that is typical of that. and it does a lot of character work but not until recently has that been taught and understanding about government of politics and how that
10:19 pm
really works. >> what happened on that day and why? >> burr and hamilton had been opponents for a long time and hamilton led the fuel of the opposition he thought of burr as a demagogue because he came the equivalent offa loyalty and wasty someone he thought was an opportunist early on in their relationship i consider that my religious duty and then to be bound and determined and in the election of 18 hundreds and with burr and jefferson
10:20 pm
and then would quash the chances and at that .4 years later than he is running for governor. and then to say there is a newspaper report what hamilton said about you add a dinner party and now he needs to prove he is a man after he loses contest after contest so he axon that and it is hamilton's words. but in his mind is due over the so they exchange letters it does not go swimmingly they
10:21 pm
usually say those letters would you initiate i heard you said this about me is that true or false avowal or deny a deserve and immediate response as a gentleman of honor. you think how hard you had to respond you were in dangerous territory. he uses 18 words when one word will do with a very lengthy response and something more despicable. what do you mean and to be grammar lists what does that mean? that's all by itself and at the end of that letter and
10:22 pm
then hamilton says by the way that's not an exception to that now otherwise i will fight for any words that i utter not a strategic it is offensive and he is offended and responds by saying you're not behaving like a gentleman so now they are both offended now it has spiraled to the point that this was the outcome. >> with this legal? >> no. it was state-by-state every state had its own regulation regulations, the challenge and the punishment was different you could be publicly
10:23 pm
humiliated if you were in massachusetts it was a lot less daunting but was largely the lawmakers doing the dueling that tells you about the power that they had. >> do we spend too much time with us set up or is that a microcosm of what's going on in the country? >> and to be front and center because it does tell you a lot about the political culture at the time and could tell you about those on the one - -
10:24 pm
-emotional guts but it is just dramatic and the vice president of the united states and the secretary of treasury and it makes sense that's the one. >> bird did not get elected governor. >> he did not. but he had a reason to be irked. it was controversial i don't think he wanted to kill hamilton so he didn't go really wanting to kill. and before the dual he is asked about a doctor with me
10:25 pm
to doctor let's just get it over with you shoot at each other you prove your men of honor and you shake hands but tragically he isis a villain for killing hamilton but i don't think that was the aim i don't think that was his purpos purpose. >> what was his lifelike after that? >> and vulnerable but didn't try to kill people in duels. but then you become vulnerable all the enemies of various politics and newspaper editors
10:26 pm
and to end up in south carolina he hides out for a while. and then goes back to inshington then finishes the vice presidency and then it's not clear what he's doing and then something will happen in the vicinity of mexico and then to have a different kind of power. with that very treasonous
10:27 pm
effectut out west now with local politics and national politics and has a very interesting exile hanging out with intellectuals and then comes back to new york as a tourist attraction people like to go office that i am a hamiltonian so he does not have an easy time with it. there are lots of accounts of members ofon congress and what
10:28 pm
they say you can see the anxiety about him. so those are difficult years only one of politicians ever describe being politics he actually says he is engaged in politics for honor and pprofit. [laughter] be he's not the only one who found it fun. and then just to be more honest he is enjoying it. >> who is the other? the other one that says he considers politics fun and
10:29 pm
with that correspondent i don't think it's more than those two times. >> professor you said you are a hamiltonian. i guess that means fascinating that i have spent a lot of time andnd energy why he did what he did and in that sense because many scholars that m.grabs them and there are many. >> besides the ten-dollar bill and a well-known musical what is his legacy?
10:30 pm
>> one of the thing that he is known for and minetta really early point to believe the national government needed to be strengthened. so very early on the loudest supporters for the national government from the constitutional convention pushing to federalize so now we can look back on the long-term and save some strengthening is good and some is not but it mattered a lot so as part of that legacy the
10:31 pm
national superstructure that we take for granted with a major bowl to do that. >> i want to play a little bit of audio tell us what we are listening to. ♪ ♪ >> it's very hard not to do this. [laughter] that is the ten dual commandments from the musical and it's largely taken from the chapter of my first book which talks about the dual and the rules.
10:32 pm
>> you had a part in the musical? he did use my work when he was writing and i discovered afterwards he found my work and made use of that and what is comical and bizarre to me the first time i saw the play off broadway i was sitting in the audience and besought together and the song came on and i said a dueling song this is excellent like this is even better. that was remarkable the book that is really based on is the biography of hamilton so i
10:33 pm
thought that really can't be me but then there was a lyric that refers to a document that i found at the new york historicalt society about the doctor turning his back with deniability and i heard that line came from the stage and i said that's my document. [laughter] that's my document. so then i got to talk to them later and i said that song is that my chapter? they tha said of course it is. so ultimately that became a broadway musical so that was a mind blowing experience. >> how accurate is the musical? >> for sure it is political theater it came out of work to make people aware in the.
10:34 pm
that they were not aware of. it reminds people about the contingency and in the revolution in the c constitution and blah blah blah and when you are in that moment so it reminds people about that contingency that these are real people and as they feel their way to the process now that said there are many things that are historically inaccurate and things that are not discussed like the institution of slavery is not
10:35 pm
discussed. but to me my response was there is a lot of history in there and more than i would have expected to see that as i made this profoundly wonderful and those that have become interested in the time. or to grab hold of that let me teach you about what really happened or the reality of everything that happened so in a sense it has created a great teaching opportunities. >> and then that tweet you sent out a couple days ago you do tweet a lot interesting in my hamilton seminar i asked
10:36 pm
how many had seen amol time on dish hamilton but then i read applications forap the course and the majority mentioned the musical and had an impact. >>. >> look at what they can do. i do tend to ask what brought people to the class and in this case i explicitly said with hamilton media they are not crazy about it anymore but the class is limited in size if you already preregistered what brings you to the course and a lot of people said we really liked the hamilton musical and we have a lot of
10:37 pm
questions. that is a wonderful thing i guess it's not really advertising but except for the two weeks after those first two weeks there is no other history book and it is thematically arranged of what america was and revolution and party politics very explicitly does not take sides when one is right and one is wrong and then we grapple with it. because it depends what they find and focus on in those
10:38 pm
letters. and i clearly have read those letters and just depending on the questions that's a fun course to teach. >> and on the same day in response to a formery, student you tweeted about john adams book the biography was a think tank that sent more people into my seminars than anything else. >> for years. and for anything that they want. so why are you in the course i don't want a gale answer but i am curious about this take - -
10:39 pm
the time. or i saw ar movie. i give them full permission for whatever they want so for a while . john adams biography and i am curious now. and now i want to learn more about the time.th but this's time i asked baby at this point because younger people are interested in the musical maybe they are more focused on it i don't know but 30 people are trying to get into the course and one said
10:40 pm
specifically i didn't really like the musical but i want to learn more about the time. which is great as a teacher, excellent. asked questions. >> once a month we invite an author to talk about his or her body of work this month is yale professor historian and author joanne freeman author which came out in 2001, alexander hamilton's writings and has edited that and in the field of blood is the most recent book coming out last year. shall be with us the next hour and a half to take time and to give her a question so we will
10:41 pm
take your comments through social media we will go through those addressesre facebook twitter and e-mail just remember at book tv is the part of that to get a comment to us. how di you get interested? >> probably the bicentennial. if you are old enough to remember this time. it was everywhere commercials. every day and the reporter dispatch had a bicentennial moment i was cutting out all
10:42 pm
the newspaper articles i was absorbed in 1776 and i think all of that came together to make that time. what the hamilton musical has done it was real it didn't seem boring like people on the ground i was 13 or 14 years old. i started to read biographies and i actually think i started and then i just went i remember reading in early biography of john adams even one that is not a biography per se i started with a and then i got to hamilton and
10:43 pm
then i stopped because he was strange in comparison to the others i was reading about. he had a weird beginning of his life living in obscurity and the caribbean and those things were intriguing as a young person he wanted to accomplish great things so identified to be a young person who wanted to go on to have an exciting life but there is one that i wrote read and i did not like it and i did not believe it that doesn't sound convincing to me so i went to the library and i asked the a librarian what this writer had read that gave him the right to say what he said in the book she gave me the 27
10:44 pm
volumes of the hamilton papers i pulled out of volume and looked at them and granted 18th century correspondence is not easy to read but to me that was the real stuff that was the history. to put it on paper but to me that was the most exciting thing ever. i don't want somebody else to tell me what they think i just want to read the book so i started to read the hamilton papers and i did that for years and years and i did not edknow it never occurred to me to be a historian i didn't know that profession existed is just something i liked to do only decades later i realized i have an interesting database i had not even gotten to madison.
10:45 pm
>> so when you put together writings how did you compile that quick. >> that's an interesting story. as a grad student i took a course of my graduate advisor and basically jefferson hamilton book and said he did it in honor of me being there but there was library of america a wonderful volume of jefferson's writings. and this is only because of what i just said but on the weekend i pulled together where we photocopied all the letters and put them together with a glossary of names and tethings it took me two or three
10:46 pm
daysna and we used it in the course it was so big but it then we needed to go on to the jefferson volume so years later it occurred to me i had edited the library of america additions writings so i went back and said i think i created a volume in full disclosure i am on the board it's a nonprofit organization american writings and letters and would be in print for ever so they created that volume based on what i put together as a graduate student is not necessarily the
10:47 pm
greatest hits and talking about manufacturers but it also includes a lot of personal letters that i selected because they showed something about hamilton as a person or exposes his politics or fit something negative about him as a politician that would be something to show you about his thinking and how he is as a person. that he never intended anybody to see but so the favorite one that i like to teach with he wrote up a few days within the constitutional convention he sits down and says let me think about this a lot happens
10:48 pm
next. the constitution will be ratified washington will be chosen president that would be good people trust washington then they trust the people he appoints to office and that is good so people will trust the government and all of that goes well. he will not be made president then whatt happens? may be other countries will try to take over the states and then they turn against each other so then there is an image of the government collapsing in foreign nations but the guy who was pushing for this constitutional convention forever has it and it has been created and at the erd of the memo says we have to take account of everything
10:49 pm
falling apart most likely that's what will happen and that is fascinating he had great hopes but is perfectly willing to assume at that point the experiment probably will not work it will not function americans will not be willing in his mind for government to work well and it will probably collapse and that is fascinating to me so here is a guy who says i don't know if this will work that just isn't what you expect of that moment and certainly not from somebody like hamilton. >> before we get into calls you are at the library studying hamilton.
10:50 pm
>> i know he had civil war books but i didn't know anybody that was interested in history so i was off on my own little planet and i thought it was a weird thing to do so i never talk to anybody about it i hid the books under my bed because i was kind of embarrassed that my dad would make fun of me for reading theser books like comment books are under their bed and i have volumes of the hamilton papers. [laughter] so i was doing whatever i was doing. >> where we raised and what did they do quick. >> i was born in queens my mom
10:51 pm
initially was a kindergarten teacher went on to do work in interior design as a market researcher worked for bristol-myers and then worked in the media industry a very early person applying market research techniques. i grew up watching focus groups filling out questionnaires so it's interesting. i grew up watching research through this creative process to come up with something for the public so he maybe was not history minded but research minded maybe that slipped off. >> let's hear from the callers
10:52 pm
beginning with rochester new york you are on with historian joann freeman. >>caller: hello. i want to say to professor freeman i loved affairs of honor and just briefly want to jump in that you are the greatest teacher. i can see you on c-span many times but you get the excitement and the love and the interest going. i wish all teachers, high school or college had your enthusiasm to give their students as you d do. >> what was it about affairs of honor that you liked quick.caht >> i first heard about it when i saw professor freeman on the brian lamb show and i have some friends who said the history i said there is this
10:53 pm
book that talks about the early congress and all the politicians are trying to kill each other and they thought this was the most wonderful idea. [laughter] >>caller: so my question you know better than anybody else in the country today, hamilton is the founding father and was ambitious and the first four presidents of the country were founding fathers and he went to the constitutional convention and the rule is because he's foreign-born he cannot be president. do you think he would've liked president? and what did power really mean to him quick. >> thank you for this very nice things you said. to write answers first of all there is the exemption clause in the constitution if you are
10:54 pm
an american citizen at the time it wasas ratified you , actually would have been able to be president he could have been elected president but the second half is i don't think he ever really assumes that he knew very well he was not very popular there are various points he was put forward for a position and he said i will be problematic washington considers sending them to england he says don't do that. [laughter] i'm not popular. that could create problems for you. i don't think he assumes that ever brick i think he understood that and as a matter of fact he kind of liked that idea because then he could be virtuous to promote ideas not just because they had popular appeal but he
10:55 pm
thought it was the right thing to promote. so somebodyr who understood power with this new national government but then assuming that to have that power for himself. >> >>caller: thank you for taking my call i am so pleased to hear about your use of the library i have two quick questions. you referred to the fact the earlier republican party is not the same as they are today and today's republicans constantly refer to them as the part party, themselves as the party of lincoln. is this accurate? and i went to a presentation at the historical society one year ago i don't remember his name and adding credibility to
10:56 pm
this thank you very much. >> the first question i already had forgotten. the problem to draw that line is that if you look at the historians who have done this look at what they represent are what they stand for they eschanged dramatically over time. but you cannot consistently say in 1850 or 1860 but obviously politicians have all kinds of reasons to draw thosehe straight lines to the past and then cringe and think of all
10:57 pm
the ways that isn't true. but historically speaking it isn't a reality but coming out oxford unity press i have heard about the manuscript so i cannot judge the credibility i am. really intrigued to see it and then to get that sense certainly will not say is not possible an interesting founder for this reason many really do have to do some research to really find out
10:58 pm
things about his youth. and thenen to project different things and all kinds of stories and some of them might be true but i'm actually really looking forward to seeing that because this argument would be fascinating. >> what do we know about his life? and why was he born there? his mother was named and then to do some research at that
10:59 pm
point then with that document in the morning hours i was researching thech archives and with that nirvana. and then the first sign inherits and then to make it get rich quick so apparently has parents did not mary and born illegitimately and then add a certain point his father leaves and does not come back and they are not particularly well-off and doesn't have much money or connections and on
11:00 pm
this island and then gets off and then that's what becomes the american revolutionn and then they put together a charitable fund to get an education and that's how he ends up in new york he ends up in new york way described his relationship with george washington ? >> . . . .
11:01 pm
so that is what hamilton means in that memo which he says we might be okay. it was because of the war by winning the revolution. so, that is crucial that he ends up being in contact with him and ultimately being trusted by him and giving power to him that in a sense makes the fact that he is aggressive putting his thoughts in front of people said
11:02 pm
the relationship is the key and without it i don't know where he would have gonee without it and it puts himself in a sphere that allows him to have the kind of influence he wanted to have but it's conflicted because he isn't really good withta authority figures and during the revolution washington makes it clear that hamilton is his favorite. he doesn't want to be anyone's favorite. it's at the point he had been up working with washington said they were at this late point in the war and hamilton is working with washington when he decides
11:03 pm
to run down the staircase and deliver a letter at the foot of the stairway to the huge glaring down and says something along the lines of you've kept me waiting for these ten minutes of a treaty with respect. .and hamilton is growing tired and would much rather be on the battlefield says i'm not aware you believe that, then we part and he basically surrenders. washington sent someone out to apologize and hamilton refuses to take the apolog apology cannt until h, wait untilhe can be ree says i need to fill you what happened. i need to explain why it
11:04 pm
happened and please, understand then he writes another letter we've come to an open rupture and he says it is basically not the first time that he behaved this way but it's going to be the last time so he storms off and that tells you a little bit about that relationship and the almost resentment and the fact that he's impulsive doesn't necessarily contain himself in ways that would have been useful a lot of the time. he comes back again and again and allows him back into his circle. >> next call fro for joann comes from fayetteville arkansas. >> hello and thank you.
11:05 pm
i have a comment and a question. my understanding is an american slave sued for his freedom in 1772 and one the case freeing wg himself and about 15,000 other slaves in england. the case was widely reported in is widespread concern they might soon lose their so-called property on which their wealth was based. a very good book on the subject is a slave nation from 2005 and
11:06 pm
the two professors at rutgers so i believe the case in england in 1772 was one of the real causes of the american revolution. mostly it's not acknowledged as such, but my question then is what are your thoughts on this and thank you so much. >> guest: i'm assuming it is a point through this period and beyond. number one, in england there was anti-slavery activities going on and actually and that had an impact certainly on what was going on in the colonies in the united states but also obviously the institution of slavery was a long-standing kind of third rail particularly if you were a
11:07 pm
southerner. it affected your political decisions and it affected your understanding of this kindff of power you had and if you needed or wanted to maintain it. you could say the institution of slavery in and of itself even before the constitution that for a while colonial and early america played a major role in pre- much shaping everything. people who owned property of that kind and what they consider that they needed to be protecting in institutions of government are about among other things property rights. so that is a part of the mix of things that is constantly front to center in american history throughout itsts access to the. being aggressive about restoring the vital central part of the
11:08 pm
story and how we understand who we are as a nation >> host: next call was from tom in chicago. >> thank you very much. so, several years ago i became fascinated with thaddeus stevens, tommy lee jones played so brilliantly in the movie and seemed veryd interesting character and probably admirable as well. what i'm wondering is the violence on the floor of congrescongress you write aboutr latest book given how he provoked these other congressmen especially the ones on the other party and in a brutally rhetorical way di that anyone er pull a knife on him and was he
11:09 pm
on the receiving end of any of this violence? >> guest: a politician and character is really fun to study. i am not aware of someone exclusively but what was wonderful is a key was effective at any southerner that made any gesture in the direction, so for example, after the later years of the civil war when southerners are trying to find their t way back he is a person
11:10 pm
that would step forward and say thater. there's a moment in which someone threatens him and he referred to it as a momentary brief. he wasn't at the receiving end up with someone that was never afraid to speak his mind in the midst of it. there's a moment it becomes a fugitive slave act so they don't have to vote on the issue and when the voting is done, stevens
11:11 pm
says out loud. let's go to may 22 the one thing that i will say about that people have the sense that there
11:12 pm
was one incident in congress theyss came to the ground by soh carolina south carolina and so brooks comes into the senate and basically says he was seated at his desk and you've insulted my part of the union and basically threatened to punish him for it. ultimately in his anxiety to get
11:13 pm
away with but brooks continued to. what's interesting, there's a number of interesting things. one of them as although there was a lot of violence in congress which i write about in the book, the deliberate attack like that is supposed to take place and violence erupts over time but if you are going to stage an attack in that way you can see why because of what happens in the senate chamber. confronting a northerner abolitionist in the senate chambers and beating him to the ground, that becomes the south beating the north and his ashen and it is in a deeply symbolic kind of way that has national repercussions in a way that
11:14 pm
there were not if it happened outside, but the symbolism of that and the power of that happening in the senate takes it off the chart. >> host: there was a cohort of books protecting or making sure people didn't come to his help. >> guest: they were keeping anyone who tried to interfere away. the fact of the matter yelling don't kill him so here's the interesting thing we heard about some of the congressional violence and it' its kind of counterintuitive but there is a a t of violence throughout this period. it was kind of a given if it seemed fair and by that i mean there were rules of fighting. if you were going to attack
11:15 pm
someone you were only supposed to attack if you yourself were supposed to be unarmed. there is a letter from a congressman that he looks up and sees a menacing looking stranger in front of one of his colleagues with his fists clenched like this doesn't look good. i think there is going to be a fight. when he says he spots a weapon he stands up and immediately positioned himself behind that stranger in case he pulls a weapon so he lets the fight happened to. but if that stranger reached for a weapon he would have stopped them so some of what is
11:16 pm
happening in the case of brooks in the summer is that seemed like an unfair fight in many ways. in the f investigation of that which happens afterwards, not surprisingly congressional report about it, brooksis had asked did you at least warned sumner that you were going to do this that would have made it fair and when he does not come he's reprimanded for not warning him which tells me something about the culture of congress at that moment that somehow that would have made it better. >> was he re- elected? >> guest: he was sent and it he gets some kind of a throat infection and dies. what's interesting about the
11:17 pm
fighters i write about in my book and most of the aggressive for much of the period that i pi write about our southerners, people are in a period if you look at the incoming congress they try to break them down. who are the fighting men and who are the noncombatants. henry wise of virginia was a fighting man for sure. he caused 12 fights already this session. i am fighting for their life, ghand he's right people who are that way andght in i would say maybe 10% of a given house would have been considered fighting men.
11:18 pm
they are put there because the assumption is they will use that to fight to protect a the institution of slavery. >> host: next call is robert in atlanta. >> you arere delightful, thank you. my question was about the conflicted relationship between hamilton and washington into you pretty much answered everything so if i may i will ask something else. what do you think were the prospects of hamilton and the bill not occurred to? and in new york as an attorney would he have just lived out his life that way nor would he have tried to get back onto the
11:19 pm
national stage? >> guest: that is a good question. i only have a little bit of evidence about what he was thinking. first by the time it happened in hamilton's career isn't really doing well.l even without the dual key wrote a number of pamphlets he thought were very logical. first he defends himself against charges of misusing treasury funds. that didn't do his reputation a lot of favors and then he writes attacking his own party's residential candidate and that really didn't do him any favors. so the supporters at this point are backing away from him and what they called an indiscreet politician that he doesn't have discretion or control and he's a danger, liability. so his career is suffering as a
11:20 pm
whole they are fading away the nation is in a more democratic direction and then the federalists would have preferred so on that level, he has much less power. in one way or another, i don't think that he was going to gain political power again for most of the question is if it hadn't happened, what would he have done. he left behind one or two little clues about that. she might have become a political commentator. he was pondering another collection of essays along the line of the federalists which he was the initiator that he wrote with james madison and in those years he was thinking about doing that again and he approached one friend and colleague and said would you be willing to write for someone like that and i think that he would have been commenting on the americanan government. he saw himself as someone that is going to stand back and weigh in and probably be critical. critical. but he might become a commentator of that.
11:21 pm
the last paragraph of that is fascinating. he says something along the lines some of you may be wondering why i ended up fighting the school and they do not support dueling. i shouldn't have agreed to fight this but here's the thing at some point in our future in the case of crisis in our public affairs which seem likely to happen he has to be able to step forward and be useful and to be useful i think he felt he needed to protect his reputation so he could be a public figure is needed again. this is along the lines of the memo and i should mention things may be ultimately not working at
11:22 pm
collapsing. i think he consistently thought they mighte not last so they would slide into the problem in some way or another made the day. he never comes out and says i think there will be warfare but if you asked him he might have said might there be conflict of a warlike nature between americans of that crisis to come, he might have said yes and in that case i think he wanted to be someone who would be prepared to fight and in some ways thinking of that really and part of wha why he thought thatl is to protect and redeem his reputation for the period. >> i read the federalist papers like a dissenting opinion from the supreme court. is that the right way to do that? >> guest: people tend to use the federalist essays as an objective commentary and the
11:23 pm
fact of the matter is, and this is an exaggeration but it's what i tell my students to encourage them to think this way it is kind of a commercial advertisement. the purpose was here's why you should like them. it's basically the idea behind it was hamilton and madison thinking of all the ways in which what might they not like about it, but might be bad about it if they step forwardad and sy you are kind of scared of this. let's explain why this isn't such a bad thing and not only that but then this might happen and that's worse, so it isn't really intended to be objective. it's a document with a purpose and newspaper essays to promote this new constitutions of people
11:24 pm
polled trusted and ideally the states will ratify it. >> host: next call comes from jane in california. please go ahead. >> caller: i am in the midst of a dilemma. i'm almost finished with the biographer of john marshall called without precedent and in the book, he goes into great detail on how terrible and devious jefferson was, almost close to treason. i'm having great c difficulty trying to come to peace with this because he did writ write a beautiful expression of independence and other papers, but his behavior and lack of integrity it is just overwhelming me.
11:25 pm
how do you deal withth this? >> guest: that is a good question. there is a tendency particularly when we are looking at this time could go to take sides and particularly when you have jefferson and now with him up and getting these promotions it's interesting to. i would say when you read a book that appears to be very one sided in that way, the best thing to do is go out and read another book from another point of view and in this case there is a strong opinion they didn't see eye to eye i would encourage you to read the biography and one of the things i do with my
11:26 pm
students maybe even in ways that they haven't understood one of the best things you can do is to read some of the things these people havee returned. if you read a jefferson biography that's favorable jefferson and presents you with any evidence toouou support thu can then begin to evaluate what youpr think and put books againt each other. this is going to be a broader statement. i almost wouldn't trust any book that comes out it that one sided without a different book with a different plaintiff view so that as a reader you can evaluate what you think. so, personally i don't see good guys and bad guys. i don't think it is never that clear. i think the important thing
11:27 pm
about their existence and marshall and others in this period is that no one was absolutely right and most people are not absolutely wrong and the fact of the matter is that different ideas against each eah other that ends up leading to something functional so that is a way to think about the periodn there are aspects of jefferson i'm not particularly fond of. what's interesting is the blend of ideas and what happened because of the blend of ideas and the ways in which over time other politicians, public figures find ways to build on and improve on what is coming forth. >> we are going to go back to your twitter feed. first why did you use 1755 as your twitter handle? >> guest: it is either 1755 r.
11:28 pm
1757. there is a piece of paper that suggests he was born in 1755. hamilton himself appears to 1757. i went with 1755 because it is a document and i'm not strongly invested in 55457. >> so you are a 1755. [laughter] >> with a great disdain, people feel strongly about these things. >> host: this is from 2018 and we know that for a fact. i'm going to throw an idea out into the twitter sphere and see what happens. what if there was a history rally a teacher of sorts with teachers coming story in getting together to discuss what we learn from in american history
11:29 pm
to help us in the present? what was the reaction you got to that? >> guest: that was interesting. i was very honest to say that i'm throwing this into the twitter sphere. the idea that i thought would be useful and potentially have power to make people think about history, american history and of its complexity and really not to take a glossy look at the past and by looking at the ways in which we wrestle with things in the past, i threw that out therh kind of not knowing what would happen and i got a really big response. sometimes bought from teachers, sometimes from historians. i got a lot of e-mails on it, a lot of organizations and public figures of various sorts have contacted me about it. all of them saying yes, let's do this.es this is something i've spoken with a number of colleagues about the best way to come forward. this is actually something i'm eager to pursue and do ideally in the late spring, early summer
11:30 pm
of next year. i think it would be a wonderful thing to have a day when we can talk about and wrestle with and argue about american history and all of its complexity. ..wa >> but now i think it would be a wonderful thing but in some way or another those on a local level talk about history
11:31 pm
in a targeted way come back and have a better idea. that i am ail historian, i engage with scholars as a historian i fervently with the public they should be among people some of us do are some of us don't and then to have that conversation. >>host: so c-span cameras can be at this event? [laughter] kansas go-ahead. >>caller: how are you. i want to ask i did not come in at the beginning so i may
11:32 pm
have missed it but hamilton's greatest contribution was his economic ideas that he was for the banks and the assumptions of the state's debts. when so many other founding fathers distrusted banks jefferson thought we should all be farmers and it just seemed to me that paying our debts from the very beginning made a huge difference in this country and later success. >> what you doing kansas quick. >> i am retired i worked in business insurance. >> thank you. what is your level of interest of history? >> i have always been
11:33 pm
interested in history. i think the way things are now it is comforting for one thing. >> that is a good question i thank you are absolutely right that hamilton's financial plan i spoke earlier about him being a powerful nationalist and you are right in what he did is step in as secretary of treasury on to really create that structure now he is a guy when i write about him as a person to say he was planned
11:34 pm
minded in his personal life and as a politician so he's the perfect one to say now there is a problem with their own systems of dealing or not dealing and now i will take on this position and you are right he had a three-part plan for the national government to take on the state that and promote manufacturing ever that precise reason that you say and that is the price of liberty to prove our credit in the nation and that we are trustworthy and we need to tend to our debt.
11:35 pm
's with that special point on credit and by that he means it's not just financial but who we are as a nation. that thestrt concrete thing that he did to create that three-part plan at the point there were many people with those jeffersonian's were more comfortable but you are absolutely right that bad agrarian idea or that than to step forward to do that kind ofs work on a ground level so it is tempting me with that ideology on the broad level
11:36 pm
but with hamilton he is so good with the ground-level nuts and bolts work and not to know about the nation's finances but to create a questionnaire that he sends out tell me about trade or customs so he is wonderful and hisin plan is a crucial part of what he does. >> responding via twitter regarding your get-together history begins before the columnist arrives this must include native american history. >> absolutely. as soon as i say yes then the
11:37 pm
question is broadly and chronological with the long arc of american history is havinggi rights taken away you have to deal with all sides of hat equation and how these people are fighting for their lives that are at the center of the story so again i literally had to conversation so far it is something i want to do i now figure out how to do it. >> before we run out of time the name lost to history. >> yes benjamin brown thank you. when i was writing the field of blood straight up physical
11:38 pm
violence in congress i found roughly 70 physically violent incidents in the house and each one could be a chapter so part of my challenge is how do i investigate this the violence and what that means? and early on in the process i found benjamin brown french he ends up being important in the lincoln white house but with the 11 volume diary he had a newspaper column and extensivem correspondence he is amazing. and what is wonderful he had inner circles of congress until he dies so he acts as a guide in my book looking through his eyes and what's
11:39 pm
wonderful is he arrived as a small town in neww hampshire his eyes are this big. wow. everybody likes him he is collegial to try very hard meaning he has a northern democrat and then starts out as that guy to appease the southerners so by the time of the civil war 1860 and he talks about this in his diaries he says he will carry on and my thought was if i can explain how they went to
11:40 pm
appease southerners if they are ready to shoot them how emotional did that make sense that is an interesting thread how we understand that benjamin brown french now it took me forever to write the book and what's fascinating about him he's like the forest gump of the period that i write about there are lots of footnotes but say he was there. right there watching it happen.
11:41 pm
and then going back after his presidency and then the gettysburg address who is up on the platform? benjamin brown french and then after he died and is therefore everything with this incredible eyewitness who was very generous to get his feelings down on paper so he was showing what it felt like to be that extreme polarized climate and how they turn on each other. >> where did you find his papers quick. >> they published a very abridged edition and people who write about lincoln tend
11:42 pm
to know about him. someone of the favorite ones and had a confederate flag and oneach foot with a sword of love that anecdote in lincoln said it's a room full of people anybody know how to spell the word o missile? what kind of a man is that he doesn't know how to spell that. no shame. he loathes lincoln but reading those 11 volumes of his diary and with that correspondence he writes poetry so when i was finishing the book and writing the epilogue and this is like
11:43 pm
the last ten pages i cannot figure out how to end it what do i do? come on french. give me something i'm shuffling through papers and the year before he died he wrote a poem about what congress meant to him it's like he smiled down from heaven and said here. had a poem. i was sitting on campus in my office in the capital, my home it was remarkably generous in the book would not have been possible without him. >> next are caller from new yor york. >>caller: thank you very much thank you for correcting
11:44 pm
him on the correct pronunciation. [laughter] and on your earlier comments as a historian. so what words of wisdom do you give to today's congress of what not to do more things to do to strengthen the nation of ours right now which iss divided? i am interested of your comments i love the idea you want to create a whole new cultural thinking. ith appreciate that. >> i think people look to historians to have a solution for the present. that is something i cannot do but what i can say is the imes are people listen to
11:45 pm
each other the idea sometimes debate is nasty and they scream at each other with extreme polarization but there needs to be a willingness that is certainly something right now to such an extreme degree is not helping us at all. other than sitting here in a very pleasant studio i don't have a solution how to change that because congress is reflective of larger rule but the public influence of congress so i have no brilliant solution. i wish i did.
11:46 pm
but as americans let's find our way out of the moment but how we get beyond that i cannot answer. he have you found readers with your students with the political violence that she described ended in the civil war asks founded in 19 oh eight but the fight between the tennessee senator and a constituent a political opponent. >> it does not end with the civil war. good point. it doesn't happen on the floor. you can see that from louisiana when they try to get back into congress to violent
11:47 pm
incidents happen. unlike before the war stevens is one of of his steps forward to say you want to let them back in? that power dynamict has shifted now congress no longer does. but that doesn't mean that it stops into be no longer effective inin deploying to congress but they are in the reconstruction area - - era and itng continues among politicians but it is an important point to make i'm glad that the violence does not stop it just shifts it is tempered and shifts around and it has been violent in a
11:48 pm
variety of different ways for a very long time so what do wee do? is another questionn i wish for those solutions that i do not havet it's not as though it ended at any given point. >> new jersey go ahead. >>caller: thank you for another wonderful program and also to professor freeman for your wonderful research. i did see you in 2004 giving a presentation at the 200th anniversary of the dual. so with your field of blood text had you considered david broderick duels in california
11:49 pm
as the supreme court justice they fought just outside san francisco and broderick was killed and given the context of california and slavery within the democratic party was that something you thought about as you mentioned earlier there are many examples. >> before we get an answer are you an amateur historian? >> i am a professor at john jake's college and a volunteer fire officer who moved to california and also involved locally here with history and your viewers should know that
11:50 pm
hamilton and patterson so i am very interested as an amateur. >> thanks for that i did not expect that answer. [laughter] >> the incident you are describing the famous one is dramatic but for the book specifically the violence between people in congress that is enormous i limited myself to debate in washington or in the capital were on the streets when congress was in session so i was curious what it was shaping congress in what the americans thought i had to stop myself from getting beyondna that but any number of incidents that i could have pursued and i would
11:51 pm
be on your 57 working on this book if i had gone that way. [laughter] but in the end the mix of people in congress and washington from different parts who had violence in different ways for different understanding and different political viewpoints so what happens when you put those people together in the house and senate and force them to be with contentious issues that was one of the initial questionse so what happens with those populations in a very public venue with the national audience? so what happens in that kind of a climate. >> washington dc go ahead. >>caller: i am a big fan of a american nations and he writes
11:52 pm
an unflattering episode those from western nap alicia there wawas no money to pay them congress gave them ious for years they could use that to pay their taxes to the state of pennsylvania but then robert morris comes along and is described as a protége of morris and he engineers that people can no longer pay the estate taxes with the iou. so now these people are forced to sell this at 15 percent of face value.
11:53 pm
and wind up owning and shortly after that they come up with the idea that us government will pay all of the sinful paid in hard currency gold or silver and will tax the very people of those who were forced to pay to get that currency. it is unsavory. >> we will leave it there. >> that is an excellent point in the early part of hamilton
11:54 pm
and james madison was one and those speculators assuming and hoping with very minimal amounts of money and the veterans are owed the money by the government and then they say it's not practical because there is no way to track you cannot follow the path but iou is a form of currency that is how he wants to use them so his argument is it can't be practical when the stated value needs to be what they are worth now that is unfair to those who were given them to begin with you can see his
11:55 pm
logic and that is not fair and at the time and to say what are you doing and it will benefit the speculators as you want them to buy into the new government this is very unseemly. but he had his logic but that would have been his counterargument. >>caller: thank you for taking my call. doctor freeman i once saw you you would defended hamilton.
11:56 pm
>> that was a long time ago. >> so clay i think he has gone on to do other things but at the time at jefferson reenactor think he had the jefferson hour radio show but here's the quirky thing he was my thesis advisor in college and was becoming interested in jefferson my senior year of college and i was already into hamilton and he was building a model of monticello and i made some snide remark about jefferson and he looked at me. [laughter] he had no idea i was interested in hamilton and vice versa nme cross paths in that moment and then i lost
11:57 pm
touch with him for a long time. then we crossed paths later he was doing his jefferson work this is a national endowment for the humanities and then we had a debate that a representative hamilton and it was filmed and i remember he made a snide comment about hamilton something like it has taken me a lifetime to get jefferson and i can with hamilton in a weekend and he got t 14 so i must've done good enough that the audience but it has been an honor to do
11:58 pm
that with a former teacher of mine in the weirdness that he was teaching english so then we had nothing to do with history at all. and then that's like on a vhs videotape but now i cannot even play it but it was a h wonderful event. >> you can reenact that on your podcast. >> or maybe not. [laughter]: there are four historians we basically do a deep dive back into history with the deeper path so there is a show about reparations and there is a show about blackface. recently the history of labor in america. we have done all kinds of
11:59 pm
shows like collecting things what is wonderful is very conversationa conversational. the four of us all have a sense of humor it's fun to listen to its brian and ed and megan and myself. obviously this is self promotional it is fun and historical it's called back story. >> we want to close with what you write this book approaches politics in an unusual way it does not examine political events or personalities in isolation or reduce them to the level of historical anecdotes. and then to lose sight of the participants perspective with
12:00 am
broad cultural history with detailed analysis in the political narrative to use the vantage point which is what? >> partly writing about the founders so what if you just think about that elite population of men and look at what they do? look at the behavior for particular population and then the founders in that way i don't want people to think about the founders but as individuals and how can we make sense of that. >> our guest for the past two hours thank you for your time. >> thank you so much for having me.
12:01 am
>> congratulations it sounds like your book is out there now. making a statement

64 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on