provider. >> next, lindsay chervinsky, storing at the white house historical association on george washington's presidency. this is a virtual author is it her book "the cabinet: george washington and the creation of an american institution." >> good afternoon. welcome to white house history life. my name is stewart mclaurin and i'm the president of the white house historical association. today we're going to have an exciting conversation with the head of our rubenstein senator whitehouse history and one of our historians on a brand-new book, "the cabinet: george washington and the creation of an american institution." ordinarily we would be doing this event at the carriage house which is a base of operations on lafayette park but as were all working from home and join you

in your home, we are trying out this new mode of communications. but it's perfectly fitting with our historic mission. as all of you know, we were founded in 1961 i first lady jacqueline kennedy who had the vision at such a young age in such a short bit of time as first lady to create an organization like the white house historical association to get nonprofit, nonpartisan support to the work of maintaining the standard of the white house but also an education mission, to teach at to tell the stories of the white house and its history going back to 1792 when george washington who we are talking about today actually selected that piece of land and hired a young irish architect to build the white house. creating educational materials and content is a core part of her mission and that's what we do every day through the wonderful books that we publish, our programs that we host at the

cater house and around the country, and our online social media content and website content. and this is an example of that. we're doing more and more of this during this time when we are all that looking for interesting things to do. i would encourage you to check out our website, white house history.org and you can find all kinds of information and materials, particularly wonderful new part of our websites which combines education materials from over 100 presidential sites across the country. so we become one-stop shopping for presidential and white house history. at the end of today's program i would want you to go to shop whitehousehistory.org where you can order this book. we have it on sale at a lesser price than anywhere else you can find it at the think after you hear her talk today, you will want a copy of your own. so now i will turn over a program to colleen shogan who's a senior vice president, my colleague at the association, and also directs the rubenstein

national center for white house history. she will be talking with lindsay chervinsky, , the author of the book that were celebrating and launching today. , "the cabinet: george washington and the creation of an american institution." colleen, it's all yours. >> thank you comes do it. i'm so delighted to be here with everybody this evening to celebrate my colleague book launch of "the cabinet." i have it right here in front of me. it's a terrific book. i wonder what but everybody was listening tonight and tuning in on facebook life that if you have questions, we will be taking questions from the audience at the end of the program. just type your questions into the comments section, the facebook feed and will get to as many questions as possible at the conclusion of our program. without further delay i want to start talking to lindsay about this terrific book, "the cabinet." so lindsay, tell us, there's

been many, many books written about george washington, books about his time as revolutionary war general, books written about his time as president of the united states, and there's been a lot of scholarship on his precedent-setting activities. however, there has never been a book length treatment of washington's creation of the cabinet. why do you think that is? >> it such a great question. i think most people really assumed that because washington created the cabinet and every president since washington has had a cabinet, that it was sort of inevitable or it was just there from the very beginning. that's pretty much not the case. washington held his first cabinet meeting two and half years into his administration, and it was pretty very much tht of an organic development of him needing to respond to international and domestic pressures as they came up.

because the history has evolved the way it is, people sort of assume that was always going to be the case. >> tell us why washington decided to great the cabinet, and tell us a little bit about the earlier models that he utilized when he is trying to seek advice when he was president. >> so most people don't know that the cabinet actually is in the constitution, and article ii, section two of the constitution lays out to option for the president to obtain advice. first, the president can request written advice from the department secretaries about issues pertaining to their departments, or the president can consult and advise with the senate on foreign affairs. this had a very different meaning back in 1787 when the delegates to the constitutional convention first crafted this clause. they really intended the senate to serve as a council on foreign affairs. they intended the senate to be

active participants in the process of diplomacy, and so this picture that i put up here for you to see is of federal hall in new york city, and from washington's -- when he first learned office he intended to use these options that the constitution laid out for him. he went to federal hall. he visited with the senate and requested their advice, and it went very badly. he was expecting immediate answers. he wanted their opinions, and the senators that he wanted to act like legislators. they wanted to refer the issue to a committee. they wanted to debate it and discuss it in private, and asked him to come back the next week. that really frustrated washington. he got really angry and sort of urban legend is that he swore on the way out that it would never again return. and i'm not sure if that is actually true that he said that but he never went back to the senate for advice. regardless of what he said, he certainly meant it. so that was what option that he

sort of experiment with, and then really pretty quickly dismissed. the other option, the requesting of written advice, with something a washington get from the very beginning, but if we think about today when we're sending e-mails back and forth, we often forget to ask something or something isn't clear and we need to have a follow-up because someone's tone isn't necessarily conveyed well. now imagine trying to do that with parchment and quilted it was incredibly complicated and it took a really long time and it was cumbersome and judge wait for it to dry and then wait for the letter to be delivered and then wait for the response. and so washington really quickly realize that he needed to in person conversation in order to do with the very complex issues that were facing his administration. what he did is he would send a letter to the secretary. they would write back and forth once or twice and then have an individual meeting afterwards. that worked for about the first year and half of the

administration until diplomatic issues really started to boil to the surface and washington decided that he needed to bring all of his advisors together to consult in a group. >> you argue in your book that washington was influenced during his time as the revolutionary war general during his service in the revolutionary war, that it was the creation of the cabinet. in particular you talk a lot about the war counsel's that he conducted as general. can you tell us about those war counsel's another influence the creation of the cabinet? >> absolutely. washington was very much a military man and i put two pictures appear of what the council's might've looked like depending on whether or not they were meeting in home or the wharton. washington was really a military man. his prior leadership experts have come in the context of military is how he thought, is how he approached issues and the

council's of war have been incredibly helpful to him because it was an opportunity to bring together the officers to ask the different opinions, to allow them to sort of debate on these issues and duke it out and it was away for him to stress test the difference position and see whad arguments, and to consider all the facts at one time. he would often ask for written opinions afterwards but he could go home and read them and consider them in his own time and then make a final decision. and he concluded that this process was really helpful because it allowed him to get expertise and advice and perspectives that were different than his own, and that was very important to him both as as a general and as a president, and allowed him to try and build unity among his officers and even to get additional support if he was making a controversial decision. those counsel's of war were really the building ground for his leadership skills and once

washington could conclude that you need a cabinet, it was the model he drew upon. >> you argue in a book that washington was an efficient and effective administrator. you don't often think of george washington, when you think of george washington you think of general, some of his very decisive -- decisive. you don't think of him as a talented administrator. can you talk about that and also explain why that was on board when he was made president of united states? >> sure. washington doesn't get enough credit for being politically savvy, for having global leadership skills, are being actively involved in the presidential process. as i mentioned with the council ward leadership he was given with some really big personalities. they were loud. they were sometimes arrogant. they had their own ambitions. they had their own ideas about how to do things including --

famously like to bring in his pack of hounds to counsel of wars which i as a dog lover personally think is ripening with no sounds know they can be quite loud and perhaps not conducive to good meeting environment. he was dealing with a really colorful him boisterous environment and had to mention all of those personalities. when washington was president he certainly had people are diminished in a small space. but anyone who seen hamilton knows that hamilton and jefferson really, really didn't like each other and we didn't get along. so that management was crucial. the other reason the management was so important was because washington was studying president in every single action he was taking, everything from how to correspond with the secretary's or how to interact with congressman, how to respond to an average person on the street come what sort of sociat

to take place. someone who is capable of managing these details and managing the people beneath him was crucial when you're talking about building out a governing structure that isn't in the constitution and is and pass in legislation. so that day-to-day management becomes essential. >> following up on your observation, you also talk about in the book the washington understood the importance of developing close social relationships between his advisors. in modern day terms and washington have high eq? >> absolute. this is not one of the strength that's usually not appreciated. washington understood that when you're going to spend eight years fighting the war or eight years in the presidency, there are going to be disagreements. of course people are going to disagree, but if you have a bond that is existing beneath the disagreement you can usually get through them, or if you have

common cause you're working towards you can usually smooth pass any sort of disagreements or tensions. he hosted the social events, everything from private dinners to horseback rides out in the countryside, the balls and dances in winter quarters when the officers wives would come to visit. they would have these big festivities around the holidays and so he did try and build and the display to court to make sure the officers understood that there all fighting for the same cause -- esprit de corps. he did the same thing with the secretaries. he would often invite them to what he called his family dinner because he would refer to the secretaries as its official family. he would invite them to a family dinner either after a cabinet meeting or perhaps in the middle of one if it was dragging on for several hours as a bit of a break to try and smooth over the

feathers that it gotten ruffled by hamilton and jefferson's debates and try to remind them they were all working towards the same goal. i would me to suggest that worked better in the words that work in the presidency because hamilton and jefferson were so opposed to each other unless you're in the amount of socializing what a fixed it but he certainly tried and had the awareness that he needed to try to try to keep the cabinet together. >> so tell us who the original members, , the original team of rivals were in washington's presidential cabinet and also talk a little bit about the background of these individuals, their geographic origins, their opinions. was this a heterogeneous group of advisers or homogenous group of advisers? >> yeah, so the picture shows the original cabinet, washed in the course is to the left and then there's secretary of war henry knox, secretary of the treasury alexander hamilton, secretary of state thomas jefferson and attorney general

edmund randolph. for certain extent they are all very summer, all white men of course, but in terms of the ideas that the represented and the experiences and expertise they brought into the cabin, they were very, very different. henry knox had been a major general of the artillery during the war. he had then serve as the commander of west point and then the secretary or underneath the confederation congress. he had indispensable military experience and indispensable experience the goshen with native american nations which was under the purview of the secretary of war at the time. hamilton had a brilliant financial mind, and while washington certainly understood the plans that hamilton came up with, he didn't necessarily have that same sort of creativity and ability to come up with complex solutions. so he needed someone who could really come up with those ideas. thomas jefferson had extensive dramatic experience and was

fluent in french which was the light which of diplomacy, while washington had been to barbados when he was a teenager, that was the only time he ever left the country. he needed someone who was experienced in the art of diplomacy and what it was like to be in france and great britain. and lastly, edmund randolph who quickly goes overlooked was a brilliant equal mine. it been the attorney general for the state of virginia. he had been washington's private lawyer for many decades and so he was a really, really important part of the cabinet, especially when you're talking about constitutional questions because he would provide advice for all of the secretaries and not just washington. so in addition to the background and training, they also came from different regions of the country. jefferson and randolph were both slave owning virginians. hamilton made his home in new york and cozied up to the merchant trade elites, and knox had been self-taught, self

trained in boston and now made his home in may. and so washington understood that when the nation was new and the ties that bound the different states together were quite tenuous, he understood that if you brought in people to his administration that represented the different regions and different interests and different factions and all the different parts of the nation, as long as they were white men, that that would help people feel that they belong in the federal government. it would help them to feel like the federal government spoke for them and that was a really important part of his nationbuilding agenda. >> the original cabinet was diverse in several critical aspects, as you just described. however, they were unified and homogenous in the belief that washington needed to bolster his executive authority as president. why did they all agree upon this one principle? >> this is a really important

argument that i i try to make n the book that ideas about jefferson, people think certainly jefferson who was sometimes critical of washington and who was opposed to executive power, surely he didn't support that. but actually what i found is that the cabinet work together hand-in-hand to try and boost executive power because they had observed during the articles of confederation period and during the war what happened when the wasn't a strong federal government. and what happened when there wasn't one person really pushing an agenda and trying to get things done. and congress had been woefully inefficient. they had been powerless to try and levy taxes, powerless to try negotiate diplomacy, powerless to defend the nation against both domestic and foreign threats. they had all experienced what happen when there was a week congress and the weak executive.

and they believed in order for the nation to survive, there needed to be a strong president that could articulate policy and then go about admitting it in a very energetic way. and the cabinet as they envisioned it was not supposed to take with authority from the president or compete with the president, but rather to bolster the president's authority and help the president get things done. >> so when did the first cabinet meeting take place and why did washington call it? >> the first cabinet meeting took place on november 26, 2091, which is over two and a half years into washington's presidency. these pictures show the president's house in philadelphia, the painting to the right of course was contemporary and then this 3-d model shows white house would look like at the time. it was one of the larger sums in philadelphia, and was really quite a grand residence.

washington invited the secretaries over on november 26 because jefferson had just gotten some bad news from the british minister, and they really felt like it was time to establish a new strategy for trying to figure out the trade agreements with france and great britain. they basically had this meeting where with you without all of the existing policies and what their future goals were going to be. not too much actually came of that meeting, but what's interesting is those issues, relationship with france and great britain, those continue to dominate both washington's presidency and also cabinet deliberations for the remainder of his administration. >> how did washington handled this agreement within the cabinet jefferson and hamilton didn't always see eye to eye, so how did washington handle disputes that might've even gotten heated during cabinet meetings? >> yes. so there were some significantly heat cabinet meetings.

it would've met in a place that was all of it like this, if this what event similar to what washington's study would've looked like at the time. it was a fairly small room, 15 by 21, very full of furniture and there were five pretty large man meeting in this space. i think probably under the best of circumstances even if they all did get along the reading of the five times per week for several hours a day in the middle of the summer with no air conditioning in this cramped space that would've probably been some hot members. because jefferson and hamilton were diametrically opposed on so many issues, the tensions in the cabinet meetings quickly flared into much more than just a disagreement. washington did his best to keep things calm. he often would go back and forth between siding with jefferson, siding with hamilton, with hamilton come , with jefferson r trying to find middle ground

that merged both perspectives. he held the family dinners which i mention which may be help, maybe didn't. he assured both of them how valuable they were to him in the cabinet and pleaded with him to stay and not retire because he wanted those different perspectives. but ultimately he felt that this agreement and the differences of opinion again really helpful to them. it was important to hear all of the different sides of an issue, and so while jefferson really uncomfortable with that conflict and frequently wrote about how annoying it was that hamilton would go on for three-quarters of an hour so he would give a 45 minute speech in the space, washington was okay with it and was willing to let them battle it out because he thought it made him and the president morsi and the nation better. >> you argue in the book in several chapters that the cabinet, the institution of the cabinet, washington's cabinet,

greatly affected some of the most critical important leadership positions he made as president. one of those had to do with -- can you tell us about the genetic controversy and why was it so important for washington to have unanimity in this cabinet about expulsion of g&a? >> and 7093 france declares war on great britain and it quickly expands into basically and international conflict. the united states was nowhere near prepared to get into another war. they were just starting to recover physically, emotionally, financially from the revolution. not to mention they didn't have a navy or an army so even if they really wanted to fight did nothing to fight with. they all knew when this war broke out that they needed to maintain neutrality. what neutrality meant may be different because you could

enforce a strict account which hamilton favored and that would kind of help the british or you can force neutrality which jefferson favored and that would favor the french. but what really to a rich in all these plans was when citizen admin genet who was the new french minister arrived, and really ignored the united states neutrality. he started hiring privateers which were essentially private citizens that were hired to take shifts out under french marker or french letter basically and go attack british ships. and they would bring those attack ships back into u.s. ports, sell off the goods and turned that new ship into under the french by vijay. so obviously the british were really mad that this was happening and the did want these the ships brought into u.s. ports because that didn't seem very neutral. and genet basically disregarded orders to stop doing this

activity and, in fact, was doing it in the port of philadelphia which was about xbox washington's house, so literally right under the president's knows. -- about six blocks. he ordered for about six months to stop these activities and finally he was in an argument with jefferson and he was basically disagreeing with jefferson about who had the power to issue diplomacy policy in the united states. and genet with saint it was congress, and jefferson was saying you are wrong, it's the president. and genet threatened to appeal to the american people and that was hugely disrespectful to washington and that was very disrespectful to the new nation. so when this threat came out, when it was revealed that he said this, washington convened a cabinet meeting and they decided to request the recall of genet from france. this was a big moment because

the united states have never requested the recall of the foreign minister before, and if france disagreed or refused, that would basically going to be denying the right of the united states to establish its own foreign policy and to require that foreign ministers adhere to that foreign policy. when they made that the decisi, washington really needed to ensure that evelyn agreed, otherwise i was going to be problematic when they took this huge step. they all did agree. they sent a letter to france, and eventually france did recall genet and that was sort of a tacit agreement that the united states did have the right to set its own foreign policy. >> calling out the militia during the so-called whiskey rebellion, was certainly another important precedent for washington set. how did this cabinet influence his decision-making during the whiskey rebellion? >> absolutely. the cabinet was really important at this moment in 1794, violence

broke out in western pennsylvania, a number of rebels burned down the home of a tax collector, and there are sort of brewing discontent for quite some time but this was a real moment when you became a violent situation. washington gathered his cabinet and he asked for their advice on what they should do. and basically there were four options options that were available to him. he could leave it to the states to deal with in their own way, so pennsylvania could do with their own discontent. north carolina could deal with this. he could wait until congress came back into session in the fall. he could request an emergency session and asked them to come up with some policy, or he could use a new law that had been passed that said the president could call it the militia from several states needed of a foreign invasion or a domestic

rebellion. the cabinet urged him to do this fourth option, to take action so. he disagreed on the best way to do that. randolph thought he should send out a peace commission first to negotiate and come up with a peaceful solution. hamilton and knox were all for sending in the military right away. the new attorney general, william bradford, suggested that he would do a mill approach where he would send out a piece commission, especially for optics to look as though he then everything he could to avoid a military solution, but then get the militia ready while i was happening just in case it failed. and the washington pursued this last option. he thought it was a good idea to build up current public favor in public opinion before sending the troops. but then he did in up calling in the malicious for marilyn, virginia, pennsylvania and new jersey. and before doing so they really

had to work with the pennsylvania officials to try and get the complaint. this is where the cabinet is really crucial because they basically bullied the pennsylvania officials into agreeing to comply. they really didn't want to. they thought it should be a state issue and the washington was overstepping his authority, and the cabinet officials worked through through a series of letters and negotiations essentially browbeat them into submission. this amazing moment when the cabinet and the president worked two sides on state and sideline congress and car about this sphere of influence for the president over domestic issues which in theory is supposed to be really more the purview of the state or congress. >> at the very end of the washington administration you argue washington reinforces this notion that the cabinet will be led by the president in a personal way, and the present has to take his or her own

approach to how they lead the cabinet. what did you mean by that? >> at the end, and the last couple of years of washington's presidency there's a lot of turnover. some of the new people that come into office i affectionately referred to them as the b team, and i think that's because washington just didn't really trust them as much. he didn't think they were up to snuff picky didn't think they really were as talented as his first team, and so based on purely the numbers, are far fewer cabinet meeting in the last couple of years and he really reverts to individual consultations, to one-on-one meetings and to written correspondence because he doesn't want to convene the group of individuals. and so by doing so he ensures that the cabinet doesn't have a right to participate in decision-making process, and he determines that the president really gets to decide when and how he's going to meet with the

cabinet, and that is a very important legacy for going forward and for the president who came after. >> i want to ask our last question and then we might all of our viewers out there that we can ask questions for the conclusion of a program by typing in the questions in the comments section of the facebook feed. at the very end of your book, you argue that the management of the cabinet by the president can be and nearly impossible task. can you tell us why he wrote that, why you call it a nearly impossible task? what are some president historically other than washington who have effectively manage and lead their cabinets? >> sure. so the cabinet can be the president's greatest asset and it could also be its biggest potential risk factor, or really detrimental to the president's legacy and success. the reason i say that is because

it a president has put together a good cabinet, then that means they are putting together a group of people who were in government experience, incredibly knowledgeable, probably full of opinions and maybe have their own ambitions. some managing that group of people and getting them to be the most effective tools for your administration, your best form of outreach, your best form of congressional liaison, that can be an incredibly tricky tool, incredible tricky task to try and manage without either making them shut down or without having them under my presidential ambitions or presidential agendas. we have seen some examples where presidents to this incredibly well. fdr was really great about managing his cabinet, and the end really diverse perspectives, including two republicans during

the war years time to make sure he had unity and diverse opinions in his cabinet. another example of a president that did very well with the cabinet would be lincoln, of course. there is a team of rivals any managed have a number of different personalities i making it feel involved, making them feel welcome and heard. jefferson was great at this as well. and on the flipside, people like adams really struggled with the cabinet because he thought that they would be loyal to him for the office as opposed to having to work hard to manage those relationships. when presidents have good cabinets with ten not to see them, they cannot be too visible and their successes give the president an extra boost. and when they are not working well, then they become very visible and the ten to detract from a president submission.

>> -- a president's mission. >> we have some great questions here, lindsay. knowing nothing about the first captain i have to ask, was there fierce competition to these positions once they were created? in other words, with people that washington was putting together this thing called the cabinet, did everybody want to get in and have a chance to serve? >> salah actually no, which is pretty remarkable. washington really struggled to get people to fill these positions especially in his final years. it makes sense when you think about the reality of these positions. the pay was pretty low. you had to live in philadelphia and most of the year. you probably were leaving her family, your home, your business, your farm, your plantation for many, many months at a time. communication was poor because it took a long time of the mail to go, and travel which was difficult in the comfortable so you are not getting to visit all that often. you were probably taking an economic hit by being away from

your main source of income, and you were really dealing with uncomfortable reality so most people didn't want these positions and washington had to appeal to their sense of honor and duty to get people to go into office. >> a question about lincoln. doris kearns goodwin of course made a big splash with team of rivals, trying to peg lincoln's lyrical genius in part to his foresight in creating his cabinet. do you see link it as really that unique and changing the mold of what the cabinet look like in the early republic or quite frank was a just a lot of flashing personalities in the early days, to? >> this is a great question because team of rivals of course this change how we think about cabinets and how we think about even just the phrase team of rivals. people know what were talking about. it's a a beautifully written bk and a phenomenal story but as the question points out, the concept of putting together your

rivals in the cabin was actually not that new. most resident put the leaders of their political party in the cabinet, and if the president was lucky they were not competing directly with them and only with each other. someone wrote is a great example. monroe didn't have trouble with the sectors can take over authority from him but they were all competing with each other about who is going to be the next president and that led to a lot of the conflict. that was sort of the standard model at least through lincoln and he of course had its own political genius that i getting the people to work together. that was the standard cabinet model and. >> the next question is from facebook. in washington see john jay as an advisor in any way similar to how he saw his cabinet members? >> thanks for the question. he was definite of washington's

closest advisers. had a very relationship from the very beginning washington was asking for his advice special issues pertaining to diplomacy because john john jay been thed of foreign affairs underneath the confederation congress. and so washington as to for advice on everything from diplomacy to how washington should host social events to legal issues. and john jay had no problem sharing that advice and sharing those issues with washington. he went into a little bit of trouble and washing to ask the entire supreme court for advice and then had this, shut that and said no, we can't advise you on this issue because that would be a problem with separation of powers. but john j consumes be a very important advisor to washington until the end of his presidency. he just didn't attend cabinet meetings. >> the next question is from stephen on facebook again. this is a good one. who was your favorite cabinet member and why?

>> all, choose just one, oh, my goodness. >> i would say either, i'm going to take a cop out and say two. i was was either knox or randolph. i think those tend to be the two most underappreciated cabinet members. i hate when people say knox didn't do anything. he was just following along with hamilton, which directly comes from jefferson's writings by the way. jefferson thought the because knox agree with hamilton on almost everything, surely he was hamilton's toady. when in reality knocks at all these incredible expenses and was an army for so much longer than hamilton and just is not appreciated i think enough in the cabinet and then goes for randolph. he is has gotten a bad rap. those are my two favorites. i feel back for their legacies. >> -- i feel bad. >> what are the primary ways washington's engagement with his

cabinet affects how cabinets work today? >> great question. the cabinet has changed a lot. it's bigger. it is institutionalized. the national security council is taken over. a lot of the responsibility of the region cabinet, but when we think about washington's legacy which is that each president gets to decide who their closest advisers are going to be and how they going to relate to them, when they're going to to ask them for advice come in what form they are going to ask them for advice come whether or not they will listen to that of vice, relationships all take place outside of congressional and public oversight. which means some president can be really close with the vice president ike obama and biden really close. some president can do with a certain cabinet members, and some presidents refer to rely on family members like kennedy whose brother was in the cabinet and they were very close. or friends or of the people that

they happen to know. and that legacy very much affects how modern presidents work because we still have much oversight over those advisory relationships. >> the next question is from sean. did george washington really offer hamilton his choice of either treasury or state? if hamilton had chosen state, who would have been our first treasury secretary? >> no, he didn't. so depending on the evidence that you look at, some people say washington first offered treasury to robert morris which makes a lot of sense because they were very close friends. robert morse had been the treasury secretary during the confederation period and according to myths, moore's declines and encourage washington to pick hamilton for the treasury secretary. which probably would've been a second choice anyway it was a natural fit. washington knew that he needed someone to a diplomatic

experience and have relationships with people in foreign nations to serve as the second estate, and hamilton had not had any of that experience, have not been in those positions. that definitely would not have happened. actually it was really madisons encouragement that washington listen to when he picked jefferson to be the secretary of state. >> the next question, i was in the creation of the cabinet written into the constitution? that's a good question because the british had informed of the cabinet and the british system influence, so why didn't you buy the cabinet into the constitution? >> thank you very much for answering that question, or asking that question. the delegates at the constitutional convention were very concerned about there being a group of advisers around the president that obscured responsibility at the highest level. they were very worried it would become cabal and be cronyism and

corruption and that it wouldn't be clear who was advising what, who was taking different positions, who was making the final decision. that was very much the concerns they had inherited from the british system because it really wasn't clear with the british cabinet who told the king what and who was making the decisions, who they could hold responsible for maybe bad policies. so the delegates rejected that option and refuse to put into the cabinet because they were concerned about responsibility and transparency. and that's really why they insisted that the secretaries fight written advice because then they would be a paper trail of evidence about who said what and would be very clear who to blame it something poorly. >> from megan, was there some story or source that you love that you could not include in your book?

>> oh, my goodness. that's a very creative question. yes actually. so there isn't -- i mentioned a very briefly but i don't talk much about in the book, although i have since written other things about it. there is this thing called the articles of confederation -- sorry, the acts of congress, i was thinking -- >> the articles of confederatio confederation. >> it is a falling the washington had ordered. it's basically a copy of the constitution and a copy of all of the bills that were passed by the first federal congress. he had been bound into a volume in printed, and then he wrote aa series of notes in the margin. basically these notes reveal his ongoing thinking about executive power right as he is contemplating what he's going to do because the senate hasn't worked out and written advice is not sufficient enough.

so these notations are incredibly important, and the reason i love this document so much is that it was in private hands until 2012, and then mount vernon acquired it. so most hostile and didn't know it until 2012 and these notations are really rare because washington was not a scribble and is books ike adams or jefferson. you can see it if you go to mount vernon and i've done a podcast on this in an article as well. if you rent -- if you're interested more i can definitely shirt because it is a faceting document. >> we don't have much record of what washington thought because he didn't speak many times during the constitutional convention, correct? >> that's right. he only spoke once at the very end and he really preferred to listen during the actual debates. it's also important to note two things. one, he was there every day and he voted with the virginia delegation. so people knew how he was voting and his opinion was very

powerful. the second is that after the end of each session a lot of the delegates would go to dinner. they would go listen to music. they would go to the theater. they would visit local philadelphia families. they were socializing together almost every day and you can bet that they were talking up what they had discussed earlier. so i think he was probably having more private conversations about his feelings than working with the virginia delegates to try to get certain things past. he just prefer to work in smaller groups as opposed to speak in front of the entire convention. >> next question from brine. can you tell us more about washington's philadelphia home where some of those cabinet meetings took place? what was the homelike, the neighborhood and added that affect the meetings? >> it's a great question. i think this space is a important something we don't often consider about how our surroundings affect us on a day-to-day basis. so the home as i i said was onf the largest private homes in

philadelphia. it was sort of in the heart of a very nice, elite district on market and sixth streets. if you go to philadelphia today, there's a memorial, sort of half of the floor plan, the first floor. all of the secretaries live basically within six blocks of the president's house. so did many of the elite homes, and it was a very -- people think of washington, d.c. as a small world today. it has nothing on philadelphia in the 1790s because as a very small come unity. they went to the same shops, the same marcus, the same merchants. they attended the same feeders. they tended the same social clubs. they attended the same libraries and he went to each other soames. so that network in that neighborhood is really important because not only could jefferson and hamilton not escape each other in the actual studies that i should, that was very small, then when they left the home te

probably were running into each other fairly regularly at social events and other things. i know we have records that they used the same tailored to tailor their suits. so the likelihood they were running into each other was pretty good. they just couldn't escape each other. philadelphia really became a hot house for political tensions and exacerbated these existing divisions. and i think really led to the acceleration of the first political parties. >> the next question from andrew which is i think you'll like this one, was a musical hamilton an accurate representation of alexander hamilton? >> yes and no. first of all, it's art, phenomenal art but it's not history and that's okay because has inspired so many people to learn more about the subject and to read more, , and that is a wonderful thing. an huge fan of it. there's certain things that are absolutely correct. the reynolds affair was true.

his unbelievable marriage was true. her efforts to preserve his memory and his legacy after he died, 100% correct. the dual absolutely. but then there are things that are sort of built out for dramatic effects. there is no record that he had a sort of romantic flirtation with eli shows sister. they certainly had a robust correspondence but it didn't appear to be appropriate. similarly, he certainly did support some abolitionist sentiment. he supported the creation of the first school in new york city for freed african-americans, but he was as much of an abolitionist as the musical makes them out to be. the schuyler family had enslaved people. he was often surrounded by slavery and didn't appear to object to it all that much. so yes and no to a certain extent.

>> from james, was the talk amongst the early cabinet about who might be the next president? did jefferson make his intentions to run known early? >> great question. no, because everyone really wanted washington to keep surfing. they felt like he was a unifying figure and ten of the only person they could all agree upon at a time when agreement was hard to come by. there wasn't really all that much conversation. jefferson retired at the end of, retired at the end of 1793 and put home to monticello and swore that he was done with politics. everyone knew that wasn't quite so. but he never said anything about one to be president. but at the time it's important to remember, you couldn't appear to want to be president because that would make you ambitious in a very bad way. you have to appear to be this

interested and called to serve from duty and honor. and so jefferson really try to put that image out, that he didn't want to serve, he didn't want to be president, he wanted to stay home. and it wasn't a washington announced his intention to retire that people start talking about the other options. >> now we've we come to our lat question, unfortunately. it's a good one. why is it called a cabinet and why not a council? >> it's a great question. so the term cabinet comes from the british like so many things in the american political system and american culture. so initially there been a privy council that the king would meet with to discuss issues and get their advice, and privy council met a very large, ornate chamber. when the privy council got to be to be efficient as an advisory body, then the king started pulling a a couple of his favoe advisors into a small little

room off to the side. this little tiny room was called the kings cabinet. that was just the description of really small rooms at the time. this group became known as the kings cabinet council and eventually council was dropped and it became the captain. cabinets are signified a less official position within the government. counsel's tended to be written into legislation. so virginia, for example, had a council estate that defies the governor, same with new york. cabinet was intended to convey a more private conversation, a more private relationship. i 1792 americans were referring to washington's meetings as cabinet meeting. >> perfect. thank thank you so much, lindsa. once again the book is "the cabinet." i can't say enough about this book. i learned so much about george washington and also about political institutions, the creation of institutions and

certainly about the creation of the cabinet. we are not going to go back to stewart mclaurin for our conclusion for the evening. >> thank you, colleen and lindsay. i will say i've worked at the white house historical association for the rest of my career and learn something new everyday and i learned a great deal just listening to this conversation this evening. this white house history life is a first edition of something we would like to continue. we would like to get your feedback. if you enjoyed this or had suggestions for the future send us a message to our website or through the comments on this facebook life session. we would also like to invite you to an event we are hosting this thursday at 5:30 p.m. eastern. it's the third in our series of white house history happy hours. this thursday we will talk with presidential grandson clifton truman danielsville talk about the truman renovation of white

house and many other aspects of the truman presidency, and is on the great-grandson of president truman who will be mixing every special cocktail that i understand was a favorite of bess truman. if you like to order the book that we've been discussing today, it is available on the white house history -- white house historical association website. go to shop .mac whitehousehistory.org. it's discounted for purchase and you can get your copy there today. please stay safe and look for to seeing you on the next edition of white house history life. a good evening. >> sunday night on booktv on "after words" author care westover talks were that growip in the idaho mountains with survivalist parents in her book educated i think that my mother did a pretty decent job of homeschooling. by the time i came along ship seven kids can choose a midwife, and herbalist, there was a lot

of homeschool going on. i never took an exam. there's never anything like a lecture. >> ten ten at 10 p.m. eastern fr u.s. surgeon general with this book together on the impact of loneliness on health. >> i have many expenses talking to friends on phones within find myself -- social media feed or a question that came up and i don't need to do that. it's so accessible, attract dirt that a fall into it does dilute the quality of our conversation. when we think we're multitasking we are task switching between one thing and another very rapidly. this is why i think it's important for us to ask the question how do we extend not only the quality of time but the quality of time. >> watch booktv this weekend

on c-span2. >> television has changed since c-span began 41 years ago our mission continues to provide an unfiltered view of government, already this you we brought you a primary election coverage, the presidential impeachment process, and now the federal response to the coronavirus. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on a free radio app and a part of the national conversation through c-span's daily "washington journal" program or through our social media feeds. c-span, created by private industry, america's cable-television company, as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. >> next, pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist david rohde on the deep state during a discussion about his