but first from a national book festival best-selling historian joseph ellis provides the history of the revolutionary war. that will be followed by an opportunity for you to ask mr. ellis your questions during a live call in segment. : : >> glad to be with you david. >> thank you for those of you who don't know joseph ellis is a leading scholar in this area and hero is a person is written in 13 books on this subject is a graduate of the college of them got his phd at yale and is one of a full surprise and the other awards in his latest book is an explanation of why we went to

work with the british by the british ultimately ended the war and successfully from their point of view and would say i read all of joseph ellis' books and i've enjoyed this one the most actually found it they learned more from this book than any of the other books and thank you very much for writing this book. >> i'm glad to hear that, the author of the book is perhaps the most myopic a person in terms of understanding how it will be received i am happy with it i hope that other people would agree with you. if you like the book founding brothers which is about done in the 1790s, i think like this one which is about 1770s. i didn't know what i was doing 41305 years ago i started to write about these centuries and it turns out that i was trying to write history of the american founding. and i turned out that i was doing it backwards.

and this should come first chronologically but i don't think i could've written it 25 years ago and i have learned something since and thank god and so is looking a child child. you help that is going to do well and then you will send it out into the world pretty. >> what attracted you as a young man to devote your career to the merc and revolutionary war. in the heroes of that time. >> i didn't major in history in college, majored in philosophy and i ended up going to graduate school because i cannot afford to go to law school. i got a scholarship and nobody understood how i got into yale and then i came under the influence of a person who was an early american asked and he set me on my course. in another my mentors there

woodward, horse along with him i asked him if i can write my dissertation on thomas jefferson and he said, no, you are not old enough to write a biography, you have to have lived life more and so i didn't try to do that for another 25 years and that is where i cough it i guess coming out of williamsburg, i must've had some information fair and a stuck with the late 18th century. and washington, adams and jefferson, the three presence and sometimes i can identify as a presidential historian and don't think of myself as a presidential historian, i'm a historian of healing and everything about it the 31st presidents. at any rate, he let me write the way that i wanted to and i think

teaching in the liberal arts college allowed me to work on this in a way that aimed at a general spread instead of just the other group of professional historians. that's probably too long of an answer but there you go david pretty. >> husband through some of the key points in your book and i remind everybody that i'll be asking questions for another 20 minutes or so and then about tenants or so where you can have your questions submitted in the chat room and i will breed them subsequently when we get that. leaving by the cause, why did you call your book and cause wanted that phrase come from. "the cause". >> that's an obvious good question. in the early stages of the war for american independence, nobody would've called it the market revolution and the british call it the american

rebellion and the colonist starting in the 1774 and 75 started talk about the common cause. that at the time it meant the colonies response to the british occupation in massachusetts and especially boston and the railing in the special under the other colonies in response to the coercive acts in the common cause then discovered "the cause" and became a convenient label, convenient kind of canopy in which people in colonies and individuals, their political agenda could come together and they might not agree on what they were for but they knew what they were against. against the british policy and great britain's attempt as they put it, they clocked in from plot to enslave them. a cell becomes a coverall term that stays in place through the end of the war.

and as a convenient way for them to believe that they all agree. >> so the conventional view is i've always on in school was that the british wanted to pay for the effects of having soldiers here following the french and indian wars also known as a seven year war so they imposed a lot of taxes and taxes were not popular but their point of view is that it was not the resident so much of the british wanted, they wanted to make it clear that they weren't in control of the colonies, is that right printed. >> that is right and starting it in the wake of the end of the treaty of paris in 1763, one third of the continent, that is huge area including canada. they decided they got to actually dominate and up until now, the phrase was another they

reach this level world power predict the god act like one. but i think that it was not a money issue but a power issue is that the actual cost or forcing the legislation, putting troops there and having people collecting revenue was greater than revenue raised by the taxes so prison had 140,000-pound debt they were hoping to reduce it but they were hoping mostly to assume a control on the colonies. in the colonies perceive that control is a pretty, paranoia, but if they saw it as a tent for a plot to enslave them. and there was some truth to that, mainly, not that the british attempted to enslave but once you surrendered control,

you cannot be sure how far they would go. in each move the british made in the 1770s seem to confirm that there was a plot so by the time you get to 76, the reckons believed the great britain collision above his head 32000 troops to invade them, great britain is really trying to enslave them and in fact, with the british minister, they always wanted to do is make them into colonist, is the second class british citizens to be sure but not slaves and nevertheless, the misunderstanding persists in the british decision to militarize this conflict in 1734, is the greatest blunder in the history of british statehood. and i think american might be able to understand the british

dilemma in the war and pass for the first time in about it this way, earlier world power with confidence and certain of its economically and militarily stability steps into an in an unnecessary war. that sounds pretty familiar to me. clemenceau the colonies because your point of view is the didn't really want to be independent up until the moment of the declaration of independence with what they really wanted was to have the relationship with the h government and basically each colony would have its own relationship. they were wanting to have a united states of the americas that right pretty. >> you are right and the reason that i'm saying that is such a blunder is that once a war starts going badly, by 77 and 78, they will say will give you everything that you want without

tax you and will even let you have continental congress and the fate and said that in 1775, we would've never had a revolution but by then it is too late and too many people died and too intense have been distorted too many women's have been raped and it is missed the opportunity. >> you plan on your book that today americans probably think that the american colonies both not only economically but in those days it was not the americans but the other colonies for the money was for the british. set a fair understanding and the british were more worried about the money to be made from their caribbean colonies. >> that is true and especially jamaica, more profitable in their own 13 colonies put together. and when the press come into the work and 78, 1778, the british, the bulk of their military and

sources went into protecting the caribbean. because that's the most of what they're afraid of losing and again, another contemporary word or term, did you ever hear of the domino effect. they were afraid that if they let the americans go, and canada will go and then the caribbean ♪ ♪ and so their fixation on suppressing the american rebellion is based on that if they let that happen entire empire might very well collapse pretty. >> and you will you point out that the colonial leaders are sending the treaties thinking that while he surely nice person if only the parliament that he would handle this appropriately but he turns out say think that you point out that he was worse

than the parliament. >> that's right, they is a consensus that parliament is a body attempting to impose its will and they begin to develop the argument to george the third cousin no department is doing. and john dickinson, one of the early revolutionary years develops that they fully george knew what was going on, he would stop it all. and over time, they come to the realization it that this on george the third is a hopeless cause because nobody is more committed to imposing the imperial power on the colonies in george the third. and when the war is over, and looking for state governments in the first and did you do when you lose a war is look for scapegoats initiative passed on to george the third with the

tenants, it tended to pass it on to generals and have their calling us a much homologous and within george the equivalent secretary of defense ready and because if you pass them to george the third, he has gone on the whole empire and today, and before he begins to lose while he doesn't lose his mind, his illness but before he becomes mentally depraved, george the third exercise the greatest imperial power of any british king since the glorious revolution and he is the real scape goat. >> it was george washington a military genius to win the war but so few troops and sometimes the troops were not even barely there. or was he just lucky that the british fumbled their effort to win. was he a genius for the british fumbled are what. >> washington himself would say

he was probably lucky he said putting the work understanding miracle like god's providence he called it was on his side. the way that i put it is as a general, washington was not that effective and he lost more battles than the one. but if you think about it, most of the great generals in world history starting with napoleon and rommel and robert e. lee, not losers washington was not a great general pretty and of a winner and at some point he understood the strategic reality that became all-consuming and crucial than he did it have to win the war. the british had to win the war so just not lose and as long as he kept the continental army intact, and as long as the colonies stayed united behind

him, the british cause and he was right about that but there is a kind of resilience to him and to the ordinary troops in the continental army, my real heroes in this book a film about ten - 15 percent by the way work african-americans. and they are the ones whose deserve the real credit. and set seven or have your long marathon. and it is a war that is more, barbaric and then we imagined. we had matthew grady photographs of this war as we did of the civil war we think of it differs differently. mid artists. we think of it differently but more americans died in the american revolution in per capita than any war in american history stay in the civil war and if you get to understand, is

really barbaric. >> the final battle of the war, metal at yorktown george washington in effect gives wallace to surrender by the french were indispensable for the navy and why were they so interested in helping the americans and today have an ulterior motive rated they think the british were like us pretty. >> mostly the latter, it's payback time for coming last printed indian war and the americans proposing to the british, or opposing it the legal academy on france and it turns out by the way, the french spent so much money helping us that they begin to go bankrupt for the reason they have to call the state general this what * * french revolution but the french, both in the war and

especially last bottle of the work, yorktown, we could not have won the war at that moment and i don't think we would've lost it but yorktown is mostly french operation and french navy arrives just the right time and french warfare and moving up to canada and there is only one american military activity during the battle and the attack and is led by the rhode island regimen which is regimented and highly african-american soldiers. 150 of them to becomes illini combat unit in the army mostly black. they take the rest of it is a french victory and operation. and when the american expedition forces arrived in france in 1917 to the french, where the staff

officers were general pershing said lafayette we have arrived. and it's our turn to pay back. >> so the battle of yorktown happens in 1781, when wallace's to praise too embarrassed to show his face at the time of the surrender so he does not do that. but the british surrender and what it takes two years to negotiate the treaty of paris what was going on and that two years. >> it does take two more years and there are scrimmages that keep going on and people are continuing to die especially lawrence, he one note to kill the would-be become one of the major figures like ron. and it a war for emancipation of blacks. the americans have to decide whether to sign a separatist

treaty with great britain because the french dragged down by their obligations etc. and because it is dragged down, the continental army's just north of west point and newburgh, and as i think you know from the book, the newburgh with the call almost description putting army asking washington it lead them if they not been paid for over a year and they're starving. and i think wendy or hundred work and is, the lose any leverage to get there pensions and they're probably right about that so they threatened to exercise a coup in washington appears before them and gives one the moremost important speeches in his life effectively saying that we cannot and will not lead to you this and ask you to tell you you must not do

this. and they follow it at that moment. it's one of the first george washington refuses to become a dictator george the third said that if he does that, to be the greatest man in the world. but at that moment, he was an think about it, this was caesar did rommel dead or what napoleon will do or others will do or castro will do. they tend to believe that they are the revolution, dictators do have a difficult separating themselves from it. >> okay we have questions from those viewing and i'll begin with some of them, fermanagh, listen to the path of becoming an historian and what sparked your interest in history. >> gosh, i think reading biographies, can history through biography and through lives and

i love biographies since there was always a center of topic and i sort of thought look will come into this world the same way really the same way. what can we learn by people who lived before of this and some of them a thousand years before us so this perhaps an adolescent way to come to this but as i said, i didn't major in history predict i majored in philosophy and i decided to go forward in history because for many reasons, because it couldn't pay for law school. but also because through history, you can raise the intellectual questions that i thought philosophy usually addressed and i thought that was an intellectual historian, whatever that meant. so strange path but it worked out for me.

>> for markley in question, what role it freed african-americans play in the american revolution. >> freed african-americans, well, especially new england and, the greatest number of free african-americans, served in both the new england militia and then in the continental army. and that at about 10000 overtime. in roughly same number of free blacks, who escaped to the british army, served in the british army in the british army, they were not allowed to serve on combat units in the american army, they were. in the service of african-americans, was the last time that they were generally integrated military forces until the korean war.

so i featured billy lee in the book is a profile, george washington's manservant with him through the whole war. in washington freeze him in his will. on the other side, a man named kerry washington, he was serving as a british and in south be evacuated out if you new york at the end of the work and going to nova scotia and eventually interesting pattern but one black man, serves the cause with the commander-in-chief and the other goes and pursues his own freedoms with the british and eventually achieves it when he gets to sierra he helped lead a movement and resistance to british rule climbing to be taxed without their consent. it is two different black men choosing different courses for the same reason.

>> okay, by the way, suppose we had lost the war the neck and sauce work, how would history be different because when we eventually become free pretty thank you so too early or too hard to predict. >> if we had will depends on how he lost my philosophy in a real military way, good lasted at the battle of new york and long island, then there would've taken all the american leaders including washington and jefferson carried them over to england and give them a trial and hung them and put their heads on spikes around the west minister. and if they lost the war towards the end, and the american army just disintegrated in yorktown didn't happen, it would be a more peaceful negotiation and we would've began to seep 50 years

earlier if the creation of something called the british commonwealth. and like canada and australia new zealand it to remain in the economically empire and we have our own political defense rated. >> so there's a question fermanagh can you tell us about what you're working on now and what you are currently reading. >> when i working on now, while to be the becoming about half finished, the publisher want you to go all over the place advertising and am working and thinking about the next book, i'll share it with the audience. it asked the questions, why the founders failed to incite i think they do failed, that's a tragedy. and what i do think there among the greatest leaders in american history, and political terms integrated terms i think they failed to that all-important issue.

i want to know why. there are reasons that i think of it not come about. and what am i reading now pretty and trent. i'm writing a book about the red sox in the glory years in the pennant race and turns out of what they do this year. >> this for marion, what would you say john adams most important contribution and why was he chosen to be the first white president. sina actually adams most important contribution was made early in the game in 1760s, and early 70s, even see this in the film in the play of 1776, he's recognizing that americans is inevitable and that america was looking for a messiah that would never come. and later on, he becomes vice president because he gets the

second number of votes after washington and the election of 1789. and he hates the vice presidency and he said has the most ridiculous idea ever invented in the minds of man and one of the things that some listeners might be surprised by is that the first presidents, washington, adams and jefferson. and madison, they did not regard the presidency as the capstone of their careers, they regarded it as an epilogue. and adams thought his greatest contribution came in the revolution in washington thought it was during the war to win the war and jefferson believed his greatest contribution was the declaration of independence and that is the leading up to the constitutional convention. and we overvalue the presidency then and also make the case in my own view but none of the

early market presidents whenever run for president and the kind of political conditions required now. they would've regarded that as an act of prostitution pretty. >> we just have two minutes less, how or where was the average american after the war as it was being fought given that actual battles are mostly small in time and geography printed. >> i'll try to be brief because our time is limited but at the local level, what happens is safety and inspection are created and 75 that make the impossible for somebody living anywhere in america, no matter how far away remaining neutral during the war. that would probably be the biggest group, but your required to make a commitment if you don't make a commitment to the cause, that's for the cause, this phrase again, your neighbors are going to shun you

and you eventually will be banished you're not going to be killed but you will be forced to face the fact that you would be cast out of the congregation. and it's because of that the british can never win the war because they can win every battle as soon they leave the other side takes over unless they will be punished and so it is the war the ground level in the countryside the makes it impossible for the british to win the war and ordinary americans are forced to take a position in a way that many of them may not have done pretty. >> we have 30 seconds left, what is main message of the scope that you would like somebody to take away from this book. >> we are fortunate to have had a group of people leaving us a beginning through the party rather than the popular interest in charge and is a republic but not a democracy and as much as

we owe the ordinary soldiers in the continental soldier undergarment, we should go back to them and capacity for irony and paradox, and this is why the sometimes healthiest in its discontent. when we end the war, we are incapable of dealing with the native market issues effectively and the slavery issue effectively because the government is a confederation of sovereign states and it is nobleness and during the united states is a plural noun, not a single noun and that leads us to tragedy. >> okay, we been in conversation, one of the countries leading historians the revolutionary and more in colonial work. and about his note book, "the cause". joseph ellis.