things are shut down. and so i wanted to say let's prepare, let's be like that fireman or fire woman that's ready for the next fire. they hope it won't happen but they will be prepared for that by. >> "washington post" michelle singletary on her book what to do with your money when crisis hits. listen to over podcasts under new c-span now app. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> i am david rubenstein and the honor and privilege of interviewing joseph ellis about his latest book the cause. and it's a discontent welcome to our show joseph. >> pleasure to be with you, david. >> host: and thank you. for those who do not know he's one of the countries leading scholars the revolutionary war era and area he's a person it's's written 13 books on the subjects. he's a graduate of william and mary got his phd from yale he's a winner of a pulitzer prize and national book award his latest book is a an explanation of why we went to war with the british and why they ultimately ended the war from their point of view i've

read all and i've enjoyed this the most i've learned this than any other book so thank you very much for writing this book. >> i am glad to hear that. the author of the book is perhaps the most myopic person in terms of understanding how it will be received. i am happy with that and i hope other people will agree with you. if you like the book founding brothers which is about the 1790s, i think you will like this one which is about the 1770s. i did not know what i was doing 40 8:30 55 years ago when i started writing about it turns out was trying to write history of the american founding. found out i was doing it backwards. : : :

's you hope that it will do well and you send it out into the world. what attracted you as a young man to devote your career to the american revolutionary war. in the heroes of that. >> i did not even major in history in college. i may have gone to raju at school because i could not afford toi go to law school. i came under the influence of edwin morgan and he set me on my course. another of my mentors there worked a lot with him and i asked him if i could write my

dissertation on thomas jefferson. he said, no, you are not old enough to write a biography. so, i did try to do that for another 25 years. that is where i caught it. i must have had some kind of influence there. i have stuck with the lady because i've written biographies , washington, adams, jefferson, i sometimes get identified as a presidential historian. i don't think of myself as a presidential historian. i've written about the first three presidents. at any rate, ed morgan let me write the way i wanted to. i think teaching at a liberal arts college allowed me to aim

at a general audience rather than a group of professional historians. >> there you go. >> lets go through some of the key points on your book. asking questions for another 20 minutes or so. then about 10 minutes or so where you can have your question submitted. submitted them in the chat room and i will read them subsequently when we get to that section. what do you mean by the cause? where did that phrase come from? >> good question. in the early stages of the war for american independence, nobody called it the american revolution. the british called it the american rebellion. the columnist started in 1774-75 started talking about the common

cause which at the time meant that counties response to the british occupation of massachusetts and especially boston and the rallying of domestic counties to support them and what was called the coercive acts. common cause then discovered news to the cause. it became a convenient label, a convenient canopy in which people and colonies with different political agenda could come together. may not agree on what they were for, but may agree on what they were against. british policy and great britain's attempt to enslave. so, the cause becomes a coverall term that stays in place until the end of the war. it is a convenient way for people to believe that they all agree. the conventional view, the

british wanted to pay for the effects of having soldiers here following the french and indian war. the taxesth were not popular. your point of view, it was not the revenue so much that the british wanted, they wanted to make sure it was clear that they were in control of the colonies. >> that is right. starting in the wake of 1763, great britain gets a third of this huge area including canada. they decide that they have to actually govern it. because up until now, the phrase was neglects. now that they have reached this level of power, they have to act like one. they begin to impose taxes. why i think that it was not a money issue, but a power issue

is the actual cost of enforcing thee legislation, having people collecting revenue was greater they on the revenue raised by the taxes. britain had about 140,000-pound debt and they were hoping to reduce it. they weree mostly hoping to assume control over the colonies the colonies perceived that control as they put it, it sounds a bit paranoid, but as it an attempt to enslave them. there was some truth to that, namely, not that the british intended to enslave, but once you surrendered control to parliament, you could not be sure how far they would go. each move that they make seem to

confirm the diagnosis that there is a plot. by the time you get to 75-76, the americans believe that great britain which is about dissent 32,000 groups to invade them, greatt britain is really trying to enslave them.sh in fact, all you want to do is second-class british citizens to be sure, but not slaves. nevertheless, that misunderstanding process. the british decision to militarize this conflict in 1774, may stand as the greatest wonder in the history. i think american readers may be able to understand the british thinking and dilemma in the war. perhaps for the first time. put it this way. a newly arrived power with

confidence, certain of its invincibility. stepping into a quagmire and unnecessary unwinnable war. that sounds pretty familiar to me. so, the colonies did not really want to be independent up until the moment of the declaration of independence. they wanted to have a relationship with the british government and basically each colony would have their own relationship. they were not really dying to have a united states of america. >> you are right. the reason i'm saying it is such a blunder, once the war starts going bad for the british by 78, the british say, oh, okay. we will give you everything you wanted. we will even let you have a continental congress. if they had said that in 1775, we never would have had a

larevolution by then, it is too late. too many towns had been destroyed, too many women had been raped. they missed the opportunity. you pointed out in your book that today, americans probably think that the american colonies were so valuable economically, but in those days it was not the american colonies, but where the money was for the british. is that a fair understanding? they are more worried about the money to be made from the caribbean colonies and they were from the american colonies. is that a fair description? >> that is true. especially jamaica. thirteen colonies put together. when the prince come into the war and 78, the british diver the bulk of their resources to protecting their hold in the caribbean. because that is what they are

most afraid of losing. so, again, another contemporary term, you can hear the domino effect. they are afraid if they let the americans go, then canada will go and then the caribbean will go. so, their fixation on the american rebellion is based on the belief that they let that happen, their entire empire may very well collapse. >> in your book you point out that the colonial leaders are sending entreaties all the time thinking he is surely the nice person. if only they knew how bad the parliament was, they would handle this plan appropriately. is that right? >> it is. there is a consensus that

parliament is a body attempting to impose its raw elements. they began to have the argument that george the third does not know what parliament is doing. one of the early revolutionary develops this argument. if only george the third knew what was going on, he would stop it all. over time, they come to the realization that banking on george the third is a hopeless cause. nobody is more than george the third period and when the war is over and they are looking for scapegoats, the first thing you do is look for scapegoats. they shared a passage on george the third. the generals, not so much on wallace. but then george jermaine, the

equivalent secretary of defense. because if you pass it to georga the third, you are passing on a whole empire. at any rate, he does not lose his mind, but before he becomes mentally depraved, george exercises the greatest imperial power of any british king since the glorious revolution. and he is the real scapegoat. was george washington a military genius to win the war with so few troops. sometimes they were not even close barely. was he just lucky that the british fondled their effort to win? was it a combination of both? >> washington himself would say he was probably lucky. winning a war was like a standing miracle.

the way i put it, as a general, washington was not that effective. he lost more battles in a one. the great generals in world historyt, they end up losers. washington was not a great general, but he ended up a great winner. we understand a strategic reality. he did not have to win the war. there british had to win the war. it's a lot easier not to lose. as long as he kept it intact and as long as the colonies stayed united, the cause was hopeless. and he was right about that.

my real heroes in this book. the ordinary troops and continental. ten-15% were african-americans. it is a seven and a half year long marathon. it as a war that is more vicious and barbaric than we imagine it. if we had matthew brady photographs, we would think of it differently. artists like gioia and set up trumbull. thinking of it differently. morere americans died in that w. it is really barbaric. >> the final battle of the war,

the battle at yorktown. gettingg cornwallis to surrende. why were the french so interested in helping the americans? did they have an alternative motive? >> mostly the latter. it was payback time for losing the french and indian war. it turnse out, by the way, the french spent so much money helping us that they begin to go bankrupt. without the french both in the war and especially the last battle of the war we could not have won the war. at that moment.

i don't think that we ever lost it. there is only one american military activity during that battle. it is led by the rhode island regiment which is the regiment of almost entirely african-american soldiers. the unit in the continental army mostly blackbeard the rest of it is a french victory, a french operation. tell lafayette. we have arrived. it is our turn to pay it back.

so, the battle of yorktown occurs 7081. they have the time to surrender. why didn't it take two years to know go she had the treaty of paris. what was going on? [laughter] >> it does take two more years. there are scrimmages going on. people are continuing to die. major figures in american government later on. it is also emancipation of blacks. the americans have to decide whether to sign a separate treaty with great britain because the french are being dragged down by their obligations to spain and et cetera and et cetera et cetera.

thegg continental army is just north of west point and newburgh . as i think you know from the book, what do they call it, almost an insurrection by the army asking washington to lead them. they had not been paid for almost a year. they are starving. they think when the war ends they will lose any leverage to get theirig pensions.hr they threatened to exercise a coup. i will not lead you in this and i ask you, i tell you you must not do this. it is one of the first

washington, later told george washington refuses to become the dictator. george the third says if he does that, the greatest man in the world. at that moment, he was. that is not what they will do. they tend to be the revolution. separating themselves from it. >> okay. from anna, what set you in theec path of becoming a historian? what set your path in history? >> i think reading biography, i came to history through biography. i love biography. because there is always a center

of this topic. i sort of thought, look, we all come into this world the same way and we all leave the same way. and so that is perhaps an adolescent way to calm. as i said, i did not major in history. i could not pay for law school. through history, raising the intellectual questions that i thought philosophy should invest an intellectual historian, whatever the heck that meant. so, it is a strange path. it worked out for me. >> free african-americans, what role did they play in the

american revolution? >> well, especially new england which they were the greatest of african-americans served in the new england militia and the continental army. about 10,000 overtime. they escaped to the british army. served in the british army. they were not allowed to combat american units. the service of african-american in the continental army was the last time of the military forcen

named harry washington. ends up being evacuated going to nova scotia and then back. interesting pattern. the freedom for the british and eventually achieve that. when he gets there, a resistance to british rule. it is two different black men choosing different courses for the same reason. liberty. >> okay. suppose wee had lost the war.

is it too hard to predict? if we lost it in a new military way. the american leaders, including washington, carrying them over to england. give him a show trial. if they lost the war towards the end and the american army just disintegrated. it would have been a more peaceful negotiation. we would have begun to see 50 years earlier the creation called the british commonwealth. we would have been the first

followed by canada, australia and new zealand. have our own political independence. >> when you finish a book, the publisher wants you to go all over the place. i mentioned to you earlier, david, a book that asked a question why the founders chose to fail? i think it is a tragedy that could have happened differently. while i do think they are among the greatest leaders in american history and political terms and creative terms, that all-important issue, the reasons we haven't thought about before,

i am reading a book about the red sox in the glory years of their last minute race. an important contribution. why was he chosen to be the first vice president? >> actually, adam's most important contribution was made early in the game in the ar1760s, early 70s. you can see this in the film and the play. recognizing american independence is inevitable. he becomes vice president because he keeps in the election of 1789. he hates the vice presidency.

he says it is the most ridiculous idea ever invented by the mind of man. one of the things that some listeners may be surprised by, the first, four presidents of te united states, washington, adams, jefferson and madison did not regard the presidency as the capstone of their careers. they regarded it as an epilogue. the greatest contribution came in the run-up to the revolution. the contribution was made during the war, winning the war. madison believes the contribution leading up to the contribution. i would also make the cases. my own view, none of the early american president and the kind of political conditions required

now. an act of prostitution. >> we have just two minutes left. howell where was the african-american with the war. spreadingl time and geography. >> i will try to be really brief because our time is really limited. the committees of safety inspection are created in 1775 that make it possible. very far away. remaining neutral during the war. that possibly would be the biggest group. forty or 50%. they just want on with their ordinary lives. you are required to make a commitment. if you commitment to the cause, your neighbors will shun you, you will eventually be banished, you will not be killed, but you will be forced to face the fact that you

will be cast out of the congregation. it is because of that that the british can never win the war. they can win every battle and after every battle as soon as they leave the other side takes over. they will be punished. it is the war at the ground imlevel in the countryside that made it possible for them to win the war. they are forced to take a clear position away. >> we have 30 seconds left. what would you like to take away from this book in 30 seconds? >> having a group of people leaving us at the beginning who regarded the public interest rather than the popular in charge. one of the soldiers in the

continental army. going back to them. capacity for irony and paradox. this is what this subtitle is. we end the war. on capable of dealing with the native american issue effectively and with the slavery issue because the government is ay confederation of sovereign states. the term united states is a plural now not a singular noun. that leads us to tragedy. >> okay. we have been a conversation with joseph alice. one of the countries leading historians during the colonial period of time. thank you very much for this conversation. >> thank you, david. >> you are watching book tvs coverage of this year's national book festival. talking about