in the autumn of 1798 he retreated to his study, scratched out a 28-page will whose opening lines contained an unmistakable political statement. i, george walking of mt. vernon, a citizen of the united states, and lately president of the sane, not a citizen of virginia, not a southerner or a tide water aristocrat, but an american. this is how washington reasserted the nationalist creed to which he had devoted 40 years of his life. like other thoughtful men, he struggled to reconcile his ownership of human beings with his country's professed love of liberty. he had indeed hoped that virginia's lawmakers would take the decision out of his hands by providing for gradual emancipation. the chances of such action all was faint, grew still more

remote, as richmond lawmakers talked openly of defying federal authorities. and so it was left to washington to free his slaves on martha's death after making certain that the aged or sick would be fed and clothed by his heirs. he took an even more radical step. in challenging his state's legal ban on educating negros. directing that all under the age of 25 should be taught to read and write, and, quote, brought up to some useful occupation. and i do hereby expressly forbid the sale or transportation out of the said commonwealth of any slave i may die possessed of under any pretense whatever. as if to reinforce his determination, washington added a clause ordering his executives to carry out his wishes, quote, religiously, without evasion,

neglect or delay. this is a copy of "rasmussen reports." several years old. the most recent poll of presidential favorability, excluding the incumbent but including each and every one of his predecessors. and you will not be surprised to learn that george washington hassed highest favorable rating among his countrymen. 94% which sounds vaguely soviet. 2% say they are unfavorable. 69% are very favorable, 25% are favorable.

no one is very unfavorable. that's interesting because the more you know about george washington and particularly it seems to me the more you immerse yourself in his presidency, beyond the ritualistic reverence that that 94% represents, there is a desire for a president like george washington. in his marvelous new biography chernot has a chapter called "man of moderation." lots and lot of us profess to want someone as disinterested, as compassionate, as visionary

and yet practical, as willing to work with people across the aisle, as george washington. and so tonight, as i conclude this series, i don't know whether in term of lectures we saved the best for last but i know in terms of presidents we saved the best for first. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. we've got a few minutes for questions and i have been asked, very explicitly to point out

that we have a microphone here from the folks at c-span. there it is. so if you are a question thrust your hand into the air where she can see it and wait until she reaches you and then everyone can hear it. >> is this on? why are there no great unifying leaders like george washington today? >> first of all, read the farewell address. washington never believed that the united states would be without political differences or political parties, factions, whatever you want to call them.

what washington's whole presidency was about, whether it was staying out of european conflict or trying to avoid as long as possible the evolution of these intense partisan differences, washington's whole presidency was about buying time. washington was enough of a visionary to know -- washington was a strong leader of a weak nation, and given that situation, he also had enough faith in the future of this nation, given 30, 40 years of peace, that it would develop to the point where, frankly it could defend itself against any foreign power. likewise at home, washington allowed himself to be pummeled, not only by the press, but literally to have his effigy burned in the streets of philadelphia.

washington took risks for peace and for political peace at home. it was a self-denying kind of leadership. and the irony is -- and i may have overemphasized the doubts, the fears, the concerns that washington harbored as he went into office about the consequences of this office on his reputation. the fact of the matter is, if you were washington leaving office, you might very well feel that all of those fears had been realized. so someone like that, someone who is as, in many ways, devoid of personal ambition, but also someone who is seen as a in many ways nonpolitical figure,

there's only one of those. there are other leaders, obviously, who have managed in lincoln's famous phrase, the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion, lincoln being a great example. there are so many reasons why it is difficult for a president of either party or any ideological persuasion to transcend artificial, exaggerated, media-hyped differences, controversies. the political parties have themselves been superseded now by cable tv and the internet,

which is supposed to be a great instrument for bringing us together but politically has had largely the opposite effect. with the blessings or the curse of anonymity you can get online and dump all of the poison you want into the well and call it political discourse. it's -- it's -- the last -- i've said this before, think of last five american presidents, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, four of those five i would argue have been, quote, polarizing figures. that tells you less about them than it does about us and about the political climate and the media climate in which we operate.

i think you can make a case that we spent a disproportionate amount of time in this campaign which already seems to have gone on forever and we still have a year to go, working around the edges, you know, today's controversy. and one is, because television, and above all, cable television, with a very notable exception here, has something called the 24/7 news cycle. john kennedy could dominate the national agenda with a press conference in the state department auditorium, and when the bay of pigs turned out disastrously, what happened? his numbers went up. up. he said with mordent wit, my

god, it's like eisenhower, the worse you do, the more popular you become. he wasn't an admirer of ike. but today can you imagine if the bay of pigs took place? there would not be a rally around the flag mentality. so i don't know. i would like to be an optimist. we have the example of washington which is always there to inspire and to provide, i think, some very concrete, tangible, contemporary, relevant examples of leadership. but it's tough. >> how was washington able to keep under wraps the political

rivalry between, say, jefferson and -- >> and hamilton? >> yes. >> here is washington's genius. and, by the way, if you want a contemporary parallel, look at dwight eisenhower, whose great hero was george washington and who was like washington, you know, the man who won world war ii didn't need a favorable story in that day's new york times to burnish his reputation. eisenhower and what became famous as the hidden hand approach to the presidency, the idea of pulling strings in behind the curtain in many ways because ike didn't need the ego gratification of a teddy roosevelt and the bully pulpit. but also that's how he preferred to operate in many ways from the shadows.

and part of that was the example of washington whose great success was to keep both hamilton and jefferson in the cabinet long after both of them wanted out. again, it's all part of buying time. and the consequence was that washington, first of all, subjected himself to some very unpleasant cabinet meetings and occasionally lost his temper. we have jefferson's account of one at which the president threw his hat on the floor. i don't know why he was wearing his hat at the cabinet meeting, but in any event -- but we know that washington sacrificed in many ways during the presidency and part of it was, in my view, part of this much larger realization that it was -- it

was vital that both hamilton and jefferson, in the immortal worlds of lyndon johnson about j. edgar hoover were kept insite the tent pissing out rather than inside the tent pissing in. and that's not a plug for the movie. >> in your first lecture you described a washington who was seeking self-aggrandizement and power and prestige and money and status. and today you basically talked about a washington who had no ego and was doing everything for the benefit of the country. that's a complete turnaround in where he was coming from. what do you attribute the significant change in his

outlook and his sense of accomplishment? >> yeah. i accept the broad description. i would take issue -- i think he had an ego, he had -- i don't think it's as drastic as you suggest. it is, i think, an evolution and i think it is the key to washington's greatness. but it's also, in many ways, what makes washington one of us. i mean, the american dream is a dream is not only to accumulate worldly wealth, but to live a useful life and to share one's talents and to be part of the civic life of one's time. part of it also, in my opinion, and this is very american, you know, washington wanted to be rich and famous, and he got to

be both, and he found they were rather less than fulfilling. so he had money and he was famous. quite frankly, being famous had its drawbacks since for the last 25 years of his life it made it virtually impossible for him to meet a human being on anything like normal terms. washington grew. i mean, the classic example, i think, of that would be his attitudes not only about slavery but i think about race. and again, i don't want to exaggerate, you know. washington is not one of us. he's not a 21st century figure, and i know there's always his tendency to want to humanize washington in ways that often

inadvertently trivialize him. but in any event i don't think are accurate. what i tried to do when i wrote the book is to transport us credibly into his world to immerse ourselves in that and to understand up close both the very human aspects of washington and the larger than life elements of washington. and i think, you know, it is the process of evolutionary growth, it is the realization, as i said tonight there are interests greater than self-interests. washington, in many ways, outgrew the narrow culture that produced him, and that is something that i think is the essence of what we'd like to think of as the american success story.

got one more? >> as we approach the thanksgiving holiday, i know that abraham lincoln is often recognized as the first president to initiate or give a formal day of thanksgiving. but i am also aware that george washington had done the same. i was interested in your comments on that. >> that's right. of course, franklin roosevelt institutionalized the holiday moving around to make sure there were x-number of shopping days till christmas, which made sense in the economy and the 1930s. yeah, no, you're absolutely right. george washington, both during the revolution and in his first year as president formally

proclaimed a day of thanksgiving within a religious context. not everyone agreed with him. there were those -- i mean, this is -- it's interesting. you wouldn't think about this, necessarily, but this is one of those issues that helped to begin to define the original party system, differences, the notion of the government instituting any kind of religious observance. and in some ways, that's a debate that goes on to this day. but it also feeds into the larger question of washington and his faith. again, i would not for a moment pretend to be an authority on this, but i do believe that it is too easy, and i think

inaccurate to simply write washington off as a deist. as someone who had a heck annistic view of the universe. my sense, his view of faith is something that evolved like so much else about washington and in particular he went through hell during the revolution and you don't have to believe the rather sugary image in stained glass of washington on his knees at valley forge. you don't have to accept that image to nevertheless embrace the idea of washington as a believing, practicing, christian. thank you so much. [ applause ]

we'll have more american history tv on friday night, with a series of programs on the life of abraham lincoln. at 8:00 p.m. eastern a visit to ford's theater for a look at lincoln's personal effects the night of his death. and at 8:30, american artifacts looks at lincoln's assassination. at 9:00, a discussion about abraham lincoln and the freedom of the press. at 10:30, steven barry between lincoln and his in-laws the todd family. american history tv airs each weekend here on c-span3. we got started because there are a lot of conservative thinkings that work across issues. before cap there had been no single progressive thinking organization that works on economic policy, domestic

policy, international security. >> ceo for the center for american progress on the mission of the washington, d.c., based think tank. >> we often think there is an ideology between arguments made in washington with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make the arguments and the factual argume arguments. i do think sometimes when the facts don't argue for our position, we reexamine those positions, because we unfundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q & a. there's a new website for american history tv, where you can find our schedules and preview our upcoming programs. watch featured video from our regular weekly series.

history in the news and social media from facebook, youtube