battle of princeton. a meeting engagement. and again another victory. so washington had won four victories. in this very short period. and they were very different. one from the other. and frederick great looking on all of this. and, the greatest military feat he had ever seen. in the conduct of the campaign. it went on three months altogether the american army and militia fought something like 80 engagements. they were very small. mostly foraging party. but what they did was slowly wear down the british and the troops who were in new jersey. it was a heavy blow on that force. then as the the revolution went on, there were something like 24

campaigns. washington and his two lieutenants who commanded in the same open way, that screen in lafayette, commanded in ten of them. and they lost many battles but they won nine of the campaigns. nine campaigns. there were all the other campaigns maybe something like -- 13 or 14. depending on how that one counts. where, commanded by other officers, who didn't -- master that same method of command. and the americans lost all but two of those campaigns. dramatic difference in the way these, this style of -- leadership, began to pay off. and then afterwards, washington was called to another sort of service. as president. what he did to apply the same style of leadership to -- to -- to the presidency. his cabinet was very much like his counsels of war.

he tried to bring in very able people. he was at -- he was comfortable in his first administration. with people of high ability, working under him. and he also pucked people who were very diverse. representing the diversity of the cultures in the country. -- and he also picked people who were very diverse. representing the diversity of the cultures in the country. and he kept them there, three, four, and most of his first term. and using that same style of open leadership. it was a very flexible style of leadership. they had a cause and a principle, set of principles. but they didn't have an ideology. a word that was just beginning to come into usage in the 1790s. they didn't have a rigid set of doctrines. they weren't -- they didn't hatch elaborately formed policies with few exceptions.

but what they did was to serve the idea of this new republican government in ways that moved it forward but they were very flexible about the means. and while washington would some times use the invisible hand of adam smith, and then he saw no contradicts in turning to the visible hand of the use of government to run what he called laboratories, we called them factories. to manufacture the weapons that, that the, the republican needed to, to survive. it was that sort of flexibility that was a key to what was, what was, what was going on here. he kept cultivating the-- the art of silence. and reserving, that -- that -- in his conduct with others. he was of the first generation to use the phrase -- public opinion. but he was not a democrat. he thought it was important. he accepted the idea of the

sovereignty of the people. he believed in -- in elections as fundamental to all of that. and it never occurred to hum that hum -- him that he should choose policies on basis of popularity. in that we he was different from what would come later. he thought it was important that he should show himself to the people. and so he toured the country twice, a huge labor to go from maine to georgia as he did. to, so that he could, represent to, to the american people, what was happening. he had the capacity for growth. and he grew on the subject of slavery which is very interesting. and another subject. and all of these things were going on at the same time. and then after washington there was a period that ran through 1836. and the presidents through andrew jackson all had one thing in common. they all had known george

washington. every one of them. and they didn't copy him exactly, they were all different one from another. but they were inspired by that -- that example of a highly prns pu principled leadership. of a leadership that thought it was right to do the right thing and do it in the right way. that held to the idea of honesty in government and in politics. and that i think made a major dit difference in the course of the early republic. then there were other leaders who from time to time emerged who had the same success that washington had. not many of them. i think abraham lincoln would be one. i would say franklin roosevelt would be another. all of these men they were, i think, one can say, that, washington was a little to the right of center. franklin roosevelt said he was a little left of center. i think, franklin, abraham lincoln was right down the

middle. but all governed from the center. they really governed. and they tried to govern in ways that would engage a great diversity in their -- in -- in their country. lun c lincoln was different than wash work he was born into a democracy. he became a party man. washington hated parties. he believed in, a nation, washington's thinking was not precisely national. even as it became -- continental. he centered i think more on the great republic. than on an idea of -- of nationalism. but these men shared those same ways of, having, a set of values without an ideology. of having a large purpose without fixed and structured plans. of the sort that -- became too rigid and constraining. of working -- closely with the people, but reserving their own leadership. most of all, the capacity for growth, this new wonderful book

on, abraham lincoln by eric thunder, describes the growth of lincoln. through the years. the sameten about washington and roosevelt. now he is commanding a global power. a completely different undertaking at least in many of its parts. he also built the broad base of very able leaders. of putting republicans into the major positions, early in the war, secretary of war, secretary of the navy, working across party lines in that, in that regard. also, doing the other great -- combining great strengths of leadership that washington had done but in a different key. in another era. in a different framework. and now the question is -- what next? we can see that people took inspiration from lincoln, for that same period of about 60 years that had worked for washington. and then there is a wonderful book by -- bill luktenberg on

long shadow of fdr running to at least ronald reagan. reagan turning against the new deal. embracing that style of leadership. on the explicit example of franklin roosevelt. and now what today? what for us? and we look in this country and find many great leaders in every field. we find great leaders in, american universities. you are in the presence of one, such an extraordinary leader that way. and, there are 3,000 american universities today. most of them are in the hand of very good leaders. we see good leaders in government. one of my privileges is to, is to -- talk to the first, first-classmen at west point. which i have done the last two years. and the leadership of these young men and of the general

officers of the u.s. army, are extraordinary today. and we find that -- everywhere in this country, except recently on pennsylvania avenue. and i wonder what the future holds for us. much of it i think, it was said, said by thomas jefferson. his toughest job of his presidential office was appointing other people to office. we have a job of appointing other people to the presidential office. and who will we choose? i am a centrist. i am not happy about my choices. as i think many americans feel on both sides. and somehow as the arnold brothers said -- we have to educate our masters. woe have to find a way of reminding people of the leadership traditions that we have had in this country. they have seen us through very hard times. times much harder than what we

know today. and i believe that we can do this. yet again. thank you. questions? how was the time? okay? >> perfect. >> we do have time for a question if anybody wants to step down to the microphone. anybody? excellen excellent. they're being shy. >> about slavery? [ inaudible question ] >> the question is, talk a little bit more about washington and slavery. and it is a story of growth. i think, starting with -- in, in, before the revolution when as i mentioned washington was

comfortable in the role of, of, of slave holding. and became one of the largest slave holders in, in virginia. made a success of it economically. but then he began to -- think again, i think during the war, and as part of the war, and one thing that happened was there were these former slaves who were in his army. and he was very unhappy to find them there. and issued an order saying they would be roared equired to leav army. the people of new england said basically no way. they're part of our regiments. so, washington sent out another order. we will enlist no more in the future. and the -- the new englanders kept enlisting them. and then he said, well, we will have them in individual units, but woe wieable hav will have n. that was done in rhode island.

there was a unit of african-american leaders, a leader in the war. as he was doing that, also into the 1780s he began to correspond, there's some extraordinary new work that has just been published from scholar whose have been reading of the books in washington's library in the boston antheneum. in them, washington was buying and reading many anti-slavery tracks of his time. they were pouring in, all over the world, and he was part of a kind of western -- movement, that was -- had a very particular quality. not only brit uish but also french. intended to be centered on gradual emancipation. he was moving in that, in that direction. and then, he would not free his slaves. in his lifetime. others were doing that.

and that mission was spreading very rapidly in particularly in, in, in maryland, in virginia, especially in, in delaware. but he chose not to do that. i think partly it was complicated because things were not all, most of them were not his slaves they belonged to his wife. there was some complication about that. as well. but he did finally decide as others did not, to end slavery at mount vernon. on his, on his, on his death. what drove him there -- i think it was -- probably that idea of -- of these men engaged struggle for, in the cause. it's been observed that happened in again and again in the american reform movement. jane adams trying to explain why suffrage was enacted after world war i. she said the decisive factor was the support of women in this country for the american war effort in world war i which won

the, the respect of people who had to vote ton that question i the congress and the legislation. i think it may hatch beve been something look that that was working with george washington on the subject of slavery. >> thank you, professor fisher for an amazing talk. >> thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> more american history tv on c span 3. up next, a yale university professor on president andrew jackson and the constitution. then, a panel of historians on teaching constitutional history. >> american history tv continues on cspan 3. each night the rest of the week. wednesday at 8:00 p.m. historians consider who time magazine might have picked to be person of the year in 1862 when the country was in the midst of

the civil war. among the names discussed abolitionist leader frederick douglas, robert e. lee and george b. mclellan. >> this is cspan 3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week. every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our web sites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. every weekend, hear eyewitness accounts about american history and the people and events that shaped our nation. oral histories. saturday, 8:00 a.m. sunday afternoon at 3:00. and monday mornings at 4:00 eastern. only on american history tv on cspan 3. learn more about our programs and series along with schedules and online video are chive at

cspan.org/history. next, as part of the university of oklahoma's teach-in on the founding of america, yale university law and political science professor, talks about how the presidency of andrew jackson transformed the constitution in ways that affect us today. this is about an hour. >> thank you so much. it's -- thank you, thank you. it's such an honor to be with you all. i have learned a ton today. haven't the previous speakers just been extraordinary? [ applause ] so -- so -- presidents are important. presidents of universities are important. and it's a particular honor to

be here at president boren's invitation. well had a wonderful time at the president's house. bo boyd house last night. but i also want to remind you of the, and i'm sure larry summers would want us all to understand the presidents of universities are important. but, so are presidents of the united states. and, we have heard a lot about presidents already. i will come back to that unjust a minute. but i just can't resist beginning with a story about our eldest son, he just turned 13 this week. so i am feeling very nostalgic about recalling, you know he turns a man. recalling vic at age 6. i am going to say something here that is a challenge to you all, a point about civics education

and constitutional education for which this university is, is, so justly renowned. at the age of 6, vic learned his presidents. and he asked me a question one day. just out of the blue. he said, dad, when did the british become our friends? i said that is a really interesting question, vic. why do you ask? he said, dad, george washington fought against them. and dwight eisenhower fought with them. so some time in between they must have become our friends. now, what vic at age of 6 understood is it is a very deep point. if kids can, can learn about baseball players and trade baseball cards and learn statistics and pokemon, they can learn, you all can learn, the

presidents, if you know each of the presidents, there are less than 50 of them, and their order, and -- and one page, a wikipedia like page about each president, the basingbasics, myd at your disposal, just with that the spine of american history. and to some extent, the spine of modern world history. just at your disposal. and so, learn your presidents. if you don't know them. learn, one page about them. our conversation today has really been all about presidents. and you need to know them too. if you can't tell the difference between a green piece of paper with george washington on it and a green piece of paper with abe lincoln or grant, you are going to get short changed. okay. so -- we have already heard a couple

of meditations, at least, about george washington that wonderful talk by david hackett fischer, gordon wood talked about his distinctiveness. we heard about john adams. of course later on david mccullough is going to be part of these proceedings and the pre-eminent scholar john adams. i asked a question about adams' son, john quincy. we've heard about thomas jefferson. we've heard from the jefferson chair at the university of virginia which is jefferson's university in the person of peter onuf, the so-called father of the constitution, james madison, jefferson's good friend. we saw a picture of james monroe in that boat right there right beside george washington. again, john quincy adams was mentioned. that's the spine of american history.

and i want to suggest, just because i wanted to -- my talk today is going to be about the constitution. that's what i do, that's where i live and move and have my being as intellectually as in the constitution, and i wanted to basically give you one kind of memorable way to to pull together the basic theme of my talk. i want to suggest that our constitution is in its basic structure far more jackson, andrew jackson-like, than we've been taught. i'll tell you at the end of today, three ways to sort of remember that it's all about jackson and for all of you, but in a nutshell our constitution is more small "d" democratic, more open to men that are born

in lower strata of society, small "d" democratic than the standard story that many of us were taught, a story in the 20th century is associated with a charles beard whose work was mention mentioned actually in several earlier today. more democratic talking, andrew jackson was basically the leader of the so-called capital "d" democratic party. our constitution is also -- we've already heard a lot about this today -- more slave-ocratic, more pro-slavery than we've been taught. andrew jackson was much less apologetic, much more openly pro-slavery than the apologetic slave holders we've heard about, george washington, thomas

jefferson. our constitution deep structure, despite maybe the best instreakses of the framers, more slave-ocratic, it's in the dna than we've been taught. and our constitution is much more about national security, about being able to beat the british, for example. vic at the age of 6 understood. he isn't up there on mt. rush more because they burned the capitol on his watch and that's not such a good thing. our constitution, general jackson, like general washington, knows how to beat the british and so manifest destiny, the monroe doctrine, isolationist america, these are all captured by andrew jackson. they're epitomized by him,

exemplified by him and that's the deep structure of the original constitution. more democratic, more slave-ocratic, more about national security and hemisphere isolationism. it unsurprisingly gives us it shall the constitution -- the dominant figure and peter onuf said this and i think several others have and i want you to hear it clearly, and that constitution failed. we call that failure the civil war and it failed because of the pro-slavery elements and it's a challenge. our republic could fail still and to understand how theirs did and what the challenges are, even their vision of national security may not make sense for

your world. at lunch talk about your world is very different than theirs and on national security i want to suggest, too, we need to rethink because our constitution of jackson and our world is not jackson. mr. lincoln fixed the second thing, the pro-slavery element, we still need to rethink the third, that challenge of your generation that's all summed up with this idea of a jacksonian constitution. so let me say at least a few interesting things. as you heard before perhaps -- i think from paul the most -- before gordon wood comes along, the most influential book after the federalist proved this is by

charles beard and that's the dominant paradigm, the dissertation and beard presents the constitution as largely sort of a pro-property instrument by the money men. it's almost a cue day tau, going beyond their express instructions as they're pulling a fast one on the rest of us. that's the kind of speared of beard's critique that the constitution is basically designed for the property -- of the property, by the property, for the property. and whether you know it or not, a student of charles beard to

some extent he influenced the people who wrote the textbooks you studied in high school and college unless you were lucky enough to just get someone who understood gordon wood's interpretation and not just gordon woods but douglas adair and others who began to reorient us away from that beardian thesis. i'm here to say actual ly it's even -- beard was even wronger than wood suggested in this first book and later the radicalism of the american revolution gets it right. our constitution was a radically democratic document for its time. beard gets it absolutely wrong. he must be really gifted because he manages to get you to forget the elephant in the room which is they've put the thing to a vote up and down the continent

and they won. in state after state after state. they lost in a couple of places. they lost in new hampshire -- in north carolina. they lost in rhode island and in new york. it is a very near thing, a very close thing, 30-27. and it's not just that one year. they keep voting for the people who gave them the constitution, george washington and james madison and others. many of philadelphia and more. and more. there's remarkable free speech in the series of elections up and down the continent and you can be against the thing and you are not basically cast out. let me contrast it to 177. 1776 here are your choices if you're fiercely opposed to

american independence. if you're a loyalist. here are your choices. one, leave. two, shut the hell up. that's it if you don't want to be tarred and feathered. this is not a joke. what did we hear from david hackett fischer? 60,000 troops all told, a massive projection of military force. when they get here they're going to slit your throat and your wife's throat and your daughter's throat and your son's throat and your mom's throat. this is not a joke. no one who opposes the american revolution fiercely goes on toa authority. the most prominent person i've been able to come up with is phillip barton key. flash forward the constitution. you can be fiercely opposed to the constitution and co