model of political behavior, but they were as divisive, they were as confused as we are about their own times. so i think what they did do was hold up an ideal. all of our ideals come out of that revolution, that they created. equality, liberty, constitutionalism. the institutions by which we govern ourselves, they created them. however confusedly they did that, we look back to who they are. we reaffirm ourselves. because we're not a nation in the ordinary sense of the term. there's no american ethnicity, now especially. we don't have that kind of problem that say the french have or the germans have with immigrants. we think we have an immigrant problem, but it pales in significance compared to the french or the germans and the brits will face over the coming century. because they just -- you know, the french can't believe that those arabs who have been living

there for three generations are really french. they don't look french. they're not real french. but we don't have that problem. however much we think we have a problem with mexican immigration. we're not an ethnicity. what holds us together? a belief in the ideals. the constitutional. it's taking on a kind of sacred quality in our eyes. even though people don't read it, they still feel it has a sacred quality and i think it's -- we go back to them. the way lincoln said we ought to. that they are flesh of our flesh. blood of our blood. because he drew inspiration from them. all honor to jefferson, he said, when he's talking about equality. he felt this connection that i think we continue to feel. people ask me questions like, you know, what would george washington think of the invasion of iraq? i mean, people don't -- other other countries don't do that.

people don't ask -- >> what would charlemain say? >> yeah. william pitt, they don't have that kind of connection to the past. as history-minded as they might be, the brits don't have that kind of connection. so i have a lot of sympathy for the tea party people. i know they distort the past, but i understand the emotional need because i think it's there for everyone in some sense. because there's no other basis for our americanism. except these ideals that they created. >> and one of the points you make in your book is that this sense of our ideals was very early on accompanied by a sense that we were an example to the world because of those ideals. luis mentioned that the show here right now is on the american and the haitian and the

french revolutions which happened in a contained time span. shall we talk about how we reacted to those revolutions? >> yeah. >> well, i think we started with the notion. this is the little colonial rebellion. this is forming in people. by 1790. what did it matter? and yet, they thought that this little colonial rebellion had world-shattering importance. that it was the most important event in the history of the world. and that it would spread democracy around the world. and when the french revolution broke out ten years later they had no doubt they had created it. of course some of the french revolutionaries, the leaders, lafayette thought so too. he sent the key of bastille, the symbol of tyranny, the prison in paris, sent the key to george washington. and the key now hangs in mt. vernon.

we thought the french revolution was a carbon copy of our own. when it spiralled out to tyranny, we just assumed well, the french don't have the stuff, the virtue, that makes a revolution successful. and from then on, all through the latin american revolutions, take place, we are the first state to recognize them. now, there is one revolution -- this is true throughout the 19th century. every 1848, the greek rebellion, 1820. the french bourgeois monarchy, in 1830, the revolutions of 1848, we're the first state in the world, normally, to recognize the new regimes. which all failed, of course. there's one revolution we don't recognize and of course the obvious one is the haitian. and that was not that haitian republic was not recognized until lincoln's. administrati administration. for obvious reasons. this was a rebellion of slaves who slaughtered the white masters. it was impossible for a southern dominated republic to recognize

that regime. it took lincoln to do it. >> but john adams did send a console. >> yeah, but we didn't diplomatically recognize it. the federalists were very keen on having relations with the haitian government. again, the federalists have come up in the eyes of scholars over the last 20 years, through much of our history, through the 20th century. it's the jeffersonian who dominated scholarly attitudes. they were the party of the democrats and they were the party of the small farmers and so on. and the federalists were a bunch of aristocrats. now recently because of the development of anti-slave feeling, and women's movement, people like hamilton and many of the federalists are much more liberal on these issues than the southern dominated jeffersonian republicans. so the federalists have

recovered some of the press that they lost through the first half of the 20th century. >> the rural vote has come in. i found a letter that hamilton wrote. the council that adams sent to haiti, edwin stephens, who was a friend of hamilton's. they grew up in the virgin islands together. and stephens wrote hamilton and said, do you have any thoughts about a constitution for haiti? it's very interesting what hamilton did. he said only a military government is possible. but he did try to have some balancing of powers in it. he said, you know, there should be judges elected for life and you should have a council of generals to propose taxes. >> right. >> so he wasn't -- i don't think you'd call that a hopeful, particularly. but he's trying to -- he makes some suggestions. >> well, even jefferson when he looked at the latin american revolutions, he said, well, they're probably not going to work very well.

they'll probably -- the people will wade through military despotisms for generations, but as they want to become republicans, i wish them well. that was the kind of -- it's a kind of patronizing pessimism we had towards people. which became more pessimistic as time went on, because the revolutions failed. the revelationslutions of 1848, the austrian, hungarian empire, failed. what expresses american chutzpa, if you will, secretary of state, the austrian hungarian minister, complains to him for american instigation and support of the hungarian and revolutions taking place in the austrian and hungarian empires. and normally in the evasive words says exact contrary.

he says we the united states take nothing less than full responsibility for all of the rebellions that are taking place in europe. he goes on, in this kind of pride in instigating rebellion. then ends his message to the austrian hungarian minister in washington, he says, besides compared to the great extend of the united states, the austrian hungarian empire is but a patch on the earth's surface. this kind of spread eagle bombast was very typical of american diplomatic language. we were just considered by many people, of being a really wild, scary kind of country. a dangerous country in the 19th century. >> and webster was a good diplomat, when he wasn't holding forth. >> that's right. he's a conservative man. he's a good wiig. but there's the kind of attitude we had. we were really bumpshouse.

i mean, president grant. the french finally overthrow napoleon iii and the president grant sends a message to the new french government, congratulating them on adopting american principles. what would the french foreign office think of that? we don't know. as if they had no republican tradition of their own to draw on, they have become americanized. now, the big turning point as you know occurs in 1917 which i think is very illustrative of our attitude. in the beginning, you know, in the spring the czar is forced out of -- forced to abdicate. and seven days later in may we recognize the new republic. >> which is corin ski. the moderate government. and first nation in the world to recognize the new russian

republic. and wilson is ecstatic. he had a new fit partner for his league and so on. and the representative -- our minister in moscow writes back, russia will come out with correct american principles is what he is saying. a few months later, six months later the bolsheviks take over. what happens? we had the last major state in the world to recognize the soviet union. i think ireland was the last. but we were the last. 16 years, four american presidents. the last state to recognize. now what happened? we had always been recognizing these rebelions. i think it's because the soviets were not -- were not a species of the revolutionary genius americans. they were a whole new genus altogether. all these other republican revolutions, we have one that isn't like us. this is offering a whole new

universalist message contrary to our own. with the same kind of universal aspirations of our own. the communist aspirations. i think the cold war begins in 1917. interrupted briefly with the war against a more sinister enemy, nazi germany, but quickly, quickly resumed after the war. and the fear of communism was a real fear, that they were threatening the meaning of the united states. and its role in history. >> who owns the principle of revolution? >> exactly. where's the future? i mean, there's a new biography of lincolns stefans. he comes back from the soviet union in the 1930s and says there's where the future is. a lot of intellectuals did buy into that, and it scared the bejesus out of us. you have to take that seriously. when kennedy in his inaugural address said we'll pay any price, bear any burden in defense of liberty, that's a

cold war speech that was based on the fear that communism was spreading and we had to stop it. contain its. as george said. >> i want to get to questions. i'm sure we have a lot. but before we do that. my last question, you have spent a lot of time in this period and with its great men and with its obscure men and women. who would you want to spend an evening with if you could? >> well, i think -- i mean, i admire george washington greatly. because i think he stood head and shoulders above the others. we tend to lump them all together which is unfortunate because, you know, presidents day -- all the presidents, they didn't think so. they thought washington was way ahead of them -- the rest of them. but the man you'd want to spend the evening with is benjamin franklin because he would have kept you laughing, he had a million stories.

washington was not a great dinner partner. >> okay. we're going to be taking questions, and if you'd like to have a question, if you want to ask a question, we have two microphones. one there and one is being set up over there. before you ask the question, please state your name and please just ask one question. and no speeches with rising inflections as questions either. and we have two staff members who can help you. so let's start with the mic over here and we'll alternate back and forth. >> hi, alan. in your book, you argue that the revolutionaries assumed widespread virtue and disinterestedness within the american population, but you don't really say where they thought that virtue was supposed to come from.

so i'm wondering if you'd say a little bit more about that. what do they think the source of virtue was that would sustain the republic. and would you say about what you yourself might be the source of virtue in 21st century america that would sustain our public. >> well, the virtue is the classical term for disinterestedness was another synonym they used, meaning impartiality, willing to suppress your private interests for the sake of a public good. which was, of course, what the romans and greeks thought was the ideal character to have to sustain a republic. because if authoritarian governments can suppress, and if everyone runs off in promoting his own selfish interests, then you've got chaos, and only a monarchy can hold that. so you needed obedience from the bottom-up. they felt from their experience in 1775 -- '74, '75, '76 the

courts were closed in most of the colonies or states as they emerged, and yet people weren't running amuck. of course, there were popular ways of keeping -- there was a lot of oppression brought to bear on torees and loyalists. nonetheless, it seemed as if the country was expressing a kind of virtue. but they started off very, very idealistically i guess inclined and found they were disillusioned by what happened. many of them. the elites were. i think that's where the crisis comes in the 1780s. we're not as virtuous as we thought we were. how do we -- how do we solve the problem of holding a republic together when the populous is not virtuous? this is where the structure of government comes in. that's why madison was so obsessed with building a structure that would account for -- it would keep us a republic without having a virtuous

populous. he was still counting on a virtuous leadership, but i think he hoped that this structure by itself would deal with a self-interested, factious people. and in some -- we had a civil war after all. but we have muddled through and we're still muddling through. it's very difficult to get anything done, it was built into the structure of the system. power is dangerous, and that was the fear they had. that was madison's fear certainly. and it's created a problem for us. if we had a parliamentary system, john boehner would be the prime minister. think of it in those terms. >> i'm -- hi. i would like to know who was allowed to vote?

was it the land owners or was it the elite? who was elected to be voters? >> well, it changed as time went on, but at the outset, it was property owners in most states. white males. 21 and older who had some property. now, in some states the property qualifications were very low. in pennsylvania, for example, it was quite radical. vermont too. but you have to keep that in perspective. we had the largest electorate of any state in the world and we did even in the colonial period. two out of three white males could vote in most colonies. now, compare that to england which itself was considered a democratic state by european standards. one out of six males could vote in england. so by any standards whatsoever in the 18th century we had the largest most democratic in the world. woman of course did not vote yet.

that's a 20th century except in some states, that was a 20th century accomplishment. and certainly black slaves did not vote. but you have to get it into perspective. in the context of the time, we had the largest electorate in the world. in the 18th century. >> there was black people that owned property, but they were not allowed to vote? >> yes. in northern states, yes. they started -- they were voting in new york and pennsylvania. at the outset, yes. if you were a free black and you had property you could vote. and women -- in new jersey for about nine years, women who had property could vote. that was taken away and there was not a single protest from any woman. >> ray tillman. canadians today are taught that the u.s. revolution came about because we didn't want to pay our taxes which of course the brits love because they claim that the french and indian war debts. but the canadians believe the

motivation of the americans revoting was largely economic. we, of course, were taught it was liberty and freedom and so on. quantitatively on the aggregate motivation say in the 1760s and '70s, what was -- what were the american motives, 90% one or 10% for the other or 50-50? what would you guess? >> i think that's an impossible question to answer. obviously, economic issues were important. people were frightened about what -- if they could tax us what they could do. i think it was more a fear of power. i'll give you one example. the tea party, you know, the massachusetts radicals throw 10,000 pounds -- value. that's millions of dollars by our standards of tea into the boston harbor. and the country is appalled by this.

the virginians, of course without virginia, there is no revelation. it's the richest state. virginians are appalled by this tea party and if the brits had acted moderately which is asking a lot because they had been asking a lot, because they'd been apiecing the colonists at every moment. they kept repealing and backing away. now, enough is a enough they said. destroying property, that's outrageous and they come in with a coercive force. they close the port of boston. they do away with the town meeting. they change the massachusetts charter. well, the virginians say if they can do that to massachusetts, they can do it to us. now, is that economic? is that a fear of just power, of sovereignty? it's a complicated issue. i don't think you can measure it in terms of, well, they're going to lose some money. it was much more fear of what -- alien force 3,000 miles away could do to them. i think it's a fear of --

>> would our representation in the british parliament have alleviated that? >> yeah, some people propose that i think the americans would not have -- they figured they would have been manipulated. that was called the scottish solution because the scots had been given 100 members in 1707. we weren't going to buy in to that because they already had 560 or 580 members in the house of commons. it's a huge howls use of common bigger than our house today. we would have been deluded. but the canadian point -- you have to understand, canadians are a bunch of loyalists. think about this, we have -- if you want to know the difference between canada and the united states, what's our trilogy? life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. what is the canadians' trilogy? peace, order, and good government. there's a difference between the two countries. it's two different cultures. they really are still very much

affected by their loyalist beginnings. >> thank you. >> you talked a little bit earlier about in the -- >> what's your name, please? >> i'm nathan, horace mann school. you talked a bit in the 1780s madison is worried about tyranny of the majority. >> right. >> the state legislatures are running amok. i was wondering what you thought about the relation of the uniquely american concept of judicial review on the concept and especially today we have citizens united recently, we have the health care challenge coming up. >> right. >> how you think that kind of strand has intertwined since marlboro versus madison in the revolutionary period? >> it develops very slowly and against much opposition. the development of the courts i would say along with the creation of the constitution was one of the principal

accomplishments of the federalists, the federalists of the 1790s if you will rather than the federalists of the 1780s. it's a curve on democracy. there's no way you can justify nine individuals deciding issues and say, well, that's democratic. you have to face the fact it is a way of curbing and softening the text of democracy. often for good causes, you know, minority rights, individual liberties and so on, but in no way is it a democratic institution. now, there were people who began arguing that they are a kind of representative of the people, and people said, well, if that's true, then we should elect them and that, of course, has happened with the states. about 39 states elected their judges. now, that's not happened at the federal level. you know how difficult it is to amend the constitution. i haven't heard anybody suggesting that. i've heard i think gingrich has

suggested doing away with the ninth circuit. which he says -- would be on the face of it unconstitutional but after all he cites jefferson's party doing away with the 16 judges in 1801 so there's a precedent for that. but the courts really are a curb on democracy, something that we've come to accept, and i think it's quite extraordinary that we're willing to accept the degree to which the courts particularly the supreme court affects our lives. i mean, when you think about 2000, the election, that was remarkable, the acceptance of that. in many countries that would have led to riots in the streets and gunfire and killings and we see what's happening in the middle east. we didn't have that. and that i think is part of our respect for the court which has to be handled -- the court's quite aware of this.

they have to handle things very carefully. they don't want to get out ahead of public opinion. but it was developed very slowly. judicial review did not take off right away. it was fought tooth and nail for decades, particularly by the jeffersonians, particularly jefferson himself. madison came to i think appreciate the court better than his colleague, jefferson. >> jefferson said that if marshall, john marshall, whom he hated -- >> yes. >> -- if john marshall asked him if the sun was shining, he would say, i don't know, sir, i can't tell. because he figured whatever he said you would get marbury versus madison. >> madison was such a shrewd, really one of the great minds, without a great education, he didn't have a lot of college education. he had a great mind, however. >> sir? >> albert hellerstein, the federalists had a comment on judicial review, the idea of reviewing by the courts, the constitutionality of state laws

which was not passed. my question has to do with john adams and the election and his term after george washington. he went home, and the question is how important that going home alone with his family, after his family in a wagon, sneaking out of washington as it were, how important that was in establishes a firm anti-monarchial spirit in the united states? >> i think that's a good idea, the idea of one party supplanting another was an extraordinary moment in the history of politics and adams was willing to surrender and the federalists' willingness to surrender power to this new party. they didn't think of parties as we think of them. neither party accepted the legit ma masssy of the other. the federalists never thought of themselves as a party. they were being deseeffed by the

french-loving possible traitors. it was not politics as usual and needer of them thought that the party should be permanent. as soon as the monarchial threat is gone, our republican party can go out of business. they did not believe in parties. so, that was an important moment. i think that transition. now, the federalists thought that, well, they'll call us back as soon as they see how wild these jeffersonians are, they'll call us back and we'll be back in authority before long. now, it never happened. the federalists never really posed an electoral threat again. and by 1820 were not even purt i putting up a candidate. >> we have time for one more question -- >> um -- >> -- which is you. >> jake rosa, york prep. what do you think the founders would think of the occupy wall

street and occupy oakland and seattle? that was a serious question. >> yeah, sure. well, i think it's akin to the kinds of questions i often get. what do the founders think about something we're doing. i think that's extraordinary. i don't know of any other culture in the world where that kind of question would be asked and i think it has something to do with our connection. who knows what they would think. they were used to -- look, they were used to riots. they were used to the people spilling into the streets. madison was not -- you know, he was alarmed by shea's rebellion. it wasn't shea's rebellion that alarmed him pretty much. they were put down pretty quickly by military force. but what he was worried about when they turned and began electing people to the massachusetts house who were then going to promote legally what they were unable to do by rioting and, of course, that's the one thing you might say about, you know, the occupiers.

the next step is to engage in electoral politics. you call attention to something, but then the solution in a democracy is to organize and win election. and i think that's -- of course, madison was frightened by this. he thought that's why he designed the constitution to somehow prevent the states from doing harmful things. but nonetheless, that's the way we deal with it ultimately. we're not going to go the way of the middle east rioters. we have to go and have trust in our electoral politics, and i think that's -- i think we'll muddle through all of this. it's not -- it's not -- it's not as bad with perspective. the one thing that history does give you is a sense of per sperkt i perperspective, it's not the most serious moment in our history. it may seem so. i guess you could say the