city of buffalo bill, that is the way that it looked back in 1835. this is the way the bridge looked back in 1825. for us to re-create and have this stonework along the canals, and have as much as history and repeat as much of the history as we can, it gives you the emotional connection. i member sitting down there in the winter time and it is not just a look, but the emotional field that i think is really important. >> find out where the c-span cities tour is going next, online at our website. you're watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> each week, american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes here every saturday evening at 8:00

p.m. and midnight eastern. next, historian joseph ellis leads a talk on the early revolutionary war through the letters of john and abigail adams. this class is at amherst college. this is part 2 of a two-part lecture. prof. ellis: we last saw abigail adams giving birth to four children, five really. over a 12 year period. the question i asked you is, how should we assess her role in the coming of the american revolution? to what extent is it sexist or just the opposite of that, to call attention to the fact that the dominant events in her life are biological, rather than, political? if you are someone who wants to

be true to the experience of women at this time, does that mean you are going to be not interested in the political story? the political story for them is about a lot of things. you know what i'm getting at here. a couple of comments, if we possibly can. yes? where are you from, maryellen? student: west chicago, 30 miles west of chicago. prof. ellis: that is really west. student: i am thinking of catherine al gore's book. prof. ellis: she was a student of mine. student: that makes sense why i enjoyed the book. prof. ellis: tell us what that is. student: it's about how people like abigail adams and martha washington were working in other venues in political ways, whether it be in the parlors, through correspondence. to make these connections and networking connections.

behind the scenes making , connections that were helpful to their political careers of their husbands. oftentimes making unseemly connections for their husbands to make. we read these letters about john, being unseemly to be overtly political and ambitious. but the women behind the scenes sometimes at work, making connections. prof. ellis: catherine's book is mostly about early 19th-century american presidential politics. student: i'm thinking that appeals to abigail as well. prof. ellis: it's the dolly madison principle. every guy needs a dolly madison-- abigail ain't dolly. abigail is like eleanor roosevelt. dolly is the one for whom they coined the term first lady. abigail is never a first lady.

she is a copartner in a sense. in that sense -- i will tell you for sure, you can conjure her up. or even more historically if we , could just read her letters back to her sisters, on what was most important to her. her role as a mother. she doesn't think of that as constricting or anything like that. that said, she straddles the public world. she is reading these newspapers that john is writing. at this time, you can't get direct evidence of how influential she is. later on you get it. and you have to assume that you , did not get it before because they were together at the same time. i read that she was herself part of the thought process that he was engaged in.

in fact, in letters to certain women abroad -- there is a famous early historian in britain. there is -- abigail has a slightly different take on british tyranny. it is operatic. it's like the forces of light and the forces of darkness kind of thing. she talks about it. for adams, the ultimate evil is slavery. not black slavery, but the british enslavement of us. for abigail, guess what it is? rape. that's what the ultimate horror would be. she has a feminist perception of what british tyranny feels like that is different from his.

but, i do think, noticing that her life is dominated by pregnancy and child rearing is not a disservice to women of the world, to the feminist agenda. it's a recognition that it is a central part of it. make me feel good about the fact that i'm not crazy about this. do you agree or disagree? yes? kate? student: in the miniseries we were watching last night, there was a scene where she's talking about politics. she says, politics is my empty shell. the fact that there is no coffee, and i can't feed my kids. she was living the daily life, that was intelligent enough to make the connections about why this was happening. prof. ellis: question -- who is in greater physical danger by the time you get to the middle

70's? >> abigail. prof. ellis: i think so too. she is up in boston, and boston is occupied by the british army. there is a smallpox epidemic that probably already had started, but has now amplified by the presence of troops and unclean conditions. there is a wonderful book called "pox americana." some of you are smiling. it so happens that this war of independence coincides with a huge smallpox epidemic. you have got to believe that they interact, because you people living in -- people bringing contagion in. the british army contains most guys who have immunity.

the american army does not have immunity. one of the biggest things that washington does is to require also archers before going online to be inoculated. okay, i do think she is at greater risk. there is a scene where she leads john quincy by the hand up penn's hill. you will be able to see that hill on thursday. to watch the battle of bunker hill in june 1775. then she writes a letter to john about this. the battle of bunker hill is a big battle, not just in terms of the casualties. the british really lost over half their attack force. the political effects on each side is pronounced. what is the political effect on the americans?

hey, we can beat these guys. if they will just come attack us while we stand behind these breastworks, we can kill a lot of them! [laughter] they miss, they over interpret this in terms of the capacity to deal with the british army. british interpretation. we cross the river company. this is now a violent struggle. we can't compromise anymore. at this point, george 3 really says, we are going to lay it to these guys. all these wounded people come back into london, and their wives are standing at the dock. and the newspapers read huge casualties on the british side. it's like, okay, you guys started this, we are going to

finish it. it is at that moment that the prohibitory act comes into play, they close american ports. they confiscate all debt. he goes to the british ministry and says, i want you to raise an army to include at least 10,000 professional soldiers from either russia or prussia. they say, prussia is better. that it's so you get -- that is how you get the hessians. they create a 32,000 man army. 10,000 navy. 42,357 ships. they get ready to sail the largest expeditionary force ever to cross the atlantic. and the next time you ever get one this big is world war i,

when we go across. this is a huge force. it's designed to deliver a massive blow and and this silliness once and for all. it very much comes in the wake of bunker hill. it was probably the most important battle of the war. and it happens before we even declared independence. okay, where are we? abigail's personal career during this time. in march of 1776, she writes this letter that became famous. i now understand from them that you talked about this yesterday afternoon a little bit. i do think we should talk about it as much as we possibly can today, too. it's the "remember the ladies" letter.

on in the formal reading? page 110. it's a letter about a bunch of other things, like biting things -- buying things at the store, what the markets are like. all of a sudden she says, by the way, piece of advice -- whenever you get the letter that says, "by the way" look out baby. because something is coming -- "oh by the way" means-- [laughter] anybody got that in front of them? maureen, you've got it? read the part that says "by the way." student: "by the way, in the new code of law, i desire for you to remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them

than your ancestors. do not put such a limited power such unlimited power into the hands of the has been. member, all men would be tyrants if they could. if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws with which we have no voice or representation." prof. ellis: that is good. there are other letters after this that usually don't get cited in most anthologies. he response to this. says,ollection is he let's be serious here, we know that women are the real tyrants. that women control the family with managua -- with the power of the monarchy. and i will not be -- the despotism of the petticoats. i love that. eventually, there are several volleys here that begin.

she has a letter that says mercy, maybe you and i ought to write a letter to the massachusetts general court saying we don't intend to pay taxes because we are being taxed without our consent. then they needed to reach some sort of compromise. john has got to find a way to make this ok. she says we can all agree that women do have a role, an important role to play that needs to be acknowledged in terms of education. therefore, the revolution will mean an increase of schools for women. that is going to happen. they could call them dame schools. "can we agree on something here?" there are two agendas going on here. her agenda and what she was saying, and the context and the continental congress in the

spring of 1776. let's take her agenda first. then i will try to put it into context, and we can see what we can make of it. one interpretation, plausible to me -- she is kidding. this is banter. if you look at the early letters, they are always bantering. this thing you objected to about his phrase, david. his way of referring to her. they play roles here. her role now is to stick it to you. let's not make too much of this.

lm -- s a great home -- poem. let's not take this too seriously. they put it in the feminist anthology. everybody thinks that abigail is a feminist. that's fine, but that is not what is going on here these are close people. playing word games and he's getting the kind of shakedown from her. yeah, but, i think she is serious. can you be bantering and serious at the same time? >> yes. prof. ellis: erin says yes. that's marriage. do you speak from great experience in this regard? [laughter] erin says what we are seeing here is a recognizably modern marriage.

in which people are bantering, but also trying to make a point about the nature of their relationship. if you say there is a serious dimension to this, and i agree that there is, having lived through marriage. [laughter] is this a direct assault on patriarchy? patriarchy is the western tradition's belief that women are inferior and that property cannot be held by women in a marriage. and that the household, the male is the leader of the household

and defines the identity of everybody in it. i am sure you can get a fuller definition of patriarchy. but male supremacy, female , subordination. is that what she is saying? i will let you have a go at this. the rest of you, too. >> i don't know that it's so much an attack on patriarchy. i wonder, as i read some of these things, if it's some of abigail's frustrations. she is at home with young children. there was a scene last night that we watched in the miniseries where she is angrily scrubbing the floor. prof. ellis: because of smallpox. student: and she's doing it in a passive aggressive way, scrubbing and giving him a face about it. i'm wondering if some of the banter is not necessarily an attack on patriarchy, but almost

to say, "ugh i'm tired and frustrated with my current role." not because she does not want to serve in that role-- prof. ellis: it's an earlier version of betty frieden. i'm sitting home eating chocolate cherries, but my life is not interesting enough? student: i almost wonder about the things that you read from her, if it's not just some of their playfulness, just their relationship. i don't know. prof. ellis: we agree that there is banter here, but a very serious dimension. the fact that there is banter does not mean she doesn't mean what she says. what i'm asking you is, is what she says a direct frontal

frontal assault on the central assumptions of patriarchy? which is a more radical feminist position than saying, we want to vote. in the 19th century, the women's movement gets taken over by the right to vote. there are other things that we needed to be paid attention to. she is deeper than just "give me the vote" right? michael -- this is a guy named after my son --michael ellis. oh, you are over here. hold on. you know that because you are named after my son you are definitely going to get preferential treatment. >> i would say there is definitely an assault on patriarchy. her comparing men to tyrants is an example of that. i would say she is using her closeness to her husband to lobby for women to try and make

change. the letter that she writes to mercy otis warren, as she writes this letter is a tell sign to me that she is going further than just banter. it's beyond just talking to her husband. it's, maybe we can foment a movement. prof. ellis: she is talking to her buddy, the most literary informed women in america. the first person to write a three volume peace on the american revolution. in which she does not feature john, and he gets upset with her. [laughter] you read it absolutely -- yes, this is a frontal assault on patriarchy, meaning a need for radical restructuring of american society in order to -- i am imposing this on you -- but

the agenda of the american revolution requires fundamental change in gender relationships. >> she sees an opening. and she tries to take it. prof. ellis: we have to get to michael here. gets michael the mic. now don't screw up up, my own son's name is at stake. student: a lot of pressure. i will do my best. [laughter] student: i agree it's an attack, but less a frontal assault and more a flank attack. prof. ellis: you can send some men to the front and some men to the side, just as you can be bantering and serious at the same time. student: it's not like an obvious opening at the front. prof. ellis: follow up on that. this is good.

my son would be so proud of you. student: i am trying really hard. [laughter] student: how does she raise her daughter? >> untraditionally. >> to be a good wife. prof. ellis: the fact is, she is a good wife and she marries a shit. excuse me. [laughter] does she ever try to vote? does she do what, say, what the woman in france? the feminist. student: de beauvoir? prof. ellis: leave her husband, carveout a life of her own.

here's what i'm getting at. abigail is so far ahead of history, she tried to act this out now, she would have to become a single alienated person. this would have to be what she decides her life is. she is not going to do that. for her, the reward comes from family, it comes from being a mother and wife. not from being an active or political person. she is not going to attempt to live out a feminist agenda because she is rooted -- she , herself, is traditional new england wife and mother. she is. that is where she derives the bulk of her fulfillment.

at least that is what she says , over and over again. what this does make clear is -- why is she having these ideas? the woman i was try to think of is mary wollstonecraft. at the time, she starts reading out loud to abigail, later in the 1790's. if you go to the boston public library -- that is where john's books are. the margin in mary wollstonecraft's book. it is almost as many words as is in the book. i am not kidding. val flee thou wretch, thou , understandest not humankind.

anyway, what abigail's letter reading is is a statement about , how one woman's thinking is being affected by the values being described in the american revolution. and that what she is saying is, by the way john, all of the arguments you are making about british tyranny have implications that you don't seem to understand. john says, uh, i do understand them, now shut up, because we can't take those into account now, if you allow that radical agenda that is implicit in our argument, we are going to kill the revolution in the cradle. what agenda? he is getting letters in the center of the wind tunnel in

philadelphia, from former and current slaves. as i said to some outside during the break, they are heartbreaking, because written by those who are not completely literate, but basically saying , it does seem to me that the tierney you describe is present in us as well. and it will not go away until you take slavery on directly. you will be vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. he does not have to think this himself. this is coming into him on his e-mail account, okay? [laughter] second, a group of people, artisans in philadelphia. where is philadelphia? they are saying, by the way, we are the major sources of support for the revolution in pennsylvania. these quakers are going to sit this thing out. and we can't vote, because we

don't own property. because we are not farmers. and we have this guy speaking for us who is very good, named tom paine. we have to have the vote. and we would argue that need to have a property qualification to vote. going to end slavery? we are going to end the property qualification to vote? and of all people, abigail says, by the way, we also need to and patriarchy. and at least begin to recognize that the values we espouse call for an equality between the sexes that is a revolution. okay, let's do it slowly, let's be responsible about it. but the american revolution has a powerful radical implication. abigail's job is to say to john, one of them is, by the way,

women. what's interesting is john's response. we would not have it if we didn't have this family correspondence. john is a conservative revolutionary. let me tell you, if you want to have revolutionaries that succeed, you want them to be conservative. most revolutionaries are radical. robespierre -- down the tubes, baby. she is smiling. she must have said something like this yesterday. he wants there to be -- he is a real radical on the issue of american independence. he is ahead of all of the moderates, ok? by the way. was there a way to avoid this in

the 1775. just before bunker hill. could we -- in retrospect -- the only real advantage that this story has had is hindsight. this is the biggest diplomatic blunder in the history of british statecraft. they are going to lose a north american empire, they are going to suffer 30,000 to 40,000 casualties, which is a lot to them. it is not going to be fatal. the sun will not set on the british empire until the 20th century. their golden days are really still ahead of it. but it is a big loss. it was unnecessary.

what do i mean it was unnecessary? there is an answer to this problem. it is looking right at them. and they cannot grab it. william pitt tells him what the answer is in the house of lords in the fall of 1774. edmund burke tells them what the answer is in the house of commons, shortly thereafter. this is a no-brainer. all we have to do is say, ok, you guys can tax themselves and legislate for yourself, you stay in the empire economically because it is in your advantage, and you're going to have to pay tariffs, but that is ok because you pay them anyway, but you get the benefit of the market. this is a good deal for you. and you recognize that you are under a protective canopy of the british monarch. recognize legitimacy of the british monarch. guess what that is?

that is the british commonwealth. they have figured this out 100 years later. that is the reason why australia and canada stay in the empire. india, for a while. they can't do it. not in 1775, why? two reasons. central to the british mentality that political thought of last them, -- of blackstone a great , british jurist, who has said and everybody believes that this is true, it is as true as a principal from aristotle on to the present, and every political unit whether it is a nation or in empire, there has to be one final, all-powerful source of sovereignty. a place where all critical and controversial questions can go for resolution.

otherwise, chaos. what the colonists are proposing is multiple sovereignties. over here they get to decide, over there to get to decide that stuff. that is no good. it is a recipe for failure. what is the constitution but multiple sovereignties? some for the state some for the , fed. the great thing is blurring, ambiguity. somebody smart. burke knew this. anyway, this was a missed chance, why did they not do it, because of blackstone and a sovereignty. the other reason -- we don't need to do it. we can just send an army over

there and squash those son of the guns, like that. and that is what we are going to do. why should we compromise when we have the military power to resolve this decisively? and that is the reason there is no turning back after we get to the battle of bunker hill. they have moved in a military direction. the troops are getting ready to come. and in the summer of 1776, which we are now entering, on may 15, 1776, just about six weeks after abigail since her letter, john writes this thing, this prelude, to a request to be sent to all the colonial governors. if you read the request, it has

certain language in it which sounds sort of like the declaration of independence. we have been patient. prudence dictates. it says, each colony should now begin the process of rewriting its colonial constitution, from a colonial constitution to a state constitution. this, is the referendum -- a de facto referendum on independence. adams goes to his grave, believing that he wrote the real declaration of independence. that jefferson's thing six weeks later, whatever, is like the

thunder after the lightning has struck. ok? he, was the lightning. of course, it is can begin to believe that with john adams' attitude -- he has a pretty good case here. they send this to each colony. anybody from rhode island? rhode island comes through here. the only time in our entire story that rhode island is actually doing what it is supposed to do. we have the documents that were generated in the response to this request. and they come in in june and into july. massachusetts, for example, we

are in massachusetts, so we think they are important. there is like 38 towns that response. the governor sent it to the assembly, and instantly send it to all the towns. in virginia they do not have towns, but counties. they send it to other counties. massachusetts has 38 towns. we have the response of all 38 towns. this is like, you don't get this very often in early american history. this is like a poll on independence. because they are supposed to say that they support -- are they going to rewrite their constitution from colonial to a state. because, the resolution on which congress istal going to vote, comes from virginia. it is written at about the same time as this may 15 document is

written, and it is sent to the full continental congress on june 7. this is what they are going to vote on. that these united colonies are and have every right to be, independent states. that is going to be the vote. that is going to be what they vote for. notice, we do not rebel as a nation. we rebel as a series of states. but, the request in may of 1776, from each colony from state is a request. are you willing to go with us?

there are some who say that is really not what it is. that is what it is. that does not mean -- i mean john adams thought it was that. what do they say? i've read all of the ones for massachusetts. they all say, almost all say, the exact same thing. first of all, they say, this is the biggest thing that we have been asked to consider in a long time. like normandy. we need to discuss whether the pigs can move on to the commons, or that kind of thing. and then they say, if you had asked us this question a year ago, we would have said, what are you talking about? this would have been an unnecessary, ridiculous question. of course not. we have a loyalty to the british empire.

but, everything has changed. you are asking us whether we want to essentially declare independence. we have no choice. he has already declared his independence of us. which, he has. and, he is sending -- they love to talk about the foreign troops. because they are famous for taking no prisoners. and for raping our women. not totally justified, but somewhat justified. and so they got these scenarios going. there is one town in massachusetts of the 38 that says, we are not sure about this, and they are out on the cape. there like the british fleet is going to land here and that we

are in trouble if we have taken the wrong position. it is a close vote there anyway, but everybody else basically says, we have no choice. that the british, themselves, are responsible for having created this situation. king george the third is responsible. if old historiography on this back in the 19 century, then in , the 20 century it gets much complicated. in the end, it is really simple. it is george iii. he is try to recover his monarchy and the power of the monarchy. he has decided to impose a british rule on the colonies in a way that is unprecedented, and he thinks he can get away with it, and he thinks it is going to be easy.

he thinks he's going to win the war, and he is wrong on all counts. the british ministry and the british house of commons pretty much go along with him, because there is no opposition. the real source of leadership for britain is from the top down. in london, people hate this. london is opposed to the war, and they enjoy american commerce and have a lot of american friends, and they will be a source of antiwar sentiment throughout the american revolution. but, that is how it happens. how does the declaration get written? and then we can back to john adams. this would be a good essay question, just for a simple narrative. tell us how -- tell me how the declaration of independence comes into existence, and is written starting on june 7 and

ending on july 4. why do i say june 7? june 7 is the day that continental congress takes up the virginia resolution and puts it on the docket. that these united colonies are and have every right to be independent states. ok. several of the colonies have representatives that are under strict orders from their state legislature or governor, not to vote on independence until they come back and get the support of the legislatures there. especially in new york and pennsylvania. so, they say, recess. so that members can go back. while the recess is going on, we are going to appoint three committees.

and john adams is going to be on two of them. one is a committee of five. john adams, bridgman franklin, jefferson, who are the other two guys? robert livingston or william livingston? i think it is robert. and, the connecticut guy. roger sherman. one of the most boring talkers in the history of american eloquence, but he is like -- if you look at all the scenes of early american history, he is in every one. anyway. roger sherman. and, this is a committee designed to draft this document that if we vote independence, and have to announce it to the world, this will be the document that announces that fact.

ok? second committee, if we decide for independence, we sort of have to have a government that represents us after we throw off british ruled. therefore, let's appoint a big committee, 13 people, one from every colony to serve on this. john dickinson would be the chair of this committee. they say, we will figure out what kind of government we are going to have. they don't understand -- they think it is a simple matter, they will meet a couple of times and figure out what kind of government we are going to have. there is no way that this is going to work. they are going to discover this. the third committee, chaired by john adams. called the committee on treaties. we have to have a foreign policy. we are a nation. but, even more specifically, once we declare our independence, we have to get allies.

european allies, primarily france. and therefore, what can we do to encourage french support and what are the outlines for our american foreign-policy? john adams writes this single-handedly. it is really good because he announces the basic principle of american foreign-policy, which will hold true until the 20 century. we are going to have commercial relations with everybody, but the diplomatically and otherwise isolated from the rest of the world. that is in our interest. it sounds pretty simple. but that is the way. washington's farewell address is really a comment on what john adams had already decided. all right. this committee meets -- this five person committee meets a

couple of times in benjamin franklin's chambers because he has the gout. he always has the gout. as far as i can tell, he has it later on, too. one of the problems is that because this become so important, everybody starts telling stories about it later in their lives, and john adams has a version, most of which is a lie, and then jefferson has a version that is sort of hypocritical, and franklin has his version. i am offering you what seems the most plausible version of all these gossipy stories. the natural choice for who is the chair of the committee -- adams says that it is me.

they actually don't have one. they don't appoint a chair of this group. john adams ask as if he were the chief. because somebody has to do that. the natural person to pick to write the declaration is benjamin franklin. best prose stylist in america. and the most famous american of his time by far. the equivalent of a nobel he's price thing scientist. he has friends in england. he has friends in france. benjamin franklin says that he refuses to do it. why? i'm not feeling well. i have the gout. plus, and this is the great line -- i have made it a role never to write anything that will be

edited by a committee. [laughter] prof. ellis: and therefore, no. adams says they then turned to him to write it, why, because he is the leading spokesman for the independent position in the continental congress and has been for the last year. he has been ahead of the game. history, as he said, was going to happen. it is happening. breaking with england's impossible to imagine, now, , inevitable. he says, i don't want to do this. i am on like 38 committees. i'm also serving as the head of the board of war and ordinance. that is a big deal. that is like secretary of war or secretary of defense.

even though we have not declared independence, the war has started and we have this invasion happening. and so, i have a lot on my plate. plus, now he is the one who says this, i have made myself noxious -- of noxious. of noxious -- obnoxious. because he has it set people i supporting a radical position toward independence. he has written letters that have been captured by the british group and released that are not kindly letters about dickinson. later on he says, if you was john dickinson that if you john dickinson's wife and mother, he would have committed suicide. [laughter] prof. ellis: that dickinson is a

victim of his quaker mother and quaker wife. he says no. what about jefferson? well, oh, ok. jefferson. it is like an afterthought. this is one of the most significant accidents in american history. jefferson has been the guy who does the drafting behind the scenes guy. he never speaks in public. or even in committee. but, adams says that he is always there when you need him, and he is a loyal supporter of independence, no question about that. it's just that he has a really low voice and nobody can hear him. and he seems to compensate for his rhetorical deficiencies on his feet by being a pretty good writer.

so, yes, jefferson. jefferson says, ok, the four i leave, before we end the second meeting, can we at least outline the document that we think you want me to write. so they do that. they say, there ought to be a preface to justify our cause on the principles and says that we have been patient and then it goes forward and we have plenty of miles. following the bill of indictment against charles i and other british monarchs in history. if you are a monarch in british history and you see -- like i said before, you can see the sentence. by the way, if you are a monarch and you see a paragraph that begins with wherefore, get out of town fast. because, they are about ready to come for your head. and so, yes, you write that kind

of thing. so, he spends a couple of -- it is hard to know, they meet -- this gets written in the third week of june. it is written on the second floor of an apartment on seventh and philadelphia. seventh and market street. nobody else in the room. he is writing it on a portable desk that was made by a former slave. did god appear? not to our knowledge. [laughter] prof. ellis: did fire appear? we do not think so.

what books did he have? not many. he has got the copy of the virginia constitution that is being written, mostly the the preface by george mason. that is where you get pursuit of happiness. what is the document that he is referring to, implicitly, when he says, life, liberty, and -- what does locke say? the second treatise on government says property. life, liberty, and property. he drops property. you can build an entire arsenal on the implications of this change. because, what does property protect? slavery. you knock out property, then

slaveowners will not be able to say that they are protected. and therefore, in the virginia constitution, it says, life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue your happiness. jefferson drops property. is this a conscious act to make the revolution and antislavery movement? yeah, maybe. what does jefferson mean by pursuit of happiness? again, we could write a metaphysical doctrine on this, but what he means, i think, is that property and wealth is not necessarily the only or the highest interest and source of the film and for human beings.

so, in that sense, was anti-slavery? it was anti-capitalists. see how you can do that. this is like early karl marx and all that. about the slavery thing, you're going to ask about this later. let me say something. later in the document, among the things that we did, they beat this is what you are going to say -- that the wrong paragraph -- give it to him. let him do it. there is a long paragraph deleted in the declaration that basically condemn slavery. and blames it on student: king george iii. prof. ellis: it's a great idea. what a great revolutionary idea. we have this problem called slavery. we know it is wrong and that we have to get rid of it. let's blame it all on him. we are blaming him for

everything else under god's green earth we might as well , throw that went right on the funeral pyre. so, blame it on him. they delete it. because the way he structures it, first of all, i do not want any mention of slavery in this document, the same way they do not want any mention of it in the constitution, but, secondly, the way you phrase that is awkward because he refers to the fact that the governor of virginia, the kings are presented, has offered emancipation to all of the slaves in virginia who come to him at this moment. well, that is kind of weird. he blames it on george iii but then he says this and it confuses it. because it basically says that the british are the ones willing to end slavery and we are not. what he is really trying to say is their motives were doing it are not good. he finishes the draft.

we did not pass this out. pass thisk of this -- around. on the back of this, i cannot move too far. pass these around if you would. there is a portrait. we have an artist coming in this afternoon who is the leading american, which means world expert on the arc of the american revolution. he really is. let's hope that he is articulate. he is. there is a famous portrait by john trumbull, the original of which is now available in the congress of the united states, but you have seen it. and if you google this thing, it says, john trumbull, "declaration of independence", and a lot of places it says, july 4, 1776.

wrong. you can get him on this. you will in jeopardy on this. it is june 28.