in ki in kingly ways. he brought this whiff of monarchy to the presidency just in the way people celebrated him. and that was a problem for the presidency, for this office that he was going to be occupying. so, yes, he was a terrific guy and probably the only choice for a really successful first president because of the trust people had in him that e he could inhabit the presidency, this controversial position and trust him in that position. but he brought with him some problems. >> a question i sometimes get and you probably do as well is if not washington, who would be the next obvious choice. my answer is there wasn't another choice. that's kind of the point. he was the indispensable man at that moment. >> he was somewhat indispensable perhaps. >> that brings us to this question of what to call him. this debate that you write about

with the title controversy. i wonder if you could give us background to the debate. why did it even happen. the constitution says that this person will be the president of the united states. why did people in the senate feel like they needed something more than that? >> well, the senate hadn't convened -- once the senate convened in 1789 and finally counted the votes. washington was sent forward. he starts make iing had his jouy from mount vernon to new york. he's secelebrated all along the way in it these huge productions. so he's coming to new york. the senate is convening. it's really no surprise that people start wondering what are e we going to call him. are we just going to call him

mr.? i don't think so. washington had been already addressed as general and your excellency during the revolutionary war. that was his title as the commander of the revolutionary forces. in addition, all the governors were addressed as your excellency. except for the governor of georgia, who in the constitution it said he must be your honor. it actually specified a a title for him. so with washington coming, this person who is so celebrated like a king calling him your excellency, which is the highest title along with general that e he holds and it's also the same title that's held by all of the states governors and yet he's supposed to be the head of this new federal government. the question was what should we call not just washington, but

what should we call the president. they merge somewhat because he was so celebrated. your excellency didn't seem quite majestic enough for him and at the same time, your excellency was already in use for state governors and so what are we going to call this new federal officer. >> and so it's the senate that really pushes this issue. we have to remember that this was a new office as well. the office of vice president. when john adams reads the constitution and wonders what he's supposed to do, he thinks he's supposed to go to the senate because he's the president of the senate constitutionally. so this was something that he pushed and one thing i really like about your book is that other people just dismiss adams as kind of crazy or this is kind of ridiculous thing he did. but you explain there's reasons that he did it. >> for adams even though he was

a high federalist, adams was more concerned about a weak executive than a strong executive. when he was in britain as an ambassador there. perhaps you had keen king george manipulated by his court. so he was worried and richard henry lee the senator from virginia was worried about a weak executive. so they felt that one of the ways to shore up the executive is to give him some tremendous title. and that this would help. the senate majority felt this way. part of the reason that they did was they really found themselves in a bit of a bind, the senate

did. because the people who were most fearful of this weak executive, those that they thought would be the most manipulative of the executive would be the senate, the senates, the states were very powerful. the senators were the state elites. adams was very afraid that these state elites would overpower the executive. not so much washington with his incredible authority, but all the presidents to come. so the senate did find itself in a bit of a a bind. if they didn't give the president a high title, then they would be accused as an aristocratic body out to severt

his authority. >> so you have to tell us some of the titles. i mentioned a few, but the book is amazing. >> the senate and the people, the american people debated over 30 titles. most with royal overtones. especially various forms of your majesty. so elective majesty, ill lust -- washington was put forth as denver said shouldn't all the other presidents be as wonderful as washington was? there was even a suggestion that tloes for washington his name should be the delight of human

kind. there was president general. it just went on and on. and president, of course, was one of the suggestions. some people were like forget all this. let's just call him president. that's what it is in the constitution. there was a large and e vocal group and majority of the people e eventually who argued for just the simple president as well. but there were a lot of other titles. the house was always opposed. they would try to meet with some other title. the house would not budge.

during what i call the legislative phase of the controversy the senate capitulated and went with the simple title with no introductory address. however, in that resolution, they begin with the recommendation that the senate felt that his title should be his highness. president and protector obama. really that's what it would have been if the senate had their way. >> it's an amazing story. something that you accomplish is how you treat washington in this book. because there's this long tradition suggesting that during this whole debate that somehow

washington is in the background cheering for one of these illustrious titles, but you show the opposite. tell us about washington's role and what you think was on his mind during this period. >> i just want to say the title controversy is rife with gossip and innuendo. it's just filled with catty facebook posts. so in all of that gossip and inwnuendo, never did i find any evidence that washington supported a title. one of the other big arguments against washington supporting a

title is that he wrote in a letter to his son-in-law david stewart and a grand friend of his. he wrote to daifds stewart that he was against the title controversy once he heard of it. it was started before he awe arrived on the scene in new york. he argued against it once he heard about it and he predicted the uproar it would cause. and the harm it was doing to the perceptions of the new federal government. he was from virginia. virginia barely ratified the constitution. i think they ratified the constitution by one vote. so his neighbors were already going you're going to be the first president. we don't even like the idea of this new nation that you're trying to form. so the last thing he's going to want is anything that will

exacerbate negative attitudes toward the new federal government among his friends and the larger population. also in that letter to david stewart, he expresses specifically his irritation with john adams for pressing for a high title. the other main piece of evidence that i bring to the argument that he was not in favor of a high title is by looking at james madison during this period. i think it's very important for all of us to look at james madison and to listen to what he's saying to read what he's writing during that first year of washington's administration. during that first year, washington and madison who was a representative from the state of virginia and in the house.

the madison and washington were very close and they were the two of the founders that were at the constitutional convention every day in philadelphia. washington and madison, adams was in britain, jefferson was in france. hamilton was there for awhile and he left and went back to new york to run his legal practice. so really it was madison and washington there every day, bonding over these arguments for the constitution and very committed to the constitution's success at the beginning of washington's administration. if you listen to what madison is saying, he argues on the house floor. he speaks basically on a lot of issues and he is washington's

public voice. he speaks on the title controversy and other issues and really i think that you can expect that what you're hearing also is what washington feels. now on the title issue, madison speaks on the house floor against titles, against in particular the title of high mightiness, which was the title given to the state holders in the netherlands. he basically just totally ridicules that title, which is the title that is sometimes erroneously associated with george washington today. but madison specifically denigrates that title and then he goes on to say in his speech on the house floor, he alludes

to washington and says that any title would go against the true dignity of the first executive. so he also refers to washington and washington's displeasure with titles his relief over the outcome of the simple title in letters to jefferson and several others. >> it's very persuasive. it fits with the part of washington that's sometimes lost. he was a great politician. i think he understood the optics of this. this was bad politics. and we know that in part from what happens after the debate in congress, you describe how the controversy becomes a more public controversy. it enters the public's fear. what happens then, when the american people find out what the senate has been doing for the first three weeks of the session, what do they say? >> well, remember that the

senate met behind closed doors at this time. so they have been arguing about a title for three weeks from april 23rd, which was the day when they first started the resolution to come up with a title for the president, former committee. and which happened to be the same day that washington arrived in new york u. i don't think there's any doubt that it was not a coincidence. so washington is arriving. they are like let's get a committee together to figure this out. but they don't figure it out. washington goes on to be inaugurated a week later. they are still arguing behind closed doors. on may 14th, 1789, they capitulate to the house formally. it's a formal resolution. it goes into the senate journals. but the senate journals aren't

going to be published right away. they have to be cleaned up and eventually they come out usually in the press six months later. but the titles resolution was leaked to the press almost as soon as the ink was dry. the boston papers get it first and then the new york papers get it right after that. and it's almost word for word. so somebody wanted everyone to know and as soon as the public finds out about this debate, some of the elites already knew. their friends had told them it was going on or had written some letters. when the general public finds out about it, it's not like everybody says this is what they are going to do and yawns. instead, everybody has an opinion about titles. and so what happened, it was like the twitter feed gone viral. for the next three or four

months throughout the summer of 1789 and into the fall, it was this cathartic and fierce debate that sold lots of newspapers. it was obvious the press was just like, oh, my gosh, let's write up some more things on title and sell some more papers. and the public needed to debate this. they had to debate whether the senate had made the right choice. it e eventually became obvious that a majority of americans agreed with the senate. that they were happy with what had happened and what came out of this, the reason i call it cathartic is as a result of this, some of the public's fears about their new government, their congress and their new president were resolved. they gained more trust that the

new federal government that these legislators could argue something as politically volatile as they thought a title for the president was and come up with the solution and the choice that the people agreed with. so it was a good thing. >> yeah, they really landed upon the small republican solution in all of this. >> yes. >> i wonder if you could talk about some of the lasting impact that this controversy had on the office of the president and then i actually love what you write about the vice presidency. that's really interesting too. but maybe the president first. what does this mean in the long-term for the office? >> well, okay. the simple title gave people some relief from their fear of an elected king.

see, i got the title of my book in there. but it did. it gave them some relief. and they gained trust in the government, in the presidency and as a result of the title controversy happening so quickly in the earliest part of the washington administration, as the people gained confidence, it allowed them to relax about the presidency just a little bit. and basically the outcome of the title controversy helped the power of the presidency, helped the presidency fledge its power by not flaunting its power. >> that's a neat idea.

that this actually makes the presidency stronger in the end. so in a way, adams got what he want ed. >> ironically, yes. we can argue that the presidency would have been strong in any case, but my argument is that because the people were more comfortable with the presidency, it could start to spread its wings and they could explore the power of the presidency more easily without the added baggage of a high title attached to it. as far as the vice presidency is concerned, my feeling is very strong that presidential title controversy is one of the great casualties is the relationship between the presidency and the

vice presidency. i feel that because of the title controversy we have the diminished vice presidency that we see to this day.away from th extremely unpopular adams. i mean, adams among his colleagues in the federal elite was called behind his back his rotundaty. that's how they felt about him. among the public he was referred to as the dangerous vice because of a poem that came out called the dangerous vice that linked the vice of monarchy and the vice president. only a heart beat away from the presidency. he was called the spawn of satan in that poem. so washington backed away from adams basically never to return. is the vice president a member of -- is he a cabinet, is he a

member of washington's cabinet? no. could he have been? i argue washington could have done whatever he wanted with that vice presidential position. he basically did nothing. now, on top of washington backing away from the vice presidency because of adams' unpopularity, adams himself contributed to this because of his own attitude toward the vice presidency i feel. he discounted that role as being just sort of the placeholder. if something happened to the president, the vice president was there. you know? but adams felt that his main job was to be president of the senate where he became a -- and he irritated a lot of the senators by trying to throw his weight around. and admittedly over the years, adams cast a lot of deciding

votes when the senate was tied. but his influence within that body waned. so, the vice presidency's influence in the legislature, in the congress and the vice presidency's influence in the executive branch in both cases diminished. and i think it also starts with the presidential title controversy. >> and in the beginning, a lot of people didn't know whether this was an executive branch office or a legislative branch office. right? it's kind of like it spans them both. >> and it came neither to some degree. >> yeah, yeah. your description of the political rhetoric from the 1790s makes me think of our own rather rank rous election going on. some of you may have heard about that. and i would like to know what you think about, you know, if washington, you know, we don't want to say exactly what would he think but, you know, what kind of things could our current presidential candidates maybe

learn from washington's example? >> well, washington through the -- in this whole presidential title controversy, what i learned is that washington really and the people, washington and the people developed what i consider to be the first principles of american executive leadership. and these are principles that really helped the presidency find no -- no problem with democracy and strength. okay? as i said, it helped the presidency grow stronger. but through this whole ka that are tick controversy over a title and they developed these first principles, first, modesty and restraint.

which the people got by the simple title that washington supported. simple title of president. and second, a sincere nod to the people, a sincere understanding that there exists an interdependence between the presidency and the people. the president and the people are connected. and the people got that by washington supporting the simple title of president which matched the bulk of popular opinion. so restraint and a nod to the people i feel are these first principles of executive leadership that you see at the beginning of the administration. now, in terms of today, we often hear the presidency since the 20th century referred to as the

modern presidency. and that modern presidency no longer adheres to these particular principles you might argue. but i would argue that at the very least if you look at the way presidents try so hard to appear like one of us, eating broccoli, playing the saxophone, playing basketball, clearing brush, loving football, all of these traits harken back to those principles of simplicity and a nod to the people. but in today's parlance it's often called, like, relatability. but these are true, true principles and ways to go about

being a leader that i think could become sort of a cautionary tale, restraint, a nod to all of the people of the united states, not just a small minority. that these could be a cautionary tale for those who are running for the presidency today. >> so, so big dose of humility would be another? >> yeah. yeah. because, really, by doing that, you gain strength is the way -- you gain trust and that trust people trust you to go ahead and be the leader that they want you to be. if you don't think that people, you know, want a strong leader, they do want a strong leader. they want someone they can trust. you know? so -- >> watch out. you might get nominated. that's good stuff. that's good stuff. well, there's other people to consider in this story and there are other titles at the time. and i'm dying to know about

martha washington. what did people call martha? you say in the book that mr. president actually comes later in the 19th century and i don't think first lady exists but -- >> no. it doesn't. >> tell us. >> so, you know, washington was never addressed as mr. president. don't let anybody tell you that he was. he was sir, general, your excellency and president. to the end of his days. just that washington's name attached to treaties and proclamations helped elevate the title of president. but because, because he had that kind of gravitas. so mr. president, though, the simple title of president allowed for mr. president, what we hear today, to be something that could come along naturally.

for the women at the time, among the federal elites, they were referred quite often to as lady. >> okay. >> lady jay. lady knox. lady adams. lady washington. now, martha washington was called lady washington. she was not called the first lady from anything i ever read but she was called lady washington. she was also called the lady of the president. and she was also called quite often, more often than you might think, the president's aimable consort. >> wow. >> yes. she was -- in a poem she was addressed as our fabian queen. and in that poem, that poem is dedicated to the aimable consort of the illustrious washington. so, lady, lady of the president,

aimable consort. >> maybe just mrs. washington? >> and mrs. washington, i'm sure. and one other note, just i think i mentioned earlier that john adams had been before to britain. as ambassador to britain, he was called excellency as was abigail. they were both excellency in britain. and i found evidence that when abigail was back in the united states after that, she was still getting correspondence addressed to her excellency, mrs. john adams. so she was still excellency to some of her friends, probably to her friends in britain. >> okay. well, i'm going to ask one more question and then we're going to turn it to the audience so please get your questions ready but one other thing that's just been on my mind with the current presidential election, there's arguably a better chance that there will be a woman elected president this year than any other time and if hillary clinton is elected, would there be a new debate or do you think

it's pretty settled what she would be called? >> well, it's in many women are the -- are presidents of organizations and normally called madame president and they're called madame president. i would assume she would be called madame president and i don't think there would be a whole lot of debate about that. mr. president. madame president. i think in news conferences, et cetera. i think most other women presidents, women who would be president, their husbands would be called mister or if they had a title like doctor or lieutenant, they would just be called that. they would maybe be called the first gentleman. i can see that happening. but -- and i see the first gentleman used for bill clinton. but bill clinton is a special case. >> special case, yeah. >> i mean, he was president. so he is still president clinton. so the controversy that i can see or at least the confusion i

can see is when hillary clinton and bill clinton would be referred to at the same time, president clinton. >> president clinton. >> and president clinton. they'll have to work that out. i'm not -- maybe they'll always have to identify hillary and bill by their first names or madame. i'm not quite sure how the press, how newspapers and writers would deal with that. but the presidents clinton. i'm not sure exactly. but i can see where that would be some confusion because of this, you know, still to this day, just like back then, you get a title and it just fol legals you forever. you know? >> you're the person they might ask so be ready just in case. >> that's right. that's right. maybe i'll get another npr question. >> so we'd love to have questions from the audience. we have a microphone at the back of the room if you want to just walk back there to the microphone, just tell us your

name and tell us what you do and anything on your mind, any questions you might have would be terrific. >> and thank you so much. it's been great. >> yeah. you don't all have to run at once or anything. there we go. we have a question. >> hi. i'm larry ross, a librarian here at the law school. >> hi, larry. >> question. you mentioned ambassadors having title excellency. was there concern by not giving the president of the united states, especially ones following washington, a grand title that they would put them in a position of weakness when dealing with foreign ambassadors and dignitaries who had titles like your highness and your excellency? >> absolutely. this is a big problem, a big concern for a lot of people. what eventually happened, though, and was that you start to see in the literature people

are worried about this. they're worried about the presidents -- who will follow washington. i mean, in one note they were worried that first there's washington but then next president might be slushington. you know? sort of this bear, you know, just a shadow of what washington is and so he needs this high title. but as the -- as you read the literature on it, what you see is that people start to say, you know, washington got all of his accolades and all of his reverence and respect without a title. he didn't need a high title. along the way. to get our respect. so what we need to do is to have these other people try to rise to the top, show what they are without the noise and confusion

of -- that a title could bring. so, that is sort of the way that argument eventually turned out. >> thank you. that was a terrific question. i think we have another question. >> hi. catherine from the history department. i'm wondering what influence the events in france at this point are having on when's going on because this is sort of when everything is unraveling in france. >> okay. thank you. of course, the stuff, the events in france, the revolution, is the news of it is happening, is coming slowly over to america. especially it's starting to arrive in the summer of 1789. after the legislative phase of the title controversy is over. so it really doesn't affect the legislative phase. you don't see anything in the newspapers or in their conversations about it during that time of april and may. but by july, things have changed. news is coming and people first

what you see in the press is a lot of excitement that france has gone the way of the congress went, getting rid of titles, throwing titles away. so, even though the violence that accompanies the french revolution, people start to distance themselves from the french revolution a little bit in the papers as they start to hear about the violence, the fact that they have tossed away titles and basically submerged the aristocracy is something that they say they're following the u.s. example, or the american example is part of that, and it really does help to squelch strong title commentary.

so at that point, france is on the side of the angels, on the side of the majority that's in favor of a simple title. an you do see that in some of the -- in some of the commentary they actually do say, this just helps our, you know, this helps our position and it's -- it throws away any arguments in favor of a high title. >> thanks. so, so another question that i had, you mentioned the modern presidency and scholars also refer to the presidency today as the imperial presidency. >> yes. >> this is one of those tough hypotheticals, but if george washington comes and sees the presidency today, what does he recognize and what's completely foreign to him? what's, you know, really strange? is it totally different? >> well, you know, i just wanted to say on this whole imperial presidency concern that crops up

periodically, i view it as just part of this, this protectiveness toward the presidency that really started with the rad iftification of th constitution in the arguments and conversations they had about the presidency, the executive branch and then the ratification arguments continued with the title controversy. it -- there's among all of this gossip, innuendo and fierce argument on both sides of strong versus weak president, should we have a high title or not, what you see is that all sides are very protective toward the office. they want, they want their leader to succeed. and so they're very protective about the office of the presidency and i'd see this concern about the imperial presidency as part of that, that

tradition of protectiveness toward the office. what would washington -- how would washington view the presidency today? i think he'd recognize it. i think he'd be relieved that there was an amendment that made the rule of the four-year term. i think he would be appalled that when a president served 16 years. i don't think he would have been happy about that at all. i don't think you could have convinced him it was a good idea just because we were at war, you know, for example. but i think he might be a little alarmed to see so many executive orders going forward. but the veto was a power that was very strong from the very beginning. and was something that was discussed in -- during the time of the -- in that summer of 1789

discussed and the congress is already making the decisions about an executive veto and not something he would be surprised to see and i know, i mean, i don't -- if i had to bet money on washington's position about whether he had the right to name a supreme court justice in the last year of his term, i don't think there's any doubt that he would feel that it was his duty and his right within the power of the presidency to make that choice and make that nomination and send it to the senate and he would expect the senate to act. >> well, i think it's amazing how closely he followed the constitution. we know this from the copy of his constitution. >> yes. i've seen and it's fabulous. >> at mt. vernon. >> just terrific, just terrific. >> he wrote in the margins about what he was supposed to do. the powers, required, president.

and i think that's the definition of constitutional governance, right? you can't imagine a cromwell or napolean doing this. i do everything, right? he did obey the limits, yeah, yeah. >> yeah. i think as it got further along in his administration there's more and more controversy about some of the choices he's making. i don't go into that in my book. i stay within the first couple of years which is the time of the title controversy but then it's something i'm very interested in is the evolution of executive powers in the time that he was president because it's obvious to me with the title controversy he has incredible respect for the people's opinion. almost -- not exactly a fear of the people's opinion but a

sincere respect for their opinion and i think a lot of it is because he was a virginian and the virginians were suspicious of the constitution. i mean, washington and his good friend george mason basically became estranged over their differences of opinion about the constitution. so, he lost a friend during that period. and so, i think that as a result he was always concerned about following the constitution, doing the right thing and not alarming the people. and what i would like to see is explore more is during the rest of his administration how much of that consideration of the view of the majority did he take into account. you can see in some of -- there's letters that show you stuff about the title

controversy. i'm not sure whether there -- he is open enough in some of the -- in some of his other decisions later on but that's something that i'd like to explore. >> yeah. i mean, we think of public opinion as such a new thing but it's there at the very beginning. >> yeah. >> i mean, he's having his friends and associates go out and talk to the people and he wants to know what's on their mind, yeah. >> david stewart didn't just write to him by happenstance and say, oh, how do you feel about the title controversy. washington had told stewart, you need to write to me and tell me what's going on in virginia. i want the know what's going on in virginia. you're going to be my ears on the ground and he is writing back to stewart and part of the reason, i mean, he's writing back because he wants stewart to spread the word of what he's saying but he wants the hear. he tells stewart in another letter, he tells him, you know, i want to hear what the people are thinking.

what the people of virginia are thinking. because i've made a -- i've made a decision that they don't agree with, he actually says, i will reconsider. i will reconsider what i've done. and affect a solution if i need to. you know? >> that's great. that's great. well, the last present day thing i've been thinking about and i want to hear your opinion about this is political parties. >> oh. >> they're so important today to our system of government, the our politics. but it was -- there was something that washington despised. and i wonder if you could say a little bit about that. why didn't washington detest political parties so much? >> well, you know, now when i realize, when you say this, i realize that one of the things that when you say what would washington recognize the presidency today, i think he would not be happy that, really, the president is the leader of the political party. that he's associated with today.

and a president's legacy, part of his legacy, is how strong he leaves his party at the -- end of his administration. and so, i think washington would not be happy with that. he thought that parties brought infactions, brought too much self interest. >> they were in it for themselves, not the country. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> that he really, you know, he really wanted to try to keep the government on a republican sort of a disinterested civic virtue kind of footing. and he wanted to keep the constitution as free of politics as it could be. and so, he really did view

parties as just self interested, you know, opportunities for mischief. and in his presidential -- in his first inaugural address he encourages harmony and he encourages no, you know, factionalism and harmony among the house and the senate. and in the title controversies in the senate's final resolution on titles, one of the things in there besides the recommendation of the high title, but the total capitulation in favor of president, in there among the wording, the senate actually says at one point, to keep harmony with the house we're going to agree with them. so, that's not something you see today anymore either. and i think that's washington

would say that part of the reason for that is the frack house isness and the self interest that comes with parties. >> well, thank you so much. you have given us so much to think about during this election season. >> okay. >> i mean, it's really fantastic. we really appreciate it. we have a small gift from your alma mater. a token of our appreciation. a bust of george washington. >> oh, terrific! >> so again, thank you so much. >> hi there, george. okay. well, thank you so much. i appreciate it very much. i really do. terrific. >> yeah. and thank you for this amazing turnout. we want to welcome to everyone to the lobby of the museum. we'll have a book signing, refreshments and more good cheer. >> thank you so much, everybody, for coming tonight. i appreciate it. thank you.

first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party's nominee for president of the united states. >> at the democratic national convention, hillary clinton becomes the first woman nominee of a major political party for president of the united states. starting today at 4:00 p.m. eastern, we'll have live coverage of the 2016 democratic national convention in philadelphia. first lady michelle obama and senator bernie sanders are featured speakers. tuesday, former president bill clinton will address the convention. president obama and vice president biden will speak on wednesday. democratic vice presidential nominee senator tim kaine will also address the convention. thursday, chelsea clinton introduces her mother before she accepts the nomination as

president of the united states. live coverage of every minute of this historic convention begins today at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. next on american history tv, author and journalist walter isaacson discusses the life and legacy of founding father benjamin franklin. isaacson argues that innovation, networking methods and passion for science epitomized what he calls, quote, america's national character. unquote. the new york historic society hosted this program. it's a little over an hour. >> tonight's program benjamin franklin american democracy and innovation is the 2016 benjamin franklin house robert h. smith lecture in american democracy. we're proud indeed to partner with london's benjamin franklin house in bringing this lecture to our institution.

benjamin franklin house is the only surviving former residence of benjamin franklin. today a marvelous museum and educational center that inspires and motivates young londoners as well as general visitors through the example of our great american founder and innovator. the museum is a george january tourist house centrally located so on the next visit to london, i know you will want to stop there. i'm very glad, indeed, to recognize and congratulate the museum's founding director who's with us this evening, representing benjamin franklin house. thank you. [ applause ] and i am also very glad to recognize and thank for all of her efforts on behalf of this institution, as well as benjamin franklin house, benjamin

franklin house trustee anita wing. thank you. some of you might be curious object the coincidence of names, this beautiful space, the robert h. smith auditorium and the august lecture in american democracy. robert h. smith as you may know is among much else the visionary developer of crystal city just outside washington, d.c. which is today one of the district's most fabulous young hip and hopping neighborhoods. but bob smith was above all else a greatful american who did an enormous amount of good for institutions like ours and like the benjamin franklin house. it was he who first brought our two institutions together. and i know that he would have been really, really pleased to know that tonight's lecture is taking place here in this auditorium where he very much

envisioned to be used as we are using it this evening, for a lecture to surely engage us in the enjoyment of learning about american history. and i can surely say surely because walter isaacson, the celebrated journalist and biographer is our lecturer this evening. we're pleased to welcome mr. isaacson back to the new york historical society. mr. isaacson is president and ceo of the aspen institute, a nonprofit policies institute. during his prolific career as a journalist, mr. isaacson served as chairman and ceo of cnn and as the editor of "time" magazine. he's the author of many books including benjamin franklin a life and his most recent published in 2014, the innovators, how a group of hacks, geniuses and geeks created the digit at revolution. tonight's program will last about an hour and it will

include question and answer session. there will be no formal book signing this evening but his books will be available in our museum store kiosk just outside this auditorium. before we begin as always i'd like to ask that you please make sure that anything that makes a noise like a cell phone is switched off. and now, please do join me in welcoming walter isaacson to the stage. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. and it's wonderful to be back, especially on behalf of the ben j main franklin house and to talk about of all the biography subjects i have ever written, the one when's my favorite, of course, dr. benjamin franklin. this all started and i like seeing marcela and michelle sitting together. my involvement started when i was researching benjamin franklin, would be over in london quite a bit and i realized the only house still standing in which benjamin

franklin lived was the house on craven street right behind white hall near parliament, near tra fall ga square and not renovated at all. it was pretty much an abandoned place and there were people trying to make it into a museum for benjamin frankly. i happened to know robert h. smith who had helped with mo monticel monticello, mt. vernon. i said let's have breakfast because he had an apartment in the savoy, was it, hotel, which is maybe only what we would call blocks from benjamin franklin house. he had breakfast and agreed to be a major funder. michelle, his daughter is sitting there who happens to be on my board of directors said never again will i allow you to have breakfast with my father. but we do believe as anita who's on the board of the franklin house it was a wise investment and we thank you. i'm going to talk tonight about

franklin, talk about his relevance today as well as an innovator but as story telling, just to go through the stories about ben franklin and try to draw the lessons from them. i had thought about making it here's 12 things you need to know from benjamin franklin but when i was growing up i had a mentor who said two types of people come out of louisiana. preachers and story tellers. he said, for god's sake, be a story teller. the world has too much preach earls and it is the best way to get the lessons across anyway. as you probably know benjamin franklin was born in boston. the tenth son of a puritan immigrant. and as a tenth son of a puritan, he was going to be his father's tithe to the lord. his father was going to send him to harvard to study -- to become a minister. that was a long time ago, back when harvard knew how to train ministers more than hedge fund

managers but franklin was not exactly cut for the cloth. at one point, they were salting away the provisions for the winter at his father's house and he said to his father, how about if i say grace over them right now and we could get it done with once and for all for the entire year. his father realized it would be a waste of money to send him to harvard to be a minister and so he did the next best thing or perhaps something even better which is he apprenticed benjamin to his older brother james who had a publishing house and a newspaper. and so benjamin franklin without a formal education and i hate to mention this because sometimes i get asked to give graduation speeches and it is difficult because whether it's steve jobs or albert einstein or bill gates or mark zuckerberg, anybody i write about, they run away or

drop out before they graduate so benjamin franklin, his apprentice to his brother and he teach himself by pulling down the books from the shelf of his brother's publishing house and bookstore in boston. and it's -- you know, addison and steel's essays and spectator and the publications from the great essayists of london. and what franklin does is he chops them up, distributes the paragraphs and tries to put them back in a better order to teach himself how to write. he said that he never was quite sure that he became a great writer but, in fact, what he does is he becomes the best homespun humor writer i think in american history. his brother who i mentioned was an older brother and being an older brother would not let franklin write for the newspaper. so franklin ends up writing

under a pseudonym. silence dogood. he puts a pen name on it and slips the essays under the door of the brother's print shop and the brother and the friends running the print shop in the new england have no idea where they're coming from but it's a woman, silence doogood and franklin has put on the persona of a widowed elderly woman living in the countryside of massachusetts and writing these essays. it's a triumph of the imagination. a kid who was then 15 years old and never left boston but writing in this voice. and it's of distinctly american voice. she begins and introdouses herself in the first of the silence doogood columns in the new england currant saying let me introduce myself. i'm a woman of strong national sentiments. i really reject the notion of

privilege and i have a protective feel about all my rights. that's how you know i'm an american. and it really is that sort of first authentic frontier voice of poking fun at the pretensions of the elite and the top establishment, poking fun at the math earls and cotton mathers, increase mathers and the families that were running puritan boston. and over and over again in the first set of essays, you see her sort of doing this type of humor. saying that she was thinking of sending a nephew to harvard and turns out dentists and blockheads to enter a room genteelly and something to learn less expensively at dancing school and going to send the nephew to dancing school. so you see this wonderful thing. of course, eventually his brother who did go to harvard and was not a dunce or a blockhead finally figures out

that it's young ben, younger brother, writing these things and is not particularly happy. makes him stop and to cut the story a little bit, benjamin franklin actually runs away. he breaks his apprenticeship he had signed to be an apprentice with his brother for seven years and runs away to philadelphia. now, this is an important thing because boston was very thee accuratic. one with very little separation from the puritan churches and the government. but philadelphia was a place where there's a great diversity of people. there were and len kin and jews and slaves and freed slaves and they all looked together in a place of market street. they all came to shop and it was a first place of brotherly love as philadelphia means. where you saw a diversity of people trying, people who are all immigrants,