on an unsettled america. people celebrated him though with such enthusiasm that he was for the presidency a blessing, as i said, trusted guy that he was, but he was a bit of a curse for the presidency, as well, because he was so celebrated. the enthusiasms towards washington rps were so king-lik. he would have almost enlisted like a rapture at people in times. the public loved him and they loved to celebrate him in kingly ways, and as a result, he brought this whif of monarchy to the presidency just in the way people celebrated him and that was a problem for the presidency for this office he was going to

be occupying. so yes he was a terrific guy and the only choice for a really successful first president because of the trust that people had in him, that he could in habit this presidency, and they could trust him in that position. but he brought with him some problems. >> a question i sometimes get -- and you probably do, as well -- if not washington, who would be the next obvious choice and my answer is, there wasn't another choice and that's kind of the point he was the in dispensable man. >> he was somewhat in dispensable perhaps, yeah. >> so that brings us to this question of what to call him, this debate that you write about, you know, the title controversy. i wonder if you could just give us a little bit of 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 had convened -- once the senate convened in early april 1789 and finally counted the votes, washington was sent for, he makes -- he starts making his journey from mt. vernon to new york and he's celebrated all along the way in these huge productions. so he's coming to new york, the senate is convening and it's really no surprise that people start wondering, what are we going to call him when he arrives? are we going to call him mister? i don't think so. washington had already been addressed as general and your excellency, title of the commander of the revolutionary

forces. in addition, at that time, all of the governor's were addressed as your excellency, expect for the governor of georgia in the constitution, that said he must be your honor. it actually specified a title for him. so with washington coming, this person who so celebrated like a king calling him your excellency, the highest title that's held, and all of the same title that's held in the states, governor's, 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. and they merged somewhat because he was so celebrated. your excellency didn't see as majestic, and used for state

governor's so what are we call to call this new federal officer. >> and so it's the senate that really push this is issue. >> yeah. >> and we have remember that, you know, this was a new office, as well, the office of vice president, and when john adams, the first vice president, reads the constitution and wonder what is 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 they really like about your book is that other people just dismiss adams as kind of crazy or this was a -- kind of ridiculous thing he did. but you explain there was reasons, right? there was reasons that he did it? >> yes. for adams, even though he was a high federalist, adams was more concerned about a weak executive than a strong executive. okay? he was concerned that the

executive would be corruptible, when he was in britain as an ambassador there, perhaps he had seen king george manipulated by his court. so he was worried and richard henry lee, the senator from virginia, was also very worried about a weak executive. and so they felt that one of the ways to shore up the executive is to give him some tremendous title. and that this would somehow help. now, the senate majority felt this way. part of the reason that they did, was that they really found themselves in a bit of a bind, the senate did, because those -- 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 states. the states were very powerful. the senators were the state elites, and adams was very afraid that the state elites would over power the executive. not so much washington, with hisshis incredible authority, but all the senates to come. the senate did find itself in a bit of a bind. if they didn't give the president a high title, then they would be accused as an aristocratic body, how to avert his authority, but if they gave him a high title they'd be accused of monarchists. >> you have to mentionion a f a. the book is amazing. >> the senate and the american people debated over 30 titles,

most with royal overtones, especially various forms of heiness and your majesty. elective heinus, sareen sake read majesty. washington was put forth as denver said, because shouldn't all the other presidents try to be as wonderful as washington was? there was even a suggestion that at least for washington, his name should be the delight of human kind. [ laughter ] >> that's the way we'd all like to be called, right? >> that's great. >> but there was president general. it just went on and on really. 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. i mean, there was a large and vocal group and majority of the people eventually who argued for just the simple president, as well. but there were a lot of other titles. your magistracy. so the senate, finding itself in this bind as it was, especially with the house being adamantly opposed, i mean, the house was always opposed to any title other than the civic title of president, which is mentioned in the constitution. and in subcommittees, when they would try to meet with some other title, the house would not budge, and so eventually the -- what happened in the end after the three weeks of legislate of debate on this issue, during what i call the legislative phase of the controversy, the senate capitulated to the house, went with the simple title of

president with no introductory elaborate extra address. however, in that resolution, they begin with the recommendation that the -- that the senate felt his title should be, his highness. the president and protector, president and protector obama, you know, really, that's -- that's what it would have been if the senate would have had their way. >> it's an amazing story. and something that you accomplish, i think, really admire as how you treat washington in this book. because there's this long tradition in the book, suggesting during this whole debate somehow washington is in the background cheering for one of these illustrious titles. but you show quite the opposite. tell us about washington's role and what you think was on his

mind? >> first of all, i just want to say the title controversy is rathed with gossip and innuendo. my book is just filled with, you know, catty facebook posts, you know. so, it's -- and yet in all of that gossip and in nnuendo, never did i find any evidence that washington supported a title. so that's my first argument against it. i have several in the book. one of the other big arguments against washington supporting a title is that he wrote in ason- stewart, and a grand friend of his, a confident. he wrote that he was against the

title controversy once he heard of it, that it was started before he arrived on the scene in new york. he argued against it once he heard about it, and that he predicted the up roar it would cause and the harm it was doing to the perceptions of the new federal government, you know. he was from virginia. virginia barely ratified the constitution. i mean, i think that rad titifi 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 towards the new federal government among his friends and in the largest population. also, in that letter to david stuart, 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 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, and in some ways de facto head of the house, madison and washington were very close. they were the two of the -- of the founders that were at the

constitutional kwepz eveconvent every day in philadelphia. hamilton was there for a while and he left and went back to morning 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 in other issues and really i think that you can expect that what you're hearing also is what washington feels. now, on the title cont -- 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 washington -- 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, over his relief over the outcome of the simple title in letters, to jefferson and to several others. >> i think it's very per situati -- persuasive, and he was a great politician. i think he understood that optics of this, and this was bad politics, and we know that in part, from what happens after the debate in congress, you described how the controversy becomes a more public controversy. >> yes. >> it enters the public's fear. >> uh-huh. a a and. >> and what happens then, when the senate has been doing for the first three weeks of the session, what do they say? >> well, remember that senate met behind closed doors at this time, so they've been arguing about a title for three weeks from april 23rd, which was the day when they first started

the -- sort of the resolution to come up with a title for the president, form a committee, let's form a committee. and -- whic and, which happened to be the same day that washington arrived in new york. i don't think there's any doubt that it was not a coincidence. so, washington's arriving. it's a form of 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

some of the public fears about their new government, their congress and their new president were resolved. a

come up with those solutions 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. yes. >> i wondered if you could talk about some of the lasting impacts that this controversy had on the office of the president. and then i actually -- i love what you write about the vice presidency. >> oh. >> i think that's really interesting, too. >> okay. >> but the president first. you know, what does this mean in the long term for the office? >> well, okay, the simple title gave the people some relief.

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 certainly a neat idea, that this actually makes the presidency stronger in the end. >> yes. >> so, in a way, adams got what he wanted. >> yes, ironically. ironically. so, yes, you know, 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 was, like i said, 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 the presidential title controversy is one of the great casualties of the presidential title controversy is the relationship between the presidency and the vice presidency. i feel that because of the presidential title controversy, we basically have the diminished vice presidency that we see to this day. washington walked away from the extremely unpopular adams.

i mean, adams, among his colleagues in the federal elite, was called behind his back his rotundity. i mean, that's how they thought about him. and among the public he was referred to as the dangerous vice because of a poem that came out called "the dangerous vice" that said they were only a heartbeat away from the presidency. he was called the spawn of satan in that forum. 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 the 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 and he entertained some of the senators by trying to throw his weight around. and it literally 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 is the congress and the president's

influence in the executive branch in both cases diminished, and i think it all 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? >> yes. >> it's kind of like both. >> yeah. it became neither. >> yeah. >> to some degree. >> yeah, yeah. well, your description of the political rhetoric from the 1790s makes me think of our own rather rancorous election that's going on. some of you may have heard about that. and i would like to know what you think about, you know, washington -- we don't want to say exactly what would he think, but what kind of things could our current presidential candidates maybe learn from washington's example? >> well, washington, 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 problem with democracy and strength, okay? as i said, it helped the presidency grow stronger. but through this whole cathartic 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 popular opinion. so, restraint and a nod to the people i feel are the 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, hitting 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 read ability. 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 that are running for the presidency today. >> so, big dose of humility would be in order. >> yeah, yeah. because really, by doing that, you gain strength is the way i -- >> yeah, yeah. >> 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 just want someone they can trust, you know, so. >> watch out, you might get nominated. >> oh! >> 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. >> okay. >> what did people call martha? i mean, you say in the book that mr. president actually comes later in the 19th century. >> right. >> and i don't think first lady exists, but -- >> no, it doesn't.

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 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 ad lady. 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 preside president's amiable consort. >> wow. >> yeah. she was, in a poem, she was addressed as "our fabian queen." and in that poem, that poem is dedicated to the amiable consort of the illustrious washington. so, lady, lady of the president, amiable 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 ambassador to britain. as ambassador to britain, he was

called xeexcellency, as was abigail, called 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 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 i wondered, if hillary clinton was elected president, would there be a new presidential title controversy? do you think there would be another debate or do you think it's pretty settled what she would be called? >> well, many women are with many organizations and are president and they're called madam president. i would assume that she would be called madam president, and i

don't think there would be a whole lot of debate about that. mr. president, madam president in news conferences, et cetera. i think most other 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. and i can see the first gentleman being used for bill clinton. but bill clinton is a special case. >> special case, right. >> i mean, he was president, so he is still president clinton. so, the controversy that i can see, or at least the confusion that i could see would be when hillary clinton and bill clinton would be referred to at the same time, president clinton and president clinton, you know? 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

madam? 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, you know, still to this day, just like back then, you get a title and it just follows you forever, you know? >> well, you're the person they might ask, so -- >> oh, that's right, that's right. maybe i'll get another npr question. >> so, we 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, 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. there we go. we have a question.

>> hi, i'm larry ross, librarian here at the law school. >> hi, larry. >> question. you mentioned ambassador second title excellency. was there concern that by not giving the president of the united states, especially ones following washington, a grand title, that that 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 was a big problem, a big concern for a lot of people. what eventually happened, though, 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 the next president might be thwashington,

you know, sort of this bare, you know, just a shadow of what washington is. and so, he needs this high title. but 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 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. katherine fillhead from the history department. i'm wondering what influence the

events in france at this point are having on what's going on, because this is when everything is sort of unraveling in france. >> yes. okay. thank you. of course, the events in france, the revolution, 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 squash 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, and you do see that in some of the commentary, they actually do say

this just helps our, you know, this helps our position and it throws away any arguments in favor of a high title. >> so, another question that i had, you mentioned the modern presidency. >> yes. >> and scholars also refer to the presidency today as the imperial presidency. >> yes. >> and 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 really strange? is it totally different? >> well, you know, i just wanted to say on this whole imperial presidency concern that crops up periodical periodically, i view it as just part of this protectiveness toward the presidency that really started with the

ratification of the constitution in the conversations and the arguments they had about the presidency or the executive branch that then these ratification arguments were continued with the title controversy. 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 their leader to succeed. so, they're very protective about the office of the presidency. and i see this concern about the imperial presidency as part of 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 it was something that was discussed during the time in that summer of 1789, it was already being discussed and the congress was already making their decisions about executive veto. so, that is not something that 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. >> i think it's amazing how closely he followed the constitution, and we know this from the copy of his constitutional -- >> yes. i've seen it. it's fabulous. >> it's at washington's library in mt. vernon. >> just terrific. >> the fact that he actually wrote in the margins about what he was supposed to do. >> yes. >> powers, required, president. and i think that's the definition of constitutional governance, right? you can't imagine a cromwell or napoleon doing the same thing, i do this, but i don't do this. i do everything. so, he did obey the limits. >> yeah.

i think further along in his administration there is more and more controversy about some of the courthouse choices he's making. i don't go into that in my book. i stay within the first couple of years, which is the title controversy. but this is something that i'm very interested in is the evolution of executive powers in the title that he was president, because it's obvious to me with the title controversy that 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 was because he was a virginian, and the virginians were suspicious of the constitution. i mean, washington and his good frie

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 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, there's letters that show you stuff about the title controversy. i'm not sure whether he is open enough in 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 minds. >> i mean, 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 me and tell me what's going on in virginia. i want to know what's going on in virginia. you're going to be my ears on the ground. and he's 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 to hear. he tells stewart in another lett letter, he tells them, you know, i want to hear what the people are thinking, what the people of virginia are thinking, because if 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 effect a solution if i need to.

>> that's great. that's great. well, the last 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, our politics. but they were something washington despised. >> yeah. >> and i wonder if you could say a little bit about that, you know, why did 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 with 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 the parties and factions brought too much self-interest. >> they were in it for themselves, not the country. >> yeah. 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 and it could be. so, he really did view parties as just self-interested, you know, opportunities for misch f mischief. and in his presidential -- in

his first inaugural address, he encourages harmony and he encourages no factionalism, and harmony among the house and the senate. and in the title controversies, in there, in the senate's final resolution on titles, one of the things in there, besides the recommendation of the high title, 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 washington would say that part of the reason for that is the factions, the self-interests that comes with parties. >> well, thank you so much. you've given us so much to think about during this election season. >> okay. >> it's really fantastic. we really appreciate it.

we have a small gift from your alma mater, a token of our ferocious. appreciation. appropriate for the indication, a bust of george washington. >> oh, terrific! >> again, thank you so much. >> okay, well, thank you so much. i appreciate it very much. i really do. >> thank you for this amazing turnout. again, we welcome everyone to the lobby of the museum for a book-signing, refreshments and more goods to share. >> thank you so much, everybody, for coming tonight. i appreciate it. thank you. >> our road to the white house coverage continues this afternoon with the first day of the democratic convention from philadelphia with first lady michelle obama and senator bernie sanders scheduled to speak this evening.

c-span's live coverage begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. >> next on american history tv, author and journalist walter isa isaacson discusses benjamin franklin, arguing his networking methods and passion for science epitomized what he calls "america's national character." the new york historical 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, as it inspires and motivates young londoners as well as general visitors through the example of our great american founder and innovator. the museum is a georgian terrace house at 27 craven street, very centrally located. so on your 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, dr. basiano, who is with us representing benjamin franklin house. thank you. 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, trustee anita wean. thank you, anita.

some of you might be curious about the coincidence of names, this beautiful space, the robert h. smith auditorium, and this lecture at benjamin franklin house, robert h. smith lecture in american democracy. robert h. smith was, 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 grateful 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, which he very much envisaged as being used precisely as we're using it this evening, for a

lecture that will surely engage us in the enjoyment of learning about american history. and i can surely say surely because walter isaacson, journalist and biographer, is our lecturer this evening. we're pleased indeed to welcome mr. isaacson back to the new york historical society. he is the president and ceo of the athens institute, a non-partisan educational and policy studies institute. during his prolific career as a journalist, mr. isaacson has 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 hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution." tonight's program will last about an hour, and it will include a question-and-answer session. there will be no formal book-signing this evening, but mr. isaacson's 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 benjamin franklin house, and to talk about of all the biography subjects i've ever written, the one who's my favorite, of course, dr. benjamin franklin. this all started, and i like sees marsia and michelle sitting together -- at least my involvement started when i was researching benjamin franklin. i would be over in london quite a bit. and i realized that the only house still standing in which benjamin franklin lived was a house on craven street, right behind white hall, near

parliament, near trafalgar square. and it wasn't renovated at all. it was pretty much an abandoned place, and there were people trying to make it into a museum for benjamin franklin. i happened to know robert h. smith, who had helped with monticello, mt. vernon, all the great founders. and i said to him, let's have breakfast, because he had an apartment in the savoy, was it, hotel, which is only maybe what we would call four blocks from benjamin franklin house. he had breakfast and he agreed to be one of the major funders. michelle, his daughter who is sitting there who happens to be on my board of directors at the institute said never again will i allow you to have breakfast with my father. but we do believe, as anita, who is on the board of the ben franklin house, can attest, that it was a wise investment and dr. franklin would thank you. i'm going to talk tonight about franklin, talk about his relevance today as well as an innovator, but i'm going to do

it, if you don't mind, just 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 that two types of people come out of louisiana, preachers and storytellers. and he said, for god's sake, be a storyteller, the world has too many preachers, and it's the best way to get the story across anyway. benjamin franklin was born in boston. to pure tan immigrants. his father's ties to the lord. his father was going to send him. benjamin franklin. at one point they were getting

away the provision. james led 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's very difficult because whether it's steve jobs or albert einstein or benjamin franklin or bill gates or mark zuckerberg, anybody i write about, they all run away or drop out before they graduate. so, benjamin franklin is apprentice to his brother, and

he teaches himself by pulling down the books from the shelf of his brother's publishing house and book store in boston. and it's addison and steele essays and "the spectator" and publications from the great essayists of london. and what frank lib does is chops them up and distributes the paragraphs around and then tries to put them back in a better order so he could teach himself how to write. he said he was never quite sure that he became a great writer, but in fact, what he does is he becomes the best home-spun 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 he does under the door of his brother's print shop. and the brother and his friends. an elderly woman living in the countryside of massachusetts and writing these essays. the triumph of the imagination, a kid who was then 15 years old and never left boston, but writing in this voice. and it's a distinctly american voice. she begins and introduces herself in the first of the silence do good columns in the "new england courant" by saying "let me introduce myself. i'm a woman of strong national sentiments." i really reject the notion of privilege, and i have a detective 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 mavers, cotton maver and increase maver 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, but it only turns out dunces and blockheads who know how to enter a room gentilely, and she says that's something they can less expensively learn at dancing school, so she's going to send her 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 his young dan, his younger brother writing these things, and is not particularly