>> you have to realize a president's place within a popular sovereignty is complicated and the presidency was quite controversial in the beginning. we had just -- the american nation had just fought a war against a king and yet six years after the treaty of paris and the end of the war this new constitution untried featured a federal singular central executive with no term limits and vaguely defined powers. it's really no wonder that people worried about a monarchy attaching to the presidency. what kind of a president did the country want and need? there were those that were worried that the president would turn into a despottic all powerful monarch, too much like the traditional kind of powerful king would be.

but there was another group of americans that worried about a weak executive that would be subject to corruption and manipulation, like a weak king could be manipulated by his court. and so for them, it stood to reason that they would be more interested in a strong title to counteract this weak -- this fear of a weak president. >> it seems like all sides agreed that the person should be george washington. >> yes. >> he was the obvious choice. >> he was really the most trusted man in america. and i would say the most celebrated person in the western world at that time. i mean, really. when you think about it. and so he studied at the end of the war.

he was -- he and the nation were one. the union. he was like a steadying influence 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 as well. because he was so celebrated that the enthusiasm toward washington were so excessive and so king-like that he would elicit almost like a rapture in people at times. and the public loved him. they loved to celebrate him in kingly ways. as a result, he brought this whiff of monarchy is to 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 he could inhabit the presidency, this controversial position, 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 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 early april 1789 and finally counted the votes, washington was sent forth. 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. it's really no surprise that people start wondering what are we going to call him once he arrives. are we just going to call him mister? i don't think so. washington had been already addressed as general and your excellency during the revolutionary war.

your excellency was his title as commander of the revolutionary forces. in addition, at that time, 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 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. okay. he was concerned that the executive would be corruptible, i think, when he had been 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. 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 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 states. 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 bind. if they didn't give the president a high title, then they would be accused as an arist ocratic body out to subvert his authority. if they hadn't given him a title, they would have been accused as being monarchest. >> 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 highness and your majesty. so elective majesty, elective highness. serene, sacred majesty. okay. washington was put forth as denver said, because shouldn't all of the other presidents try to be as wonderful as washington was? they should aspire to the grandness of his name. there was even a suggestion that at least for washington, his name should be the delight of human kind. >> that's what we would all like to be called, isn't it? >> 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. 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. some of them you can barely say. 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. in subcommittees when they would try to meet to come up with another title, the house would not budge. so eventually, what happened in the end after the three weeks of legislative debate on this issue, during what i call the legislative phase of the controversy, the senate

capitulated completely 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 senate felt that his title should be his highness. president of the united states and protector of their liberties. >> that would be a mouthful in a press conference. >> president and protector obama. you know. really. that's what it would have been if the senate would have had their way. >> an amazing story. something that you accomplish is how you treat washington in this book. because there's this long tradition in scholarship suggesting that during this whole debate, that somehow washington is in the background cheering for one of these illustrious titles, but you show quite the opposite. >> yes. >> tell us a little about

washington's role and what you think was on his mind during this period. >> first of all, i just want to say the title rife, rife 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 innuendo, 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 a letter to his son-in-law, david stewart, and a grand friend of

his, a confidant. 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 uproar 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 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 towards the new federal government among his friends and

in 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 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 convention every day in philadelphia. washington and madison. hamilton was there for a while 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 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 controversy -- 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, the titles. his relief over the outcome of the simple title in letters, to jefferson and to several others. >> i think it's very persuasive, and he was a great politician. i think he understood that the 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. and what happens then, when the america 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'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 -- 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. they're like, let's get a committee together to figure thissous. they don't figure it out. on may 17th, 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 -- i mean, some of the elites already knew. their friends had told them that it was going on or they had written some letters. but when the general public finds out about it, it's not like everybody says, oh, great, this is what they're 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 like, oh, my gosh, let's write up some more things on titles and sell more papers. the people needed to debate this, whether the senate had made the right choice. it was eventually decided they are happy with what happened. and 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, these

legislators could argue something as politically volatile as they thought a title for the president was, and come up with a solution, and a choice that the people agreed with. so, it was a good thing. >> yeah, they really landed upon the small "r" 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. from their fear.

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 really 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 backed 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 felt 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 linked the vice of monarchy and the vice of vice president si. and they were only a heartbeat away. 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 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 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, hating broccoli, playing the saxophone, playing basketball, clearing brush, loving football. all of these traits hearken 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 -- rtraint, 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, 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 as 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 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 excellency, 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 a new 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 slushington, 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 fillheston 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 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, 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. >> thanks. 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 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 was, 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 mean, they just say, i do everything. so, he did obey the limits. >> yeah. i think as it got further along in his administration there is 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 title controversy. but this is something that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 as it could be. 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 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 appreciation. appropriate for the occasion, 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. terrific. >> yeah. 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. [ applause ] c-span makes it easy for you

to keep up with the latest convention developments with the free c-span radio app. available from the apple app store or google play. get c-span on the go with the c-span radio app. next on american history tv, author walter isaacson discusses the life and legacy of 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, 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 georgian terrace house at 26 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. baliciano, who is with us 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, trustee anita wean. thank you, anita. [ applause ] some of you might be curious about the coincidence of names, this beautiful space, the robert h. smith auditorium, and this august lecture at the 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, the celebrated 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 aspen 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 seeing 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 whitehall, 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 lessons across anyway. as you probably know, benjamin franklin was born in boston. to puritan immigrants. his father's ties to the lord. his father was going to send

him to harvard to study to become a minister. he was not exactly cut for the cloth. at one point, they were salting away the provisions for the winter and he said to his father, how about if i say grace over them right now, and we can get it done with once and for all for the entire year? his father realized it would be a waste of money to have him be a minister at harvard. so, 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'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 apprenticed 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 franklin 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.