want. our special convention pages and all of cspan.org are a public service of your cable or public television. check it out on the web at cspan.org. and this fall on c-span, the presidential debates between hillary clinton and donald trump. the first of the three debates is monday, september 26th, at hofstra university in hempstead, new york. that debate is live here on c-span along with the other debates on sunday, october 9th and wednesday, october 19th. washington journal is live from the democratic national convention in philadelphia. coming up tuesday morning, after the first day of the democratic convention, morning call washington correspondent laura olson will preview day two including hillary clinton's expected formal nomination by

roll call vote. then the ohio same-sex marriage case and we will talk about the role of lgbt rights and marriage equality in the 2016 political debate. also new orleans mayor and u.s. conference of mayors in mitch landrieu will join mitch benjamin to talk about gun violence and police community relations. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live from the democratic national convention beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. up next on the presidency, author kathleen bartoloni-tuazon talks about her book, "for fear of an elective king." when washington was elected chief executive that year, congress was unsure how he

should be addressed. he was commonly known as his excellency until the title was officially changed to president because of concerns that the position would become too much like a monarch. george washington university hosted this event as part of the celebration honoring the first president's birthday. it's about an hour. good morning and welcome to the fifth annual george washington lecture. i'm defer brunsman, a member of the history department here at gw and i teach a course on george washington that takts place at the mt. vernon estate. five years ago, when this series began, the president and the administration made a commitment to have an intellectual component to the celebration of our beloved namesake during george washington's birthday week. since that time, the event has flourished. we have heard stimulating presentations from some of the most prominent scholars on george washington in his time.

including patricia brady, gordon wood, ed lingo and last year phil morgan. this year, for washington's 284th birthday, we have at least four firsts, which is fitting for the first president. this is the first year that we have had a lecture on washington's actual birthday. the true president's day. this is also the first year we have had the lecture in the george washington museum and textile museum, which thanks to the generosity of albert h. small, tells the history of washington, d.c., through his own collection. there can be no more fitting location for the lecture. the third first is this is the first year we feature one of g.w.'s own history ph.d.s, dr. kathleen bart low olonbartoloni

has written a critically acclaimed study of 1789. the subject of tonight's event. i say event because this year, george washington lecture is a little different. it's not a traditional lecture but a conversation between me and kathleen and that's the fourth first, if you're keeping track. we felt that in this presidential election year, this made more sense to have an informal conversation about the creation of the presidency and to welcome more audience participation. so please have your questions ready. in addition, immediately following the conversation, there will be a reception in the lobby and kathleen will be signing her book. i brought my copy. if you forgot yours, they will also be on sale out there. now for a few introductions. i'd like to welcome some special guests this evening. first, rule rautuazon, our speaker's husband. charleen, the director of the

first conference project here. unfortunately the editor for the project could not be here this evening, but we also want to recognize him for a couple reasons. first, for participating in the inaugural george washington lecture in 2012, and also for working closely with kathleen as she was a visiting scholar at the first federal congress project. and finally we welcome jamie, a treasure along with g.w. and now vice president of the guest experience at george washington mt. vernon. welcome, jamie. now i'm pleased to welcome back to campus tonight's featured speaker, dr. kathleen bartoloni tuazon. [ applause ] she's an alumni and received her doctorate in history in 2010. as i mentioned, she's also a visiting scholar with the first federal congress project. she's been invited to speak at george washington's mt. vernon,

the organization of american historians, the daughters of the american revolution, and just this past president's day, she was fee tourred on the npr program "all things considered." prior to her study of history, she was in resource management while working as a chief of information management for the u.s. fish and wildlife service and as a director at the california department of fish and game and the california state lands commission. her wonderful book "for fear of an elected king," explores the presidential title controversy, basically, what to call the president. her amazing research tells the story of how after the establishment of the government under the constitution, congress, the press, and individuals all debated more than 30 titles for the leader of our nation. a few that did not make the cut included his elected majesty, his highness, and kathleen's favorite, serene highness.

some even favored calling all presidents washington, much like caesar. as the nation prepares to elect a successor to the office george washington defined more than 225 years ago, we couldn't be any happier to have someone like kathleen with expertise about the original presidency. so it's my pleasure now to welcome to the stage dr. kathleen bartoloni-tuazon. [ applause ] >> i want to say hello. thank you for coming. happy washington's birthday. >> got to get comfortable here. so you know that i love this book. i'll just show my -- >> thank you for that. >> what i really wonder about is why historians for so long have dismissed the presidential title

controversy as just a curiosity, something that will be a paragraph or something in a book at best. so i'm interested in how you came to this topic. >> well, first of all, there were times when it was called by historians a big hassle or other historians wondered why the congress spent so much time on it when they could have been working on those amendments to the constitution or, you know, figuring out taxation policy. but what they didn't quite realize was how important the title controversy was to figuring out what they were going to do with this new office of the president. how i came about it, i was reading a lot about washington at the beginning of my studies, and i came across something that sa said, you know, washington's presidency was trapped within

the controversial and dichotomous concept of the republican king. and i thought to myself, trapped, washington? i just didn't believe it. i think a presidency is a dynamic. and i thought his presidency must have been dynamic also. and i was having lunch at the first congress project one day and mentioned as much to my colleagues there, and we started talking about the presidential title controversy and the republican king idea. and they happened to mention they had this multitude of material at the congress project on the title controversy that had never been explored, and the more i thought about it, i realized that my dissertation topic had basically hit me on the head. >> those are the best kind. great. so let's take a step back

because it's not obvious to people today, because i think we take it for granted, the presidency. this was something of a radical creation. i wonder if you could say a little bit about the fears that the american people had of the presidency, of this new executive office. >> 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 despotic, 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 he was 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. you know, 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 for the presidency as well because he was so celebrated. the enthusiasm toward washington were so excessive and so king-like that he would elicit almost like a rapture in the 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 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 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, yeah. >> 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 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 conve convened -- once the senate convened in early april 1789 and finally counted the votes, washington was sent for. 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. in the constitution it said he must be your honor. it actually specified 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 a 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 this 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 aristocratic body out to subvert

his authority. if you they gave him a high title, they would have been accused of being monarchists. >> 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, illustrious imagine industry, illustrious highness, serene, sacred imagine tri. 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

humankind. >> that's what we would all like to be called, right? >> 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 some other tritele 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 and i really admire 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 controversy is 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 to david stewart 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. adams was in britain. jefferson was in france. hamilton was there for a while, and then 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 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 with titles, his relief over the outcome of the simple tight until letters, to jefferson and to several others. >> i think it's very persuasive, and it fits with the part of washington that i think was sometimes lost and that was he was a great politician. i think he understood the optics of this, and 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 sphere, and what happens then? what -- 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'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 this out. they don't figure it out. washington goes on to be inaugurated a week later. they're still arguing behind closed doors. well, 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 -- 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 some more papers. and the public needed to debate this. they had to debate whether the senate had made the right choice. it 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 that 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 wonder if you could talk about some fof the lasting impat 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 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, the -- 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. it helped the presidency fledge its power by not flaunting his

power. >> that's a really neat idea. that this actually makes the presidency stronger in the end. >> yes. >> so in a way adamages got what he wanted. >> ironically. so, yes, we can argue that the presidency would have been strong in any case, but my argue men ment is that because the people were more comfort ability wiabl 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 president, only a heartbeat away from the presidency. i mean, 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 towards the vice presidency i feel. he discounted that role as being just sort of the place holder. 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 gadfly, 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, the congress, and the vice presidency'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 if this was an executive branch office or a legislative branch office. >> yeah. and it became neither to some degree. >> yeah, yeah. 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, if washington -- 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 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 help 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, 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 book of popular opinion. so restraint and a nod to the people are the first principles of executive leadership 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 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 a big dose of humility. >> yeah. >> would be in order. >> 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 just want someone they can trust, you know. >> 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 -- i don't know. 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 he had that kind of gravitas. so mr. president though, the simple title of president and -- 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 elite, they were referred quite often to as lady. lady j, 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. 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. yes. 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. 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 st some of her friends, probably her friends in britain. >> 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 been on my mind with the current presidential election, there's arguably a better chance there bob a woman elected president this year than any other time, and i wonder if hillary clinton was elected president, will

there be a new presidential title controversy, will there be a new debate, or is it pretty settled what she will be called. >> many women are presidents of organizes and they are called madam president, and i would assume she would be called madam president and i don't think there would be a lot of debate about that. madam president in news conferences, et cetera. i think most people -- other women presidents -- women who would be president, their husbands would be called mr. 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 first gentleman being used for bill clinton, but bill clinton is a special case. >> special case, yes? >> 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 would be when hillary clinton and bill clinton would be referred to at the same time, president clinton and president clinton. they'll have to work that out. 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 this, you know, still to this day just like back then, you get a title, and it just follows you forever. >> you're the person they might ask, so be ready just in case. >> oh, 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. >> you don't all have to run at once. there we go. we have a question. >> hi. i'm larry ross, i'm a librarian at the law school. question. you mentioned ambassadors having title excellency. was there concern that by not giving the president of the united states, especially the 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 is a big problem, a big concern for a lot of people. what eventually happened though was that he 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 -- 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 august 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. i'm 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. >> okay. thank you. of course, 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, in favor of a simple title, and you do see that in some of the commentary they actually do say this just helps our position, it throws away any arguments in favor of a high title. >> 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 really strange? is it totally different? >> 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 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 all sides are very protective toward the office. they want their leader to succeed. and 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 one 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, 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 having that was discussed in -- during the

time, in that summer of 1789, it was already being discussed and the congress was already making their decisions about an executive veto. so that is not something he would be surprised to see. and i know -- if i had to bet money on washington 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 he would feel 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-s and he would expect the senate to act. >> i think it's amazing how closely he followed the constitution. we know this from the copy of his constitution -- >> which i've seen. it's fabulous. >> it's at washington library at mount vernon.

>> just terrific. >> he actually wrote in the margins about what he was supposed to do, the powers require 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 really 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 time of 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 see us 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 him, 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, to 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.

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 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 fractiousness and the self-interest 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. and thank you for this amazing turnout. again, we welcome 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.