counterattack that shiloh, in 1863 he conducted a brilliant campaign of maneuver in the interior of mississippi. in may of 63, which enabled him to seige vicksburg, which then six weeks later surrender to him. not only the town of vicksburg, a confederate bastion of mississippi, but the confederates main army of mississippi which was trapped in vicksburg as a result of grant's campaign. the victory at vicksburg winds up giving the union complete control of

the mississippi river. it's a huge success. not a turning point, but certainly another nail in the confederacy's coffin. and the fall of 1863, grant is brought in to remedy as situation that has arisen from a disaster that happened from william s rosecrans. rosecrans was defeated september 20, 19-20, 1863 battle of chickamauga. rosecrans then allowed himself to be quasi-besieged inside of chattanooga. they bring in grant, and grant straightens things out. he defeats the confederates in the november battle of chattanooga. wins a big victory. at this point grant's reputation has become huge, nationwide. there is a consensus among the northern people, not unanimity but a heavy majority of the northern people are very eager to see grant promoted, given command of all the union armies. there really is a feeling that as commander of all union armies, grant ought to at least accompany the army of the potomac, if not outright command it in virginia, take on

lee and finally defeat lee and accomplishment what the union has been trying to do, futilely, that union futility in virginia for the past three years. grant should do that, that should happen. northern politicians are for it. actually it is a bipartisan thing. not just republicans who want to see that happen. it helps that grant's political background is unclear. at this point he really is republican but his antecedents were democrat. he has never been very political, anyway. both parties are eager to see him make general. in fact, the democrats would like to recruit him to run for president in 64, he's hearing nothing of that! he won't have that at all. he gets the promotion, lincoln is eager to promote him. he gets the promotion to lieutenant general. the only lieutenant general, three star general in the union army at that time. the only person to hold the rank of full three star

lieutenant general since george washington, kind of a select company there. winfield scott, who we saw before, was an brevet lieutenant general, three stars. kind of an honorary lieutenant general. grant is a regular full lieutenant general. outranks every officer in the union army. officially he's given the position of commanding officer of all the union armies. here you go, grant, here are the keys. take it away! go win the war for us. i do not think there was anything that grant could have done to manage expectations after all that.

the expectations where that grant was going to come to virginia, he was going to win, quickly, cheaply, and easily. within a matter of weeks grant would of course win the war, certainly by the end of the summer! grant will have won the war. the union will be victorious, everything will be fine. of course that was radically unrealistic. the generals that grant had defeated in mississippi and at chattanooga, they were good generals. john pemberton in mississippi, braxton bragg in chattanooga, they were good generals but decidedly second tier. albert sidney johnston was viewed as a first tier general, we don't know how good or bad he was. grant beat him too quickly and then he died at shiloh. lee is obviously the best the confederacy has. lee's stature and reputation are towering, dominating -- his soldiers have very high morale. they do not believe he can be defeated, nor they could be defeated. which will serve them in good stead. they are quite

good! lee had put together quite a winning team. one advantage that lee has had in putting together a winning team in the army of northern virginia is that lee knows how to handle jefferson davis. when lee wants an officer transferred out of my army, he's not getting the job done! davis will let him do it. lee has to do it right. he has to use some tact and some finesse but he knows how to do that and he can get it done. lee has the team that he wants there in virginia. he, well, he doesn't have stonewall jackson because he's dead. he would've liked to have had him. otherwise, lee gets the officers he wants. once they are there in virginia he has a very good team, his men are good, the army is good. it was totally unrealistic to

expect grant to win within a matter of weeks, or to win very cheaply and easily. another unrealistic aspect of expectations about what we are seeing here was that, somehow, not that picture -- let's look at this one. somehow with an officer like grant, people expect that he is going to call his shots. like babe ruth, famous time he points to the center field stand and then he hits the ball there. i think ruth probably got lucky. you really have to get lucky to be able to do that. here is a plan, i'm gonna do this and this. actually, to some extent grant did actually do that, which we will see but -- you know grant really is an opportunistic general. he will look for you to make mistakes, if you are his opposing general. he will take advantage of them. he cannot necessarily tell you everything that is going to happen in a campaign before it does. anyway, we are going to

see is grant does pretty well. but because he doesn't meet the expectations, the unreasonable expectations that people had going into the campaign, both then, that summer of 64, and since then. there has been a tendency to look at this campaign as a failure for grant. or a success for lee. i'm going to argue that it was not that at all. so grant, let's go over the.e has plans with this campaign. briefly telling you very quickly that in addition to campaign through virginia. you can see this old map of the interior of virginia. i labeled the railroad to richmond. we discussed this topic already. we will review it again in a minute. before we discuss that,

grant does have a couple of peripheral campaigns planned in virginia. it's not just taking care of the potomac, we will get to that in a minute. he is going to be supervising the army of the potomac, directly. from a distance he will be supervising a couple of other small armies in these peripheral campaigns that he hopes will payoff. one of those will be in the shenandoah valley. we've seen the shenandoah valley before. we saw jackson was out there, he made a real headache for the union in the spring of 62. grant is going to send an army into the shenandoah valley, a small army, which he hopes will keep the confederates from using the shenandoah valley to distract from his main campaign.hopefully will distract some confederate troops out there himself. he is also going to send another small army on a campaign somewhat similar to what we saw mcclellan do back in 62, which is approach richmond from the

river. here, the james river, right there. now, mclelland went up the york river and then followed the richmond york river railroad, for various reasons. this little peripheral campaign that grant is planning with the smaller army is going to go along the james river. he'll be able to strike either richmond or the smaller town of petersburg. so what about petersburg? in order for the confederates to feed lee's armies and the people of richmond, they need supplies! so supplies come from four railroads, the confederates would have to keep at least two of the railroads, at least two, in order to keep richmond fed, keep lee's army fed, in order to maintain their position in virginia, okay? they have got to keep two out of the four.

three out of the four come together at petersburg. so if that union forces, that subsidiary army. if they were to go to petersburg and take petersburg, the commander has the option of richmond or petersburg. if the confederates cover richmond, leave petersburg uncovered. that smaller union army takes petersburg, the confederate army is done in richmond! they will not be able to hold richmond, they will not be able to maintain these army north of richmond. they are going to lose northern virginia and most of the state with it. this is a very sensitive target. grant is poking at it with a smaller army. it could be, grant is entirely open to the possibility, that while he is up here in northern virginia directly supervising the army of the potomac, these guys will win the war! and they might have. he hopes that by stretching lee in all of these directions he will be able to gain an advantage over him. that leads to another problem

though. another thing that grant will have to deal with. he has good things going for him, and then there are some things going against him. going against grant is this is 1864. this is an election year. there is going to be a presidential election. lincoln is up for reelection. now there were actually some republicans who said or suggested to lincoln we ought to postpone the elections. we should not be holding this election in the midst of the civil war, we have the huge war going on! the major faction of the democratic party at this time believes that war is a failure. they've been saying it for years. you have to negotiate! the kind of subtext of that is accept confederate independence. but if the democrats were to win this election, there is a chance -- historians argue

about how much of a chance, but a chance that the confederacy could have become independent. there is almost a certainty that emancipation would've been revoked and slavery would've survived. people said to lincoln, you ought to cancel this election. lincoln said no! we are fighting to prevent the loss of self government. if you lose the election and you get to start a war, to see if you can win it with a war that you couldn't win in the election. we are fighting against that idea! if we were to postpone the election because of the war, we've already lost the cause we are fighting for. we postpone the election, so we can stay in power. we are fighting to maintain the idea of self government. we can't do that! we are going to hold the

election exactly as scheduled. we're gonna do exactly what the constitution says. right. but politics is tricky. how is that going to affect grants campaign? it's gonna be tricky, but another important thing i told you about the idea political generals, these are generals who are actually politicians because we can't trust the experts, i'm not saying that. the people kind of, there is a belief among some people, i know that sounds incredible today -- we cannot trust experts. they have been educated in this, they've studied it, they are naturally bad at it. we need to trust guys who don't know anything about it. so that idea, it was around back then too. specifically with regard to the military. they've got political generals. why are they generals? because they gain political support. and grant has been very respectful of lincoln's need to have some political generals now and then. guys like mclaren, grant tolerated him for quite a while. grant knows that in 1864, lincoln is going to need to have some of

these generals. they've been in the army for a while and haven't necessarily done well. they're going to need to have important roles because they garner support for lincoln. and unfortunately, but probably unavoidably, both of these two subsidiary campaigns wind up being under political generals. the campaign out in the enandoah valley is entrusted to a german born general named franz sigel. 20th century history, and 19th century history too, has shown us that german born generals can be very good, indeed. franz sigel was not. he was not very good, but he has this command. we just hope that this time he will perform better and do something good, hopefully. and then the command of this

smaller expedition along the james river, this goes to a real american born guy named benjamin butler. he is a massachusetts politician, a democrat. and he is important. so, lincoln needs these guys. he needs sigel because having sigel in uniform helps lincoln win the german american vote, there was a lot of the german american votes at that time. having butler in important command helps secure lincoln the support of new england democrats or former democrats. so, ben butler is important, too. this leads to where i can dismiss these subsidiary campaigns and say they are not going to do anything much. because both guys performed at the level we have come to expect from political generals. both subsidiary campaigns were complete failures. butler

didn't take richmond, didn't take petersburg. he got his command bottled up in the peninsula between the james and appomattox river's. that was that. the confederates were able to contain him with minimal force, and detach the rest of their troops to lee. sigel also failed in the shenandoah valley. so these two subsidiary campaigns, that had the potential to help a lot, they are out. so now it's all going to be on grant, and the army of the potomac, which he is not commanding but he supervising, more on that in a moment. let's talk about the command, because this is a problem that grant has. what would really work best, we can

say this with the benefit of hindsight, is that it would work best if there were two of ulysses grant. one of them commanded the army of the potomac, and the other one commanded the armies for the union. but there aren't two, and the confederacy would like to clone robert e. lee. you can't do that, you can't clone grant. you could, potentially, and maybe this would have been better, it's hard to say. you could just give grant, say all right grant, you're going to wear two hats. you are the commander of the army of the potomac, and you are also involved with all union armies. he had that job briefly in the spring of 62, but it didn't work out well. probably, you can't expect it to work. that's too big a job for one man, something is going to get divided. so grant is traveling. what he does is he makes his headquarters with the army at

the potomac. the headquarters of grant and the headquarters of the potomac commander are co-located. they are literally adjacent to each other. most of the time during a campaign, they are together. but grant tells meade, i want you to be as independent as you would be if you are commanding the army of the potomac and i was in washington. but they can't be, that's not realistic, that's not going to happen. so grant really is trying to do something he can't do. because grant is present with the army, so grant is responsible for what the army does. if grant were in washington, and meade decided to do something dumb with the army, grant would be responsible in the sense that he was in command of meade, but he wouldn't have known what happened. whereas when grant is present with the army, he is responsible to a greater degree. he almost has to intervene and tell meade, no, don't send us guys over there, send them over here. send that core over here. he's got to do

that. this sets up a constant tension through the whole campaign and through the rest of the war between grant trying to supervise meade and yet trying to give me to some degree of independence, to let him command the army of potomac. probably, again, what might be better would be if meade recognized himself as a chief of staff of the army of the potomac. i like the idea that would help would have been better, there would've been problems with it, but for granted to bring his friend james b mcpherson out from the west. i think mcpherson and grant would've work well together, with mcpherson being the army of the potomac commander, and a glorified chief of staff. and just run the army while grant tells it what to do. as it was, meade was constantly feeling resentful of grant, he was always telling him what to do. it reminds me of a parent teaching your child to ride a

bicycle. all right, now you get on the bicycle and you've got your hands on them. all right, meade is on the bicycle and grant is the dad. okay, you take your hands away. and they start wobbling, grab them again. it was kind of like that, grant keeps trying to take his hands away from meade. meade keeps making mistakes, which grant then has to intervene. you've got the problem that meade is upset because grant has intervened. meanwhile, meade has made several mistakes which costs the army a lot. that's a problem they have throughout this campaign. anyway, grant is going to command the army of the potomac. we've already been several times over the idea that there are a limited number of ways that you can take an army to richmond and supply it. so there is the orange and

alexandria railroad from alexandria, virginia, down to gordonsville. you catch the virginia central and ride that down to richmond. it's the longest way, and another problem with it is that these upper regions are vulnerable to confederate guerrillas. confederates can raid and potentially disrupt your supplies. that's at least one way. another way is the richmond and fredericksburg railroad. the mouth of a quiet creek on the potomac there, straight down to richmond. it is short, it is direct, it's got problems too. in late 1862, december 62, ambrose burnside tried this with the army of the potomac and found that although you can force your way across at fredericksburg, it is almost impossible to force your way up out of the bottom lands of the river on to the bluffs beyond it. he lost a battle that way. and in the spring of 63, joseph

hooker with the army tried going around fredericksburg that way. that didn't work all that well either. it maybe could have, but it failed. so there are real problems getting past the rappahannock river on the orange and alexandria railroad. another problem, by the way, with richmond and fredericksburg. on the orange and alexandria, there is a problem that robert e. lee has his army deployed and heavily dug in just south of the rapid around orange courthouse. that is a problem. you are going to have to do something about that if you are grant. we are going to follow the line of the orange and alexandria. what you are going to have to do is turn loose of the railroad, cut your

group away from your supply line for a while. that is very dangerous. usually, grant would do that. if granted had the army that he'd had with him in mississippi, he would have done that. he knew them, knew the officers and how they worked. not being familiar with the army of the potomac, he didn't want to take that risk. so that's not an option. of course, you could go up the peninsula, the way mcclellan did following these estuaries. and we have seen that grant is sending a minor expedition to futility here. he didn't want to go to futility, but they did. there are problems with this, and in fact, lincoln almost would not tolerate the main union force in virginia going down there again. the thing with mcclellan, it worked out so badly that it left northern virginia wide open. lincoln doesn't like that and really is just not going to let that happen. so that is a nonstarter for grant. now, what grant is going to do, he is going to use a combination of all three plans. his army is on the orange and alexandria

railroad when he starts out, lee is south of him. so grant is going to angle -- i will get oriented here, there we go. he is going to angle across the river there, angling to the southeast like that towards the little courthouse town of spot of spotsylvania. if he can get there before ali does, lee is blocking his route over here. grant is going to go that way. if grant can get down there

before lee does, grant is going to get a head start. if he can get there before lee does, he will actually be in the enviable situation of being closer to richmond than lee is. lee will be in a lot of trouble at that point. lee is almost checkmated if grant can do that. grant would be willing to accept a quick victory. all of those expectations for victory in two weeks left the army destroyed in a month, or whatever. grant wouldn't mind, he will give it a shot if he can. but he is also realistic enough to know, probably, he is going to have to play out the whole campaign. what he plans to do is, basically, and he has got this in mind. not the details of it, of course. but in broad terms, he will keep moving to the southeast and circle around richmond to the east. if you can get straight into richmond, sure. but on the other hand, he thinks probably, and he tells a staff officer before the campaign starts. they're still up here before the army has left their camps. he tells a staff officer, when we get here, and he points to petersburg, when we get here, the war will be over. that was pretty close to being true. so anyway, the campaign begins in may of 64. so you can see there,

grant starts out north of the rabadan, crosses early in may, and lee meets him. i don't think grant really thought lee was going to let him steal a march all the way to spotsylvania, which is here. lee meets him over here, and this is an area that is favorable to lee. it is unfortunate that grant has to go through it, but there is no other way to get there. it is

called the wilderness of spotsylvania. it is an area of 30 or 40 square miles, an area where during colonial times, the 17 hundreds, there were large iron ore deposits. small iron ore deposits were found there, but there were large for the standards of colonial virginia. the iron ore dried out by the 1700's. but by that time, they had cut down close to the forest around there to burn them to smelt the iron ore. when the forest cut down, we came back with a second growth. not a climax for us but a second growth, low grab the woods with a lot of thickets. very thick forest. today a fourth tend to go into thicket anyway, for various reasons. one thing is we don't graze cattle and hogs in the woods

like they tended to do -- which kept the understory of the woods greats now. especially because the woods had been cleared out, soil parenting wasn't that great, what you have is an area of maybe 30 to 40 square miles of thickets, mostly. very thick! very dense. artillery is useless in that area. advantages in number is almost useless. lee really wants to fight there if he can, they do fight a battle there. it's not the greatest place for grant to fight but grant is eager to fight lee any place he can get to him! we fought a battle on the fifth 7th of may 1864 it's the first battle between lee and grant it is very intense at times. very unpleasant. a lot of it fought at close range because visibility is shortened through those trees. there is a lot of confusion again, because of the thickets and the terrain! grant is not able to make that free dash to spotsylvania. but he almost wins it all right here in the wilderness. grant had, he fought! if he could get a

shot at lee if he could bring him into battle, he might be able to beat him and he almost did. there is a famous episode on the second day of the battle, one of the few large clearings there amongst the wilderness, grant had launched a big attack and it broke through! it had broken through lee's lines and we're about to get to lee's supply wagons. it was pretty much going to tear lee's army and have, take out a supply wagons. how close this was to the absolute other doom and end of the army of northern virginia can be seen by the reaction of robert e. lee, if anyone knows that the army of north virginia is in big trouble, the would be the man. he was! he knew, and what he does is he reacts in utter desperation. the only reinforcements he can find, it happens to be the texas brigade. lee actually places himself at the front of this brigade and starts to lead them in an infantry attack. lee is

going to lead, on horseback, the infantry. haven't we seen a high-ranking confederate general do that before? yes, we have! that was the end of albert sidney johnston. now lee is going to do that. i think what that tells me is lee recognize that this is it! he is practically doomed at this point. so, this is an act of utter desperation. what happens is the texans, the soldiers of the texas brigade force lee to turn back. they are shouting, lee to the rear, lee to the rear. it's the first of a couple of, lee to the rear, incidents that happened during this campaign. they actually

grab the reins and they turn traveler, the name of his horse, they make him go to the rear. they would not go forward until he turned back to the rear. he reluctantly did. the counterattack of the texas brigade and other troops of fields division were able to plug that hole, hold the line, and the day was saved for the army of northern virginia. it almost wasn't! it was very close. after two really hard days of fighting in the wilderness and then a standoff, grant was able to go around the flank of lee's army. he was able to move off in that dictn. i have some pictures and wanted to show you. th are actually donrtis that went along with the army of the potomac and did sketches. this is the closest thing we will get to an action picture. this is them crossing the river. here is a scene, the sketch artist made from position behind the union line of battle as they are engage

with the confederates. you can almost not see over there it's very hard to see. there another shot of the union line of battle engaged. again a guy sketching with a pen and paper from his position behind the lines. this is a sketch from an artist who was on the scene. the reaction when grant and his staff, meade and his staff, as they rode along the road leading to the south. they passed by the position of some of the troops of the army of the potomac. this is the first time the troops realized we won battle against lee. we advanced into virginia. we fought a battle, and we are advancing! it's a first time that has happened. that has never happened before. not under

mcclelland, pope, burnside. hooker, every time the army of the potomac advances in virginia, they fight a battle and they go back! this time, they fought about against the army of northern virginia and they are advancing. it was a hard battle! casualties were high. very, very, unpleasant experience. but we won this battle, we are advancing! how do you decide who wins a battle? the soldiers are cheering, they're waving their hats and cheering. grant was eager to get them to be quiet because we don't want lead to know we are moving any place now, how do you know who won the battle? is who won the side who suffered fewer casualties? we haven't gotten to world war ii yet but if the side who takes the fewest casualties is the winner than erwin ronald won d-day right? and the united states lost -- we would all be speaking german today. well,

not exactly but no that is not how you figure out who won the battle. it's who gets more of what he wants of the situation that he wants afterwards. the person who wants peace grant. he collided with lee and then he just splits off. if you want to use a sporting analogy it's like a running back who hits a linebacker and bounces off and goes around him, he is tearing down the field. that is exactly what happens. grant hits lee here any moves down and hits him here. again if grant can get to spotsylvania before lee does, he is virtually checkmated. he almost does! it is very close. perhaps a matter of less than an hour, confederate troops getting into position. the circumstances that led to that were complicated. the woods were on fire, which was one of the things that made the battle of

the wilderness so unpleasant. because the woods were on fire, the confederates did not stop for arrests along that march. they just kept marching! which worked out for them, although it was very tiring. they marked all through the night. in very dense smoky woods. very unpleasant circumstances. they got there with maybe 30 minutes to spare. also, there was a controversy around the union cavalry. the commander of the cavalry of the army of the potomac is one of the few officers at the grant brought with from the western theatre to command in the east. this is general philip sheridan. sheridan has not commanded cavalry in the western theater, he commanded infantry divisions. there was a saying in the civil war, whoever saw a dead cavalryman? there was a belief that cavalry didn't really fight. he said sheridan, i want you to make the cavalry fight like infantry. sheridan

he doesn't invent this idea, but he just dances with this idea. we are going to use cavalry like mounted infantry. sort of a mobile, motorized infantry unit. but maybe, because sheridan was not familiar with cavalry operations he did not do a good job of getting his cavalry out in front, where they are supposed to be. getting them to spotsylvania first. this is controversial! some people defend sheridan, some people agree with me that sheridan did a bad job. in fact, there was a huge row between sheridan the cavalry commander of the army of the potomac, and george meade the overall general of the army of the potomac, under grant. both men were known to have terrible tempers. their tempers were in true form on this day. they had a shouting match. it didn't get recorded, word for word, which is probably just as well but it

was probably pretty pointed! meade was furious. he went to grant and said, grant! sheridan says if i turn him loose he could go in and whip the confederate cavalry in jeb stewart. did sheridan say that, and grant said yes, he did? well sheridan usually knows what he's talking about so go ahead and let him. they let sheridan loose. there is jeb stewart, the confederate calvary man, we have met him before. he is allegedly now! so while grant and lee face off spotsylvania, their respective cavalry corps go galloping across the country and collide all the way down here just outside of richmond yellow tavern. the site was inconclusive. sheridan got back to union lines. join butler and

eventually rejoin grant. the significance of yellow tavern was jeb stewart was mortally wounded, he died the next day. turns out the confederates had a decent bench in the area of cavalry leader. they had a very good cavalry leader after that. but least stewart was out of the site. back though to this situation. so grant, most -- he almost guts to spotsylvania before lee, but not quite. takes it! there is a standoff for several days. grt es an opportunity to launch a major assault. by this time, here is another sketch by someone who was there. i don't know if you can tell what is going on? but there is a trench along that line. they are starting to dig trenches, they are starting to build log breast works. they are starting to have a lot more field fortifications and intrenchments. troops have tended to do that in this war, consistently, after they have

had a heavy fight! what's happening in this campaign is they have a heavy fight and then they stay in contact a keep fighting. in spotsylvania, both sides built strong log intrenchments. long brass works and inenchments. you can go to spotsylvania, to the ttlefield. the trenches have slumped in a lot, there is grass growing in. but you can still distinctly follow the lines. walk the lines because of the ditches that they had. sometimes it's a trench, sometimes it's a ditch in front of the long breast works. grant saw a vulnerability in the confederate line and he launched an assault. it almost

succeeded! this led to the second lead to the rear incident, just as we saw at the battle of the wilderness. the apparently is desperate enough to try to lead and infantry counterattack to plug this gap in his line! several thousand of his line groups have been captured. the division commander in, the confederate commander has been captured. many confederate guns and donna flags have been captured. lee, in desperation, is about to lead an infantry assault! the men forced him to go to the rear. not the texas brigade but another unit force him to go to the rear. in the end, confederates were just barely able, after 24 hours of full range fighting by various units, the confederates were able to hold their line there. avoiding disaster, but if you are keeping score at home i think this is maybe the third time at least that it came very close to being an early grant victory! it would pretty much fulfill those unrealistic expectations. but, it did not happen. after the unsuccessful attack, the almost but not quite attack of

spotsylvania grant goes around again, around lee's flank and hits him and slides off. again, the result of the battle -- we don't do it by counting bodies on the battlefield. famously the united states in the early years of the vietnam war tried to gauge how well it was doing, how well they were doing by counting bodies. the body count was not the way to do it! we are not getting in the body count here. casualties were about proportional to the size of the troop forces engaged. grant goes down here, the shooting was hanover junction for the virginia central wearable crosses over the -- he started with the virginia central railroad. he has picked up the richmond in fredericksburg. lee blocks him

at hanover junction. lee takes a very good position! lee is a very good general. i don't know if you can see that little upside down right the. that's the position that lee takes. in order to get at that position, grants troops will have to cross on either side -- cross the north and a river on either side of the apex of lee's position. by doing that, they will be much separated from each other. so lee has essentially put a wedge into the union army we can't follow up on it. because lee's army is getting worn out, lee is getting worn out. he is suffering from heart disease and he may have had a heart attack in late 63. he's not in the greatest of health. by this time, he is on his back in a

cot in a tent. he is trying to command the army from there. his top subordinates have been winnowed out, to. his first core commander is badly wounded in a friendly fire. his second core commander becomes basically a psychological casualty after spotsylvania. by the time they get to north anna, his third core commander, ambrose p hill, has succumbed to bad health. stress probably added to it. so all of lee's, three quarters of his army are being commanded by division commanders who have moved up to that position within the last few weeks. they don't have a lot of experience. lee can't go out and provide that experience for them personally by writing around on horseback as he did in the seven days battles. he is on his back, he can't make anything happen out of this. he pulls back, and here is a shot of the north anna river and the union pontoon bridge across it. that was a photograph taken at the time. that is a more zoomed in picture. there is the

confederate v in north anna. as lee lay in his tent on his cot, he said we cannot let those people go around us again. we cannot let those people pass us again. grant is going around again and again, like a running back. i used to love walter peyton, he was a hall-of-famer. he would slide off and go on. grant is having things his way. the wilderness was 65 miles from richmond, spotsylvania about 65 miles. when grant gets down here where they will face off against each other again at a place called cold harbor, not because it was cold or a haour but there was an inn

where you could only get cold meals. they will be ten miles from richmond. so grant is making progress here, as they advance in a side long way. they get down here, cold harbor is best known for an unsuccessful attack on may 3rd. the attack did not result in 7000 casualties in 45 minutes, more like 1500. grant, again, struggles with getting media and meade's subordinates to attack in the ways he wants, when he wants, in a coordinated manner. and then another thing that grant tries to communicate is, if you see that the confederates have a strong position, and if you see we are not going to breakthrough right away, stop the attack. do not keep doubling down on a failed attack. unfortunately, the generals of the army of the potomac tend to double down on

failed attacks. when they do get going, they don't want to stop, even though they are failing. so that brought the casualty list up. the two armies remained in contact on cold harbor. beyond june 3rd, when the unfortunate attack happened, all the way up to the 12th. in some of the movements and attacks it happened afterwards, grant did better than lee. and the final move of this overland campaign was maybe the most brilliant of the side moves that grant makes. he really fakes lee out, and he takes his army down and across the james river. he moves on petersburg. and that was another one of those moves that should have, by rights, given grant what he was seeking. unfortunately, fatigue, bad decisions by generals, various

factors lead -- they had a heroic confederate defense of petersburg. that led to the failure to take petersburg. but at that point, it becomes really a quasi-siege of confederate positions around richmond and petersburg, with grant on the outside of that line. he is constantly driving to cut additional railroads, and as robert e. lee had said, when the armies were up here, lee said we have got to stop grant before he gets to the james river. there is the james river. lee said, if he gets to the james river, it is going to be a siege and then it will only be a matter of time. from the time grant got to the james river in mid june of 1864, it was a matter of time for the confederacy. although a lot more time than union voters would have wished. okay, we are out of time. so thank you for your attention and i will see you all on wednesday.

listening to programs on c-span or c-span radio just got easier. tell your spark speaker, play c-span radio. listen to washington journal daily at 7 am eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5 pm and 9 pm eastern, catch washington today for a fast pace report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span powered by cable. >> during a recent interview, the 31st president great grandson, allen who were the third, talked about -- the herbert hoover presidential library museum will have all of in the future. here's a look at what he had to say. >> i remember as a boy visiting the library museum. they were glass cases. gripping open spaces with cases, different memorabilia and papers. that kind of thing. i remember in 1992, the hoover

presidential foundation. the h h pla back then, along with hoover director richard norment smith, led a effort to make the museum new again. i remember the first time i visited the library after that renovation our member i felt that all the glass cases were gone. i thought i was transported into herb and lose life. as you walk through the gallery and walk through their lives. that was terrific for 1992. i think what we, what i have shown is perfect for 2022, 2023, and beyond. and as we hope it creates a new feeling of wonderment inspiration so the world can learn about these great americans from the hoover presidential foundation this is our dream it is time for this dream to become reality. fortunately, we have a

dedicated board of trustees that are looking towards the future late last year drc completed their concept designed which i have just shared with some of you today you may have seen some of the work in the lincoln presidential library in springfield, which is absolutely terrific. if you haven't visited i encourage you all to do so, it is really amazing. we are very early in the process but the goal is to have an updated interactive and immersive museum to visit, to engage all visitors about herbert and lou hoover. just like in 1992, the museum can be made new again with new generations seen museum for the first time. some seeing it again with a new experience. young people of iowa can be expired to become the next leader to help millions of americans from devastating flood, like one migrate granddad organized in december

of 1987. perhaps your son or daughter can go to west branch and sea to be the first person to work and fame and release efforts to save tens of millions of lives like we've done in more one and more were to. or, even more simply, as great grand and said at the very beginning about discussion here today, just to learn from history so we are not condemn to repeat it. >> all episodes of american history tv presidency series our veiled watch online, anytime at c-span.org slash history. our weekly series, the presidency, highlights the politics and presidency of u.s. president and first lady. coming up next retired rear admiral michael giorgione gives a behind the scenes count of life at camp david. he served as commander there during the presidencies of bill clinton and george w. bush and is the author of inside camp david the private world of the presidential retreat.

welcome to another episode of white house history live. my name is dr. colleen shogan. i am a senior vice president at the white house historical association and the director of the david rubenstein national center for white house history. the white house historical association is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a mission to educate americans about the rich and diverse history of the white house and the people who lived and worked there. our guest this evening is michael giorgione. mike is a retired rear admiral from the navy's civil engineer corps. he served in a variety of assignments around the world in his 29 year military career. including as commander of camp david. after military retirement in 2010, mike has worked in private industry and now is the chief executive officer of a building information systems technology company headquartered in his hometown of pittsburgh. in

october, 2017, he published his first book, inside camp david. the private world of the presidential retreat. mike travels often speaking about the book. he has been covered by the wall street journal, the today show, smithsonian, npr, c-span and many other print radio and television outlets. after our conversation, mike will be taking questions from our live audience. please put your questions in the chat and we will get to as many as possible. welcome to white house history live, mike. >> thank you colleen, wonderful to be here. great honor to serve our navy and nation. i appreciate the time to share a few stories here today. >> but we start from the beginning. tell us how you were selected

and with this thought process was. >> well, it is actually a navy command nearby. the navy has operated and maintained by president roosevelt. civil engineer officer -- so 1998. possible officers being considered with the white house and interviewed visited the camp, was interviewed by the director. about a week later i got the call. >> amazing. first a little bit about your own personal history. >> i visited it once in the early nineties. i left

the visit that day, talking about the next assignment. it's really a difficult place to work. they say put it away and go on a few tours. i was shortlisted and selected towards the end. near the end of president clinton 2nd term >> how long were you there? >> just over two years. >> the last year and a half, president clinton and the first tour of george w. bush. again very fortunate on timing to work with 2 presidents that support the family and events that occurred there. >> let's talk a little bit about the history of camp david. if the history begins with franklin roosevelt, why did fdr select that site? what did he like to

do? it was not called camp david at that point in time. >> very good, very good, thank you. back to 1942, roosevelt loved going out on presidential yachts. on the right, it's one example in oakland, california. he loved going to get away from the white house. secure hobbies and interests. it is 41, 42. concerned about you both signings. the staff said sir, we can't go out on the yachts any more. he said, finally a place where i can go and get away from the white house staff. they said find someplace drivable nearby. interestingly, because of the new deal, bringing us out of the depression, and part of the work progress, later the progress administration. part of the civilian conservation core, which we money back into the country and repeal a lot of the roads and parks, there was a place in

clermont, maryland, called the talked in recreational demonstration area, also known as camp number three. roosevelt was given three sites nearby to visit he went to all three. when he came to canada three he looked at and he said, this is it. this is the first name, this is my shangri-la law. to roosevelt, he named shangri-la law they take off on the novel, lost horizon. implying a sort of utopian, mysterious place in the mountains. he had that whimsical nature about naming things. that was its name until, as we know, president eisenhower renamed it after his grandson, camp david. that is how we know it today. >> can you describe camp david for a lot of our viewers and listeners, who i'm sure have never visited camp david in person. probably will not visit camp david. can you paint a picture for them of what the camp is like. >> sure, i will try. imagine a hilltop park, it is a

national park. it maintained by the national park service. great partners of our. about 1800 feet elevation. in the spring and summer months, it is very leafy and lush canopy. perfectly manicured yards. narrow asphalt roads that meander from the camp. these cabins that you see here, this is the presidential law. all of the cabins have this rough cut oh plank siding with this green paint. all of the roofs are cedar she -- this is very rustic, leafy, and fresh. at night i find it particularly surreal. it is deathly quiet. no lights except pathway lights. no noise except squirrels in the tree, and they no noise, no noises from below. it is eerily quiet and peaceful. that adds to the misty. this is the cabin where my

family and eyelid and, all commanding officer to. we live physically inside of the camps. this is called cedar, just around the corner from aspen, the presidents lodge. >> how many cabins are in camp david. how big is a sight. there are 12, for guest cabins. on named after trees. president eisenhower started that -- roosevelt called the presidential watch the bear stand. eisenhower, when he renamed to camp david, he named all the cabins up to trees. he picked aspen because that is the home, the tree of eisenhower's home state of colorado. it all named after trees. about 20 tonal -- including the fire department, as. the clinic, eucalyptus. the admin office, popular -- the support facilities, the barracks of single sailors and marines, et cetera. >> let's talk a little bit about the stapp camp david. you were the commander. what is the science of the

military staff that can't even? what types of jobs today perform? >> over 200 sailors and marines five cylinder near officers we have one chaplain core. officer supply core, to marine officers. security company which comes out of the nathan high barracks in washington d.c.. all told, you put all the sailors and marines together it's just about 200 staff. we also have a white house communication agency detachment there. they are in charge of communications. that is a joint command coming out of downtown d.c.. >> can you tell us a little bit about how camp david have changed over the years? it was very rustic when fdr first came to camp david. there has been some notable additions to the complex. you mentioned there is a chaplain. there is a chapel at camp david. can you talk a little about the buildings, activities, and how

that complex has changed over time? >> go back to fdr, again. it's apparently why the navy has a. he took the sailors off the uss potomac. they did not have a job, he took them with him to camp david. he also brought the marines on for security. fdr only went there during the non-winter months. truman, not a fan of camp david, he preferred to go to key west. he put a promoter around the place, he had the trees push backed from the cabins. during eisenhower's time it was winterized. heating was installed in all the cabins. very rustic, it is still maintain like that. over the years, for use of family and administration and guess, cabins haven't added. president nixon, during his time, put a lot of expansion into the camp. expanding aspen, the presidents launch. putting in the hourglass shaped pool. adding laurel, the main entertainment cabin. you can sometimes see it on news reports and coverage of

world leaders visiting. a number of other features throughout. it has been maintained since then. modernized, at times. it is a challenge of the president visit a lot went to modernize the cabin and expanded. that has been going on for the past for five years. a very sequential and smart way to keep things current but maintain the rustic nature, on the outside, and the amenities on the inside. it is not a marvel of brass, forestall resort. it's not meant to be. it is rustic uncomfortable. place to think and get away, to walk in privacy. in silence. to recreate on your own or to meet with other leaders as some of these photos to packed. one of the unique thing is the evergreen chapel. that was donated, through private money. it was gifted to the president of the united states at camp david, commissioned in 1991 during president george h. w. bush. how did president get to camp

david? you talked about fdr with the driving distance but historically they don't drive to camp david anymore. is that correct? >> not ideally. we prefer to bring them in by helicopter. eisenhower was the first to come in by that. weather permitting, they will fly in on h. and s1, or the white top as we call. it if inclement weather they can come by motorcade from when they were last part two point was. >> camp david is a presidential retreat, yet we know presidents often find themselves working at camp david. tell us a bit on how it functions as a white house in the maryland mountains. >> thank you. most people recognize, no matter who is the president, you are always going to be on duty. there could be a lot of critiques about what you do when you are off duty, or how you do your job, but the fact is you are always on duty. it is the presidency. you need time off. we all need time of. in addition to a second home

that some presidents have, some do not, camp david provides that peace will get away for family, friends, and, if needed, for staff or for world leaders. i find it has been a great balance in history that presidents go there to get away. the reagan's, famously, most of the time came as a couple to get away. to recreate, but also i'm sure to think about things and sometimes bring guests with them. every president is a little bit different. to me, as an outsider, i think the best balance is usually for the personal respite for your family and friends. then you find it a great place to bring world leaders to talk privately. there is no press, unless you invite the press in. there are no lights, no protesters were trafficked. there's no planes flying overhead. it is serenely, as i said, quiet and peaceful. that is what you want. >> how do people get around camp david? are their cars, golf carts, or bikes? how do people get around? >> yes, it is golf carts.

everyone is assigned a golf cart. we have golf cart one. we have to have our norman clutcher as well. golf cart one, golf carts are assigned to all the guests. bicycles are available. we do have cross country trails up through the woods. snowmobiling, he saw the picture president ford and his family snowmobiling during his presidency. principally, golf carts to get around, or walking. >> just a reminder to everyone, we are going to be taking questions at the end of our conversation. if you do have questions for mike about camp david, it's history, what it's like, please put them into the chat and we will get to as many as possible. let's talk a little bit about the history of camp david and the historic events that have taken place for camp david. can you talk about some of these episodes for them and why presidents might choose camp david for the setting of these historic occurrences? i will mention four events and

then i will focus on a 51. we see photos of fdr writing winston churchill to the mountains and going out fishing in a nearby stream and smoking cigars and probably having a bourbon or two. the poignant moments left here are talking about how the u.s. can enter the world war. it is roosevelt in the top left inside aspen. that stone fireplace is still there. there is a wagon wheel chandelier. you cannot see a. that is above the roosevelt table. that is still there. president truman only went ten times in his tenure. he preferred to go to key west. the president come there. that's the first time -- president carter made a famous for most people in 1978. with the peace accords with sadat of egypt and city of internal. during my time in 2000 president clinton brought jasper arafat and the prime minister of israel to the camp to try to replicate a similar thing. 2012, president obama hosted

the g8 conference at camp david. the single time that most world leaders have been a camp david at any one time. the incident i want to go back to his 1961. april, 1961. president kennedy inaugurated in january, president eisenhower. the bay of pigs is being planned, behind the scenes with the cia in the u.s. government and others. passed off to the administration -- you see this photo in the top awry that became a pulitzer prize-winning photo named serious steps. but i think is interesting about this from a human and political point is that president kennedy inherited the operation. it was launched, it did not go well. hence the name, bay of pigs fiasco. he reaches across the political and personal aisle, invites president eisenhower to come to can't of it and help -- to help him understand how to get through this.

how do i fix this mess? what do i do? it is a poignant and significant moment, i think. you have the new upstart democrat inviting the old guard five star retired general, former republican president there to talk about what to do. i think it is a very humble, possibly gesture measure. but a very humble way to recognize leadership. to recognize what a president typically passes on that is fit between demonstrations and talk about what is best to do for the country. >> you mentioned this already mike, some presidents when you talk about this in your book, some presidents and first families visit camp david more frequently than others. can you talk a little bit about the differences in how presidents and first families use camp david and explain why you think that is? >> one, it depends on children. what are the ages of the presidents children. i think that dictates, are they going to leave their interim euro league's back in d.c.?

most of their friends or their. oh my children grown up enough to be out of the house. i think that is a big factor. to, some presidents have second homes and prefer to go there. some of them can do both. three, some like the quiet nature. president clinton rarely went to camp david the first term. over the -- over the two terms, i think he saw the value. some just prefer to go somewhere else. they prefer to entertain elsewhere. nixon, over 80 something years it is different. >> can you share with us one or two of your most favorite memories i camp david from your time at camp david? >> there are certainly the historic moments that most people recognize. the p summit, working with the state department. madeleine albright to welcome president clinton. meeting yasir arafat, having the photo shaking his hand and watching from the sidelines as president clinton spends almost

two weeks trying to forge a middle east peace treaty. peace agreement. watching president bush, early in his presidency, welcome of the players to camp david, it was just two couples getting to know each other. but psyche would with your neighbor. that is one of the very poignant things to watch from the sidelines. even though we get to serve there and see things, you have to remember, you are in the world a brief time. you get to know some personal things about the families. you are not of the world. you have to understand to maintain that decorum, that humility. i will tell two stories that are more of a personal nature. i think how it helps to relate to families in parents. the first one is the final clinton weekend. four days nonstop, hundreds of guests coming through. dinners, a couple of musicians performing in the chapel. this is a wonderful event. we had the opportunity to say goodbye. as i was walking to the

helicopter 10:00 that sunday night, there's snow on the ground. and saluting them, thanking them for serving our country, walking down to the marine one 20 year old chelsea clinton, turns to me and hands me two stuffed animals. she says, commander, i've had these him a better of eight years in aspen. please give them to your daughter,. john here wife michelle for everything you've done. it is a touching and unexpected moment. a very human approach great keepsakes for the two girls. that is the first one. here is the scene, in the final time i see the clintons in 2001. the second one is a humorous story, it's in the book. it's about the goldfish. it is that juxtaposition of the commander of the camp and the fact that you are responsible for security, yet your family lives inside the gate. you have to leave the gate every time you need to run errands or do official things.

it was during the middle east peace summit. the first week, michelle had taken the girls down to the fairmont city fair. a common thing to do, if you are in camp david in the summer. she was coming back to the gate with the two growth in the backseat. they each had a goldfish, they are each holding it in a plastic bag. we had a strict policy at that team. no animals at camp david. no pats! the marine corps guard, who knows, as we know all the marines and they know us everyone is doing their job. he says, man, you can't bring pets into the camp. she looks at him with a bit of an incredulous look, the girls are hearing this, the tears start to come down their eyes. she is looking at them, he is looking at her, she's looking back at him. he is doing his job, mom is doing her job. michelle leans over the window and says, they are for dinner and kind of winks. he says, yes ma'am. please proceed. funny little moments like that you realize there are still

people there having these poignant moments at times. we all live with rules and regulations but sometimes you see the human side. that is one of my favorite stories. moms and dads and kids -- sometimes that is what it feels like. thank you. >> the final chapter in your book is called, the true meaning of camp david. can you tell us, what is the true meaning? is it different for every president, first family, who spends time there? >> it's definitely different. as i described. all the different family sees it differently. the bushes -- president george w. bush had crawford. he loves going to can't even like his dad. they spend every christmas day. for some, it is a time for family come together for special holidays. during my time, the clintons loved camp david for thanksgiving. every thanksgiving the clintons went to camp david. they -- every president has done it differently. nancy reagan love going there -- he did all of his radio

addresses on saturdays from the cabin and elsewhere. they all use it differently. but meaning comes from the engagement with world leaders. >> it has a theme of this camp david kind of place the spirit of camp david. coined by one of the soviet premiers during their time. it was a place where you could come together with trust, within nature, you press, unless you want them there, and the ability to sit down of people and break bread, share story and get to know each other. to me that is the true meaning of camp david. a place where presidents can get away and relax. a place to entertain family and gas, or world leaders. probably one of the most unique places in the world to do that. all within reasonable distance of the white house. >> mike, we had some really great questions from our live audience. i know that nancy from facebook's know that president reagan in nancy reagan rode

horses while they were at camp david. is very stable there. what other activities are available, besides swimming? >> the only time we've had a stable there, a corral, was during the kennedy years. macaroni, the pony macaroni was kept there for the children of the kennedys. otherwise, horseback -- i had one incident where president clinton and chelsea wanted to go horseback riding. the national park service from d.c. brought the horses up. we used to the back eight into the world in. this secret service on horseback to go through with nearby woods. horseback riding is possible. there is no corral today. there is skits shooting, trap shooting, mini golf, of course. driving range. snowmobiling, cross country skiing -- presidents want to go golfing, they go to the nearby golf course. if they want to fish there are nearby fishing holes -- contracts we arranged to take the man. there is a bowling alley. there is a movie theater. there's a game room, is a

library. there is a bar, a lounge, there is a recreation shop >> david asks, have hikers ever from the mountains ever accidentally approached the perimeter of camp david. >> it happens, there are warning signs. it's put around the camp. you could drive by the roads. most people know not to go down. we have protocols if you do happen to encroach the fence. there are things we deal with. and help you get back to the path. it is a no-fly zone. there's typically no aircrafts. i'm sure it happens and continues to happen. >> didn't fdr, didn't he make a wrong turn when he was driving to try to get to shangri-la? did he come across a neighbor that was not too happy to see him? >> yes,

it happens. we don't drive as much around as we did. we are always surrounded by agents. there is been those humorous events. knock on the door, lady yelled at him. it's a poignant moment about every day life between humans. >> dennis asks, what is the longest a president has stayed there? wasn't carter there for a week or more during the middle east? >> there was a time carter was over a week during the peace talks. clinton went to the g8 summit. president carter also went there during the 1979. he came back and gave that malaise. he talked about the condition of the country. we had hostages taken. all this was going on. he secluded himself almost two weeks during that difficult time and his presidency. typically, presidents go for a weekend. out friday and back sunday night. >> jeff asked a good question, how did

eisenhower get naming rights to name camp david camp david. was there an executive order? what it legislation? did he just have someone go out with lumber and paint and redo the signs? >> i like the second explanation best. i don't know. i imagine there must of been something signed to change the name from shangri-la to camp david. >> karen asked for, the president chooses not to visit camp david, how does that change? >> staffing operations don't change. you are always ready, your mission is always ready to receive. some presidents have actually let camp david be used by guests. president carter visited with his family during the clinton term. it was carter again. the former president visited. some presidents have allowed staff to use it. if no one is there,

you just maintain the place and take care of it. it can be a morale issue. if no one visits, i had a 5 month gap--that is a lot of time not to do your job. you get a little rusty. you have to practice at times. and then some, weekend some presidents are always on. it becomes quite an increase in uptempo. >> that is the question that gabby has. what happens at camp david when the president is away? what do you do as the staff? >> we have more time to do training and physical fitness programs and contests if time allows it. our sailors in marine go to school. you need to always be ready. you are really sitting and waiting taking care of the place. you are mowing the grass. you are training, it is constant. because you're always

ready, you're ready to execute when the president does visit and we look forward to it. >> jeff asks, has hollywood or the news media for documentary for example ever filmed on site at camp david? >> harry reisner with abc news interviewed president ford inside the camp. i believe that's the only time there was an interview done in that regard. certainly during world events like middle east peace summit in 2000, the press was there. a secluded area to film. the principle is coming in and then he was out on the bus. there have been hollywood guests of various presidents and musical guests and sports guests but to know real filming or documentaries done at camp david other than something from the archive. and any presidential films from the

libraries. >> peter asks, what is the reason for the new pets rule at camp david. >> it was self grown. and our people that live there. it depends on what's happening. reading a book about the incident with nixon and the french poodle and the camp dog, it is a humorous time. it's why that's dictated changes at times. today, we are a little more reasonable. >> kathy asks, he mentioned the library, what kind of books are in the library? does it depend upon the administration? do the books change depending upon the president or first family? >> we keep some archives in a open public library near -- it's more of the history. that's where all the white house christmas cards and holiday cards are kept. we frame all those. we put those in the movie theater of the library.

in the cabin, holly, which is where carter chose to meet with sadat because of the smaller nature, i like that room because that library is most of presidential papers. there's copies of the presidential papers that are published and other historical novels about the military services and presidents. that's what we mean when we refer to the two libraries. one for publicly use and one for the history of camp david and the second presidential papers. >> missy asks, do you have any stories about the johnson years in camp david. >> chuck howe, age 95 in california chuck and his family were there from kennedy to johnson years. in the book, it talks about johnson being particularly about scalding hot water in the shower and how chuck and the crew worked endlessly to try to make it hotter than possible. how the air conditioning works and all

those other things we fight within our home chuck talks about the transition from kennedy reacting to the assassination, and the change of administration, and then bringing president johnson into the camp. >> grant asks, has president biden visited camp david? >> he has been there eight times. he leaves most weekends going to delaware. and he's been to camp david eight times. >> and also as vice president. tiffany has, has camp david ever been damaged by bad weather? >> there are microburst on the hill. they will sometimes knock down trees. fortunately, nothing serious has hit the area where camp david is. >> marianne asked a good question has there ever been a wedding at camp david? >> one wedding. the

bush's daughter was married in the chapel. one wedding. >> it's all from facebook asks, what was the biggest surprise you ever had while working at camp david? >> the day the sprinklers went off when president clinton was chipping golf balls behind aspen. the sprinklers go off, i didn't witness it, but the secret service are watching nearby. the sprinklers went off again. he threw his clubs into the golf cart. the bag wasn't secure. the clubs fell over, it's humorous, but you can understand the frustration of someone dealing with that. i try to make light of it that night when he left camp david about finding water holes. it was a poor attempt at humor. you learn the balance of when to be serious and not too serious, when to not be too

humorous and went to not be -- that was the funniest time. fortunately, there were no serious incidents. there are tough things going on in the world. i left the month before 9/11 occurred. we spent a lot of time describing what that commander went through at the time. light moments during my time. >> charlene asks, and much heads up to you get when a president is coming? >> it depends on the president. the change of command day, 10 am, 10 am and my president sister knew that clinton was scheduled. 10 am ceremony that morning before the ceremony you get word. the president is coming that night. so, a fascinating factor to realize you're about to inherit the camp. you know nothing about what goes on. you've had briefings. you are the new co. you're driving the cart. i found that to be a very fortunate event. it taught me

just to sit back and let people do their jobs. all i have to do is get dressed up and introduce myself and shake hands and that's all i did. i learned a lot about my crew. let people do their job, train them, have their back, support them, let them do their job. that was no notice. the bush administration, we always knew well ahead of time. it depends on the person. >> jane asked a good question. can the vice president and his or her family go there as well? >> if the president allows them. it has happened in history. sometimes the president will let staff or others go away for leadership. president obama did that for his staff members. the commander at the time and the chapel giving history brief. they welcome people. they do

what they're there to do. they go back on a sunday. it varies. >> caroline asks do you know how the pandemic has affected the camp or the new procedures. >> very observant of mask rules early on. very observant of vaccinations. again, this is the trump administration, the beginning of the biden administration, everyone is very observant of following the rules. by the white house, the white house what the president wants or the navy's health protection condition. a very appropriate response. i don't think it's held back. maybe it's held back from one of the outside guess. certainly no at world leaders have been there in five years. i think that will open up with world leaders attending more. >> bill says, i know the answer to this

question. i'm going to ask it anyway. is camp david ever opened two tours? can the average american ever go? >> bill, you are spot on. it is not open. there's a fake white house website out there that advertises weekend tours. don't believe that. it's not true. -- [inaudible] crew members can have guest visits. either know someone who works there if allowed or know the president and be invited as his or her guest. >> jayne asks, what's the food like? a good question. >> we run a galley for ourselves. that's available to guests if they wanted. there is the lounge and bar. it has bar food available. for visits we, work with the first family in the social secretary to work the menu. and we have well trained culinary specialists

who sometimes work with the president chef or the white house to prepare the meals. for world leaders, we work with the state department, especially for kosher meals during the yasir arafat visit they brought kosher meals from d. c.. they provided meals for the guests. we accommodate the guests. day today we have a galley that serves the crew that works there. >> jackie is watching on youtube asks, what is something that you think every american should know about camp david? >> to get to the jeopardy question, is it the first shangri-la. it is a navy command just like marine ones is a marine command and air force one's and -- et cetera. he was first established in 1942 by roosevelt. >> missy asks, what's the highest rank of someone from the marines or the navy at camp david? >> the

camp commander is a commander, a u.s. navy commander. sometimes that officer might be selected for captain, he or she is the -- it is a commander. the senior marine is a captain, the co of the security company. for the white house communication agency detail that's there, maybe a lieutenant colonel, typically the u.s. army. >> our last question this evening. several viewers have asked this. why did you decide to write the book on camp david. and what was one or two things that were fascinating that you learned? >> wonderful final question. on the day of the change of command there is a photo of my wife and two daughters at the age of seven and four. my wife michelle. she hands me this

journal. the first page of the journal is a scrawled note from the two girls saying, dear daddy please write stories about the presidents journal. the kids will read about them. it was humorous, right? i would've never thought about it. so, after every visit or vans i would sit down and i just kind of would write down what happens. i did that to the clinton administration, at the end of that i did at the inauguration for bush. but i sat in my desk. i never thought i could -- their union weekend during the previous commanders, a lot of the former commanding officers and the chiefs and spouses where there. they were

all meeting each other. summer meeting for the first time. some we had known each other for years. i had heard, many of them were talking about trying to capture someone's history. i learned later that many had written their own stories. i first realized that i could write the book as long as i had security review done, it was possible. i knew i wasn't going to write anything that was unattractive to any president. i knew i could weave in 15 stories of other commanding officers and get the history. now we can bring the whole history of the camp, a lot of the camps together. other cos and tell their stories. you will see their stories and names in the books. you will see the photos. and use it to become a historical narrative for some of the personal insights. -- some people wanted stories. that wasn't the purpose. it was to show respect and to tell the story. and a little bit about the military supports the presidency around the world 24/7. >> thank you so much, mike, for joining us on white house history live. this has been a really comprehensive conversation. thank you to all the viewers for watching this.

if you are enjoying american history tv, sign up for our >> $100,000 in total prize of its, with a grand prize of $5,000 by entering c-span student cam documentary contest. for this year's competition, we're asking kids to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress, and tell us what your top priority would be, and why. great a 5 to 6 minute video showing the importance of your issue, from opposing and supporting points of view. ople with your documentary, don't be afraid to take risks. there is still timet started, didn't lead four entries was january 20th 2023. for competition rules, tips, the ways to get started, visit our website. sports writers and historian -- jackie robinson's integration

of major league baseball in april of 1947. here's a portion of the program. >> understand that when robinson was coming to the dodgers, klay hopper -- he came to them and said, is this man a human being? harper had no interest in managing jackie robinson. ricky said the harper, you better to exactly as i wanted to, where you're going to be gone. hopper's career was more important than his racism, and he kept his mouth shut and did a decent job with robinson. >> and i comment something that really rub to me the wrong way? as enlightened as ricky was asked this statement, we are first to them as colored boys,

which is degrading and is part of the systemic racism it pervaded america, and even infected ricky's rhetoric. colored boys, he is a man. he proved that on the field, and off the field. >> that's why i wanted to read this article, to show just that. what america didn't look kindly upon african american men, not at all. >> and as he read that, as you pick up where you left, whenever i read something like this, and particularly when i'm talking to younger people, younger african americans, and you read this type of thing, this was par for the course. african american men and women in this country, but they had to put up with, being called a girl or boy no matter what your age was. i think it's harder for younger

people to understand that this is just the norm, and how people saw you, and put him in a context to prove their humanity. >> watch the full program anytime, he spent that or a slash history. just search jackie robinson and the brooklyn doctors. let me tell you about our speaker this evening. this is an assistant professor of global affairs at gennadiy washington university. since 2011, he also served as an assistant director at the new

color studies institute. in his primary research in teaching areas, he has done in modern u. s. history and foreign policy. he focused on weapons policies and cold war diplomacy. he also believes making education work sensible to people outside of universities. he works to give public presentations on why ranging topics are throughout american history. there is the rise of the american suburbs, the gilded age, the role prohibition played in an 18 twenties, the history of dining in the united states, and the 1939 world fair. allen will also be back with us on january 11th. he will discuss kennedy, nixon, and the debate of the century. we hope you will consider joining us. we are so excited to have allen with us this evening. without any further ado, please join me in welcoming allen -- >> thank you for the generous introduction. i am dr. allen -- i am a professor of global affairs and modern american history at trinity washington tin university here in d. c.. i want to start tonight by giving you a number, 1939. it is one of those years that stand out in world history. it is one of those years that invokes a reaction. it is much like 1776. we have the american

revolution. perhaps 1989, the fall of the berlin wall. even at 9/11. there are just some dates that sear themselves into the historical memory. 1939 hold specialist ignitions. it is the year that world war ii began. -- i sparked a global war that was going to go on for nearly six years. it would result in upwards of 85 million people killed. that starts arms

up timber for 1939. much less remembered is the fact that that exact same day, the united states president extended a formal invitation for all europe peony shuns to return to the united states in 1940 to continue celebrating the next season of the ongoing new york world fair. his invitation said, quote, the continuing hope of the nations must be that there will be increasingly understanding each other. the new york world fair is one of the many channels by which this continuing conception of peace may be known. end quote. on the same september day that the war broke out, the ongoing new york riddled's fair saw record attendance numbers. it had sort of become a de facto gathering ground for those who wanted comfort or solace. maybe just

those who wanted to revisit the world as it existed just the previous day. a world not plunged into a catastrophic war. a world of hope for the future. the following day, september 2nd, the new york times headline said that europe's turmoil was reflected at the fair. they wrote, quote, with bombs bursting over poland yesterday, the impact of general war that seemed to threaten europe finally broke with full force at the world's fair. such a short time ago, it was dedicated with brave speeches of international peace and goodwill. the 1939 world fair was supposed to be a celebration of mankind's progress, a glorious vision of the future literally called the world of tomorrow. with that by

means of a teaser, what i want to explore in tonight's presentation is exactly that. how did this fare, full of such promises, how did it collapsed into the fire of world war ii? what vision of the future did it present? how far off where we? for the next hour or so, i am going to explore this fascinating moment in history. there will be plenty in time at the and for some q&as. feel free to enter it any question box throughout or hang on until the end. >> i want to begin by not just looking at the world fair, the vision for the future that it presented, but the fact that there was an enormous stake riding on this single event. an event that will be marred by the outbreak of the war. >> let me set the scene.

we'll give first this general overview, then we are going to come back and fill in some of the gaps. we want to expand our contacts. our story sees us -- we are on april 30th, 1939. it is a muggy sunday afternoon when the new york world's fair had its grand opening. over 200,000 people in attendance. it was an especially exciting moment. the president of the united states was going to be there to officially open the fair. i will show you a news reel from that moment. >> america's world of tomorrow is waiting for its debut. it is showmanship and industry. to see the exhibit of 58 nations, crowds poured in from subways, train, buses, and cars. for the guests, the moment has come. president roosevelt with his

son john behind him on the right, speaks in the court of peace. >> i hereby dedicate the world's fair, the new york world's fair of 1939. and i declare it open to all of mankind. >> i should've mentioned before it is started that it is an old video clip. the video might be a bit choppy. the audio should come through fine. right from that very moment, this fair is already opening a window on the world of tomorrow. roosevelt's speech was broadcast in any brand-new invention it was being debuted for the first time at the fair. television. roosevelt's speech launched the very first scheduled television broadcast station in america.

nbc, that first broadcast station, breathlessly proclaimed that the presidents address was being beamed from a transmitter at the very top of the empire state building. -- it could be seen for a whole 25 miles. in reality, only about 1000 people tuned in. there were only about 200 televisions in existence in new york at that time. mainly because this is what a television looked like at the time. a five-inch screen, smaller than some of your cellphones today. it was not even technically black and white. it was actually a weird green hue. one person wanted to buy themselves a television. it

costed today's equivalent of about $4,000 for that wooden box. but this was an incredible thing that we now know would really go on to introduce the world to tomorrow. there is the irony here. it is the one that would continuously haunt the entire world's fair. there was the fire that well days may have been the first broadcast in america, it was nazi germany that beat us by three years. the first live television broadcast was the opening ceremony of the 1936 olympics in berlin. that is where hitler featured prominently. an interesting thought experiment and side note. the astrophysicist carl sagan once considered since this was the first mass tv broadcast sent out on radio waves, that might

mean that the first message that aliens encounter, the first transmission from earth would be a picture of hitler. back to roosevelt's speech, as exciting as this moment was, there were some storm clouds gathering. a reporter asked a fair representative, wouldn't a european war completely ruin the fair? the representative responded, there will be no war, that is all newspaper talk. europe is excited about this fair. it is all they are talking about, not some war. well, not everyone would have agreed with that statement. the fair was open to all countries. each country was invited to attend and build a pavilion. they would be able to exhibit their culture, their products,

their industries. hitler's germany had signed a contract to build a pavilion in new york city. there is a lot of consternation at the time in america about whether or not to let nazi germany even attend. two years earlier, at an exposition in paris, the nazis had also been invited. they build a giant an imposing building with swastikas all over it. this was meant to be a bold display of nazi germany's reimagined role within the global community. what they were projecting was that hitler's totalitarian form of rule was good. not just good, but it was the way of the future. democracies were old,

fading, they were a thing of the past -- that national socialism -- this was a project to be taken seriously, taken with respect. it could be admired, was the image that they want to project. in fact, the organizers in paris had put the nazi building on the left of this image and the building to the soviet union was on the right directly facing off against each outher. germany leaned into this idea that national socialism was a welcome bulwark against the evils of communism. right away, this illustrates one of the major clashes of 1939. the major fears that overshadowed not just the fair, but overshadowed that moment in american life. the idea that it was real at the time. maybe we in america where overtaken by these two countries that

offered alternative and more modern political systems. to understand the reason why this was a fear, let me go back for a moment. i want to put this fair in the context of its time. it is during of the great depression. by the time the fair open in 1839, the united states had been through ten years of economic calamity. a 27% unemployment rate at times. this is a time in american life when families did without. without extra food, without extra shoes, without going to the dentist. it was a time before there was modern medicine or penicillin. that meant that a child or adult could die of a sore throat or a

simple cut that got infected. this was a time when role most roads in the nation were made of dirt. not even gravel. it was literally just dirt that turned completely to mud when it rained. in 1939, fewer than 25% of people living in rural areas had electricity. that should astonish you. this is 50 years after electricity was commercialized. still, only 25% of people in rural areas in america have it. this is a time when the national emergency council reported that much of the southern united states was, according to the report, a belt of sickness, misery, and unnecessary death from syphilis, hookworms, malnutrition, typhoid fever, and malaria. and quote. it was so underdeveloped that it is more akin to what we

recognize today as a third world country. malaria, typhoid fever, malnutrition. there was a growing understanding among the american population -- this dragged on and on for a decade. that seemed to indicate improve that he kind of traffic system was a failure. worse, overlaying that was the democracy as a governing system was unable to remedy the problem. democracy was old, slow, creaky. it is subject to the whims of the masses on one hand. on the other hand, held hostage by bickering politicians trying to presume their own interests. in

contrast, a bold and new political system had arisen dtarting in europe in the 1920s. it was this system of fascism. it originates in italy. and then it spreads to germany. the fascist ideology argues that liberal democracies are doomed. they are past. only a one-party state led by a strong leader in charge of the martial law government did tightly controlled the population. only that government could respond effectively to economic problems and form the national unity required to maintain a stable, prosperous, and orderly society. the problem was, that approach seemed to be working. fascist italy and germany seemed to be doing well and thriving even. in 1935, the german autobahn was opened. a full 20 years before the u. s. interstate -- the german

economy is in the midst of the cold war depression. germany -- there were many in the united states throughout the 1930s, including members of the united states government, who pointed to nazi germany and thought that perhaps the way out of the great depression was for america to be more like germany. maybe fascism with district-controlled society was not quite your cup of tea. that is okay. there is yet another new alternative to democracy, communism. in the 1930s, the

soviet economy was also booming. it was rapidly industrializing. so much so that there were russian recruiters working in the united states to recruit out of work americans to move to russia to work. that is where there were more jobs than there were people. tens of thousands of americans did move to russia in the 1930s in search of better jobs, a better way of life than what they thought they had in america. a huge number of shantytowns had populated the outskirts of almost every major american city. this was largely before we had learned about the atrocities of the soviet union and nazi germany. these were seen as largely respectable and prosperous european nations. in 1939, capitalism and democracy was under challenge. no one quite knew how things would

turn out. maybe the fascists were right. just like democracy had superseded monarchy. maybe fascism and communism were the next logical steps in human political development. they had solved the problems of politics. to say that most americans had experienced these constant streams of obstacles and struggles and existential fear would have been right. to some, not see germany was the positive model of the future. to others, to most, they were up in arms in america about allowing the oppressive freedom restricting german state to participate in this fair which was focused on freedom and the future. for one, the mayor of new york city, he never missed

an opportunity to hackle hitler. he claimed if germany was allowed to attend, the fair also had a building called the chamber of horrors. there is the brown jordan fanatic. he is now menacing the peace of the world. -- the magazine said, no swastikas at the world's fair. despite these clashes, it would come to naught. the germans would withdraw on their own. they claimed was because of the foreign exchange problem. they did not have enough money. it was a protest and an affront to what they saw as insults against their nation. many were happy that germany withdrew. but perhaps their absence from

the peaceful gathering of nations, maybe their absence should have been ominous in itself. down the road from where the nazi building was meant to be constructed, it was the pavilion of the independent nation of poland. we now know in hindsight that just five months after the fair opened, they're not seas would invade and overtake poland. by the end of the world's fair, which runs until the end of 1940, the polish pavilion was draped in black because the country technically no longer existed. its exhibits were partly sold off by the exiled government to help pay the bills. the soviet union, that other totalitarian state, they were also a relatively new country at the time. it was only officially recognized by the united states in 1933. just a handful of

years earlier. the soviets were granted a prime location at the fair. they built a massive pavilion. the soviets were using the fair to project a positive image of communism. their official statement read, the soviet union is a country which has ended the exploitation of man by man. -- 170 million people of different nationalities are united in an equal freedom. if i had not told you that was the soviet union, you might think that is the united states using that kind of language. except that five months later, the soviets would join with the nazis to invade and destroy poland. italy had a major pavilion. italy was also a fascist government at the time. in fact, it was italy that essentially

invents modern fascism with the italian leader mussolin who predated hitler by about ten years. i think that you might be getting the theme here. five months later, mussolini sides with hitler. japan's pavilion was modeled to look like a shinto shrine, which was a religious belief in japan that many americans thought encouraged and aggressive and military culture. japan had already been at war with china for eight years. they had just, two years earlier in 1937, committed an atrocity in -- japanese soldiers murdered 300,000 civilians. in new york,

their dedication at the fair read, quote, dedicated to eternal peace and friendship between america and japan. end quote. except americans should have already been suspicious about the internal peace and friendship. the u.s. navy fleet was supposed to visit new york city as a part of the ceremony. but because of aggressive moves being made by japan in the south china sea, the fleet visit was canceled. the u.s. navy was instead deployed specifically as a show of force against japan. you get the point. one year later, the japanese would launch a massive surprise attack against the united states at pearl harbor. eternal peace and friendship, they said. my goodness. if the 1939 world fair was supposed to be this world of tomorrow, this bright vision of the future, yikes. right? they could not have been more dead wrong. world war ii would break out five months into the fair.

americans would be dragged into the war just about a year after that. it became the most deadly war that humanity had ever seen. this moment of hope had turned into a moment of crisis. it was truly terrible. the world's fair was supposed to transcend that. that is why april 1939 was so exciting. the world's fair was designed to leave the current doldrums behind. it was supposed to look to an inspiring new future. the

decade of the terrible 1930s, the dirty 30s as it were, they were about to end. and a better future in the decade of the 1940s would eventually unfold. the idea that the 1940s would be a dawn of a new era of peace and freedom, it is printed right there on the ticket stub. the designers of this 1939 world fair truly tried to project a positive view of the future. a view of the future that was so far in the future that the westinghouse company even buried a time capsule. this is some fun bar trivia. the very word time capsule was coined for this event. in fact, there were two time capsules. they wanted some redundancy.

these time capsules who are not set to be open until the year 6939. not to be opened for 5000 years. that is how long americans thought this nation would last. that is how far in the future they were looking. if you ask me, that is a severe case of hubris. even the roman empire, the most powerful and longest lasting empire in the history of the world, it lasted about 1000 years. looking forward as a side note, the area where this time capsule was buried is only about seven feet above sea level. the projection is that in the not too distant future, this will be underwater due to climate change. they did not know that back then. this time capsule was meant to preserve a record of life in 1938. they put in it what they said where 124 commonly used items. items like tooth powder. they had a mazda lamp -- we call these things edison lights. they had copies of life magazine. they had a mickey mouse watch. they had a

gillette safety razor. not having to use a straight razor to slit your neck with it. they had a doll. i will admit that i had to look up what the doll was. it is this creepy thing. it was the hottest children's toy of the era. they had $1 in spare change. they had and spend estes shingle. why not? of course, they also had the coolest thing of all, cigarettes. give your throat a vacation, says this doctor. they also included a letter from the famous scientist, albert einstein. he was appointed to -- he explained in the letter that he put in this time capsule that in the time in which he lived, society had learned to fly. we are able to send messages and news without any difficulties. that is over

the entire world. what he is talking about was the radio. it was a relatively new technology at the time. in fact, one of the brand-new technologies that was debuted at the fair was a facsimile machine. it could use radio wave to transmit a newspaper to be pointed out in your home. that is kind of amazing. the data transmission would take about 180 minutes per page to print. back then, you don't need a license. just

like today. we are scrolling through the phone to read news. back to einstein. more ominously, his letter also wrote some hard truths. he said, quote, people living in different countries kill each other at irregular intervals. for this reason, anyone who thinks of the future must live in fear and terror. end quote. wow. not exactly an inspiring message for the future. but einstein would be proven right. probably sooner than he would have thought. he, more than most, probably felt that fear from the future. einstein had already relinquished his original german citizenship in protest of hitler. he left germany. he effectively became a refugee. he eventually landed in the united states. two days

before the fair opened, hitler would withdraw withdraw from the german and poland nonaggression pact. the storm clouds would continue to gather over europe. i want to step back again to fill in a bit of background. what even is a world's fair? these things were created in the late 1700s. it was meant to be held every five years. it was kind of like the olympics. in fact, the world's fair predates the modern olympics. they only got started around the turn of the 19 hundreds. the world's fair was created in this time where competition in europe was heating up. nations were battling each other for

superiority. the french thought that it would be good to have some sort of exhibition where each country could gather and show off how amazing it was. all of its culture, and products, everything it had exactly that. this could foster friendly competition. that world's fair circuit last johnston's competitive, if not more competitive than in modern olympics are. the host nation would build huge buildings to host the fair. each country would put on elaborate exhibits. hundreds of thousands, millions would attend. these fairs would be talked about throughout the world. they run for two years at a time. ultimately, in 1939, 44 million people attended. these fairgrounds were so huge that it would often take multiple days. in fact, it was recommended that if you attend the new york world's fair, you spend two weeks to see it all. multiple days. these used to be huge events. they sort of started to fizzle after the 1960s. although, i do admit to being surprised to find out

there is literally a world's fair going on right now in dubai. the last one was in 2015 in italy. they are still happening. they are just a shadow of their former glory. back to 1939. it is the united states turn to host the farragut. and the genesis came back in 1936. that is when he site's location was selected in queens, new york. an area that was at the time a garbage dump. 15 stories tall. the ferry was constructed on top of notorious garbage heap. that was yet another unintended irony about what the future might bring. in

order for the fair to be profitable, they had to get major european nations to attend in a major way. this started off poorly. britain and france agreed to construct small pavilions, and only on the condition that the united states paid for them. but then, a guy named grover waylon, the president of the world's fair corporation, he decided that he was going to play a little bit dirty. he figured that the path to success, the way to get the big important western european nations to come, they wanted to get in bed with their top rivals. if waylon could get nazi germany or the soviet union to attend in a big way, britain, france, the other western european nations, they would have to step up their game in order to compete. he promised the ussr a very large and very favorable location to show off the soviet union. without haggling over the price, stalin agreed to pay 4 million

dollars for the right to build. that is about $75 million today. waylon's trick worked. the very next morning, he got a call to come to paris to negotiate for a much bigger french presence. the french were not gonna let the soviets take all of the glory. cleverly, waylon decided that before he stopped in paris, he was going to make a little detour to italy. he wanted to sell mussolini on the idea that he could not possibly let those communists outshine the great fascist nation of italy. he arrives in rome. he would later write, quote, as i entered the dictator's office, i saw a highly polished floor at least 200 feet long. off in the

distance, mussolini was looking at the sunset through a massive window. it paints a lovely scene. he continues to use flattery to solve the idea. -- it's just like mussolini's vision for italy. his vision for italy, using the government to build a country back up, was no different than roosevelt's new deal. it is all the same

thing. when mussolini asked for the price after having agreed, whelan, being a gambler, a gambler, he upped it from the formally and he charged the soviets. the great nation of italy, a low price of just 5 million. france quickly increased their participation as well. ultimately, 62 nations would attend. mainly juiced by the soviets and the italians, this money flooded in. it allowed the fair to expand and prosper. it was not just countries that attended the fair. partly, the fair was a means to help repair the image of capitalism and corporations, which had rightfully gotten a pretty bad rap during the great depression. a lot of people blamed big corporations for the economic doldrums. there was one proposal that said to get the economy juiced, to get people back to work again, the government should pay companies

to hire people to build things. let's say toasters. build toasters. the government would then take them away and bury them in the landfill. you just have this complete complete production line of construction, and then garbage. it would keep people employed. building the stuff that got thrown out. it was the government's responsibility to keep production flowing, no matter what. all of that waste does not matter. as long as the company is profiting. one public relations firm said, quote, the lack of confidence must be overcome in the public eye. major businesses were welcomed to open exhibits as well. in fact, this is one of

the various times with whelan being clever about how to make money, he licensed the logo of the world's fair to corporations to print on jackets, mugs, whatever they wanted. this was pretty atypical at the time. this sort of corporate branding was not really a thing until the world's fair. he would brag about how much money was pouring in from these licensing deals that companies wanted to get in on. they wanted the excitement and to sell their products. none more so, none were more welcome to open exhibits then general motors. the general. they spent $7 million, today's equivalent of about 132 million dollars to build an incredible pavilion. it was a temporary one. 132 million for two years before they tore down. this was an astonishing in sweeping building. it rose ten stories

tall. people waited for up to three hours to see the massive futuristic diorama they had built. that is where they would fly over it in these chairs. looking down at the world of 1960. this is what they were depicting for the world of tomorrow. this is a world that might seem rather familiar to us today. they had skyscrapers. they had 14 lanes on super highways. they were called express motorways. narrators explained that by using these curved ramps, cars could take corners at 50 miles an hour. that was astonishing. the top speed, the top speed, flat out and pedal to the floor of most cars of the era, was 45 miles an hour. this would go around the corner at 50. you don't

need to stop at the intersection to turn. in fact, that car of 1960 would have a radio activated beam projected from the front bumper. it would keep it following a safe distance behind the car ahead. that is what we have today with those automated cruise controls. yet again, keep this in mind. this is a time when most roads were dirt or gravel. cars capped out at 45 miles an hour. most of the skyscrapers in that exhibit had landing pads on their roofs for flying cars. that was a pretty shocking thing. not even helicopters existed yet. the first successful helicopter

flight would not come until six months after the fair opened. another similar exhibit -- this was the centerpiece of the fair. meant to project the future. they had an exhibit called democra-city. they're trying to play against nazis and communists and fascists. it depicted a future where people would live outside the city centers in these rural neighborhoods. they called them pleasantvilles. by using those new express motor ways and private automobiles, it would allow a man quick and easy access to his job in a city. but he would also have the ability to live outside of the city center in a private single family home. he can live in quiet comfort. they are describing an american suburb eight years before the first

suburb appears in america. there is also the idea that it would be normal for people to drive their own private cars to work. this was at a time when only one in five americans actually owned a car. most people walked to work. they took public transit. across the fair, there were displays of state-of-the-art high speed railway trains. there were modern airplanes. there were new ocean liners. ford, the ford motor company, they had brand-new sedans. fair goers could drive them themselves on the so-called roads of tomorrow. that's part of the exhibit. you could get in a car and drive around. shocking. the majority of people in 1939 had never driven a car before. only one in five owned one. at the fair, in addition to cars you could drive and dioramas you could go through, they also had what they call the world's longest electric stairway. it was just an escalator. people lined up to ride to the top.

they then wanted to ride it back down again. most hilarious thing of all was a giant robot that they had on display. that as a key feature, they could smoke cigarettes. this is a robot they called electro. >> i present the robot man. electro, come here. >> here he comes, ladies and gentlemen, he is walking up to greet you under his own power. all right. will you tell your story? please? >> who, me? >> yes, you. >> okay, toots. ladies and gentlemen, i

would be very glad to tell my story. i am a smart fellow as i have a very fine brain. >> that's the most remarkable thing i've ever seen. >> i want him on my football team. >> i know you enjoy these. you want to get the most pleasure out of this. here you are. do you got that? hold on to it. you may now smoke this cigarette. go on. oh yes, you need a light too, don't you? here you are. folks, he is only two years old. just learning. >> that

clip is from a promotional film. they are the company that built electro. they put it out. people were mesmerized by the futuristic technologies that were on display here. but even the carrier corporation built an igloo to show off their brand-new technology, air conditioning. humans, with a touch of a button, they could cool them solved down on the hot summer da, that was astonishing. it was not until the 1970s one residential air conditioning start to become commonplace in american homes. in fact, in light of all of these new technologies, the narrator at the general motors exhibit said, quote, does it seem strange, fantastic, unbelievable? remember, this is

the year of the 1960s. end quote. a fantastic future, a world of tomorrow. the at&t corporation, the phone company, they had even built and put on display the first device that could synthesize the sound of the human voice. the first computerized voice. listen to it here. >> will you have it say, greetings, everybody. >> greetings, everybody. >> well you have him repeat that in a high voice? now in his best bass? >> the new yorker magazine described the exhibit

the best. they called it creepy. it is. depending on how you see it, there was a whole section of the fair that was devoted to kind of creepy things. it was not just countries or corporations on display. there was also an adult entertainment section. adult in every sense of the word. there were nude shows, an exhibit called, and i quote, oscar the obscene octopus. it was a rubber octopus. it used its tentacles to slowly strip the bathing suits off a female swimmers. >> there was also an exhibit called little miracle town, featuring the world's greatest little people. 125 resident midgets lived in this little mini town. you could walk through and see it. russia, as a part of their exhibit, they did not do creepy american things. russia did not do

little either. they went grandiose. they sent a replica of a subway station in moscow. why a subway station? not only was this just built, it was one of the most modern metro systems in the world. it was also meant to highlight that their communist system of government was truly for the people. instead of letting capitalist profits go to the wealthy or creating frivolous things like a fake human speech generator, in communism, all of that excess money, all the profits go back to the people in the form of public investments. investments like excellent and beautiful public

transit systems. this picture here is a subway station in moscow. it looks like a cathedral. it was meant to. they thought the people in our society should be inspired by public works. let's compare. there is new york's subway. it was built by the government, by the lowest bidder. it looks like a dingy basement. soviet communism showed off the fact that their system was better. this is where society -- some guy can buy himself a sports car or gold-plated back scratcher. new yorkers often have no choice. dimly lit and water leaking dingy basement for their subway in new york. this challenge to western democracy and capitalism was real. it was on display. some

of the people who saw it were dignitaries from around the world. they arrived in new york to participate. this picture is of the procession of the motorcade for england's king george. he sailed over to attend the fair. on the day when the british king arrived, 1 million new york schoolchildren were given the day off to go and watch the procession. ultimately, we, with the benefit of our hindsight, we know how things turned out. this fair, its vision for tomorrow was outdated before it even began. in september, 1938, a year before the fair opened, british prime minister had gone before the world, met with hitler, said this afterwards. >> this

morning, i had another talk with the german chancellor, herr hitler. here is the paper bears his name upon it, as well as mine. the settlement of the czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved, is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all of europe may find peace. >> it is peace for our time, declares chamberlain. he has talked to hitler. we saved czechoslovakia from nazi aggression. we see peace and prosperity for europe

ahead. hitler's a man we can work with. before the fair even opened, one month later, one year later, both czechoslovakia and austria were under nazi control. he violated his agreement. he lied to the british prime minister and the world. before the fairs end, belgium, denmark, france, the netherlands, others, nearly half of the european nations would be added to the list of having been crushed by nazi aggression. after the nazi takeover, they lead the charge to raise $600,000 to help finish the pavilion. that is despite the fact the germans demanded that it be shut down. the country was under their control now. ultimately, the outbreak of war was a pall cast over the entire fair. when the 1940s season rolled around, it runs through the spring, summer,

and fall of 1939, shuts down for the winter, reopens for a second year. when that second year came around, ten european countries would not return. those who had worked at the polish pavilion, the first country to fall under nazi aggression, they did not go back to europe at the end of 1939. why voluntarily return to a country under nazi occupation? a few of the staff opened up a polish restaurant in new york city. they had nowhere else to go. they had no hope for the future. the most notable nation

not to return was the soviet union. they ordered that their massive pavilion be torn down. it should be crated up and shipped back to russia. that left a gaping hole in the fairgrounds. in his place, the americans opened up a big open space call the american commons. it was dedicated to the perpetuation of an american ideal. the american ideal might have been real for americans. the fear was even more real. in boston, the dome of the state house, which was this beautiful gold color, they painted it gray to make it harder for nazi bombers to spot if they were ever to attach the united states. the fear is real. after 1940, as the season opened with the british, they were the last european country to really hold out against the nazis. london was bombed nightly during the blitz. that british pavilion in

new york became a crowd favorite. packed with people wanting to show support and learn about britain. in their exhibit, they had displayed an original magna carta from the year 1215. that is the first time had ever left england. with the outbreak of war, the government decided that it was probably safer to leave the magna carta in the united states should england fall to nazis. it would stay in the united states at fort knox until 1947. probably just as well. it was also in the british pavilion where a timebomb was discovered. planted in a back room next to a nazi flag. the police had managed to get this bomb out of the building that was still full of tourists. they carried it outside. they started to

work on it before it exploded. it killed two officers. the only evidence was the flag planted in the british pavilion. >> despite the concerns of the organizers, the idea that they did not want this to happen, it was their glorious vision of the future. instead, the buildings and exhibits were dismantled. 40 million tons of steel were sent to be melted down and made into tanks. sent to fuel the war effort. this world of tomorrow literally ended up in the war. that grand edition of the world of tomorrow seemed to collapse into the ash heap that it was originally built on. it will still remain. there is this iconic year that stands out in world history. even if the memory of the fair itself and

it's hope for the future has mostly receded into the background. for those of you who want to learn more about the 1939 world's fair, this is a great book. this is the twilight at the world of tomorrow. due credit, this is above that i have drawn information from to help build out this talk. i will wrap up my portion there. the floor is open for questions. we can

continue the conversation. we can pull out any things you might want expanded upon. more fascinating things about this world of tomorrow. the world of 1939. thank you for watching. i'm going to turn the mic back over to heather. she is going to moderate the q&a here. >> thank you. like allen said, please feel free to continue the questions in a q&a box on your screen. >> we already have quite a few. i will dive right in if you are all set. >> absolutely. let's go for it. >> i am going to go back to the beginning of your talk. you had

mentioned that there were a lot of americans who went to the soviet union in search of a better life. someone is curious, do we know what became of those folks? did they have to come back? did they stay there? do we have any information about what happened with them? >> we do. yes. there were huge numbers who went over in the depths of the great depression. the soviets recruited people who work in the automotive industry, the steel industry, these were industries that they wanted to build up rapidly. there were many books on this. there were memoirs of people who went over. at first, they loved it. they were astonished. this was a country on the move. it is building rapidly. it is industrializing. there is work to be done. the soviet people, that first generation, they seemed happy, proud, patriotic. they were producing for the future. it was good money compared to what they could make in the united states. the living accommodations were great. the soviets wanted this partly as a propaganda effort. they gave them great apartments and many privileges. what is most interesting is that there were thousands of african americans who were recruited to go to the soviet union. the soviets were pitching their idea. it was not the political or economic project. it was also as a social project. the soviet union, one of their things was to eliminate inequality. they welcomed african americans. they were heavily discriminated against back home. welcome them to the soviet union. it is equal here. we are color blind. we don't care what the color of your skin. the most fascinating memoirs are from african

americans. there was a book called black on red. he talked about how he talked about his great life in the soviet union at first. in fact, there is this one story he tells of, among the white americans who came over and worked in his factory. they brought their racism with them. they jumped him and beat him up. he fought them off. the police were called. the police came and interviewed him. he was cowering. in america, if you fight a white man, you are going to prison. there is no justice for people of color in america in the 1930s. he was shocked to see that these russian police officers treated him with respect. they questioned him, they arrested

the americans who had committed this crime. they deported them back to america. they made this guy like a national hero. at first, life was great. and then it wasn't. by the late 1930s, as the soviets get more repressive -- there are specifically the outbreak of world war ii. there was a lot of suspicion cast on these people. a lot of them have left. after the initial rose colored glasses, they realize that life in a dictatorship is now it looks like on the surface. it is not all of that great. a lot of them were kicked out at the start of world war ii. there were many others. there was the author of black on red. he meets a russian woman. he gets married, has kids. he has a wonderful life. as wonderful as you can under stalinist russia. it shows the pull of communism in those early days. they learn

about the atrocities. this does not really work as a system. it was really alluring to a lot of americans who were out of work. they were impoverished, desperate at the time. they're starting a new life going to russia. that was a thing. >> great. thank you. okay, you obviously mentioned that the fair was in queens on a dump site. someone is curious, was this the same location they used for the 1964 fair? >> it was. yes. we have this former dump site. it was cleaned up for the 1939 fair. all of those buildings were torn down except

for one. my understanding is that they made it into a park between those years. in 1964, when the fair came back to the united states, they held it in the same location. they had the same theme. instead of the world of tomorrow, it was futurama. again, depicting this future world. general motors came into this exhibit. the big thing of the 1964 fair that have one was obsessed about space travel. that was the hot new technology. we had not yet gone to the moon. we had only just gone to space. we are roaming the outer bounds of the atmosphere. yes, it is the same location in both of those fairs. to be honest, some of you who might live here today, i don't know what became of it after. i don't actually know. >> we will come back to a couple of things that you touched on in that answer.

before i move on, someone wanted to know if you are able to talk about the federal art projects involved with the site. >> wow. not really. i can only speak about their involvement in the site. that is part of the new deal. their funding it. there is a civilian conservation corps. 100,000 people. on the east coast, one of the big projects, you would have been to the blue ridge parkway. those are built under the new deal projects. there are cabins up there. they're built by roosevelt. part of the, you know, we often focus on the infrastructure building. that is a made to make work. to help out of work artists, the government pays artists to go out and do all kinds of things. they want to do poetry, to set up classes in communities, to teach our, to do big murals and paintings around the country. to go out and document stories and musicians. they pay artists. that is leading up to

the fair. there are a bunch of art installations. there is a building dedicated to artistic pursuits. i cannot get specifically into the involvement. piece by piece in the world fair. i don't know. >> great context. thank you. >> okay. a couple of people are curious about the international exhibition of 1939. do we know if there's any connection between the two of them? >> there are competing rules fares the year. there is the opening clip of roosevelt giving his

speech. the world fair. he pauses, the new york world's fair is open. there are concurrent fairs. i don't know the specifics. there are world's fairs that are the big events every four or five years. there are also the world expos. they are on off years. the 1937 paris of that i depicted there was an expo. the 1939 was the world's fair. for whatever reason, there is no connection in terms of it. it is not like the same organization that runs new york also runs san francisco. they bid for and got an expo same year as the full world's fair. there was this sort of intercoastal competition. that is from the corporation that runs new york, it is unconnected to the one that runs san francisco, that is what i understand. >> wonderful. thank you. other than the company exhibits, do the u.s. as a country have an exhibit? >> the u.s. sets up their pavilion. the big round

building that there was an image of, they're putting the democra-city in it. that is meant to be the centerpiece of the fair. that is the u.s. contribution. the u.s. also exhibits a bunch of it's technologies in a bunch of different expo buildings. there are televisions, light bulbs. these things are on display at the u.s. contributions. what the countries bring are cultural displays, feats of science and technology, and products that their country excels at making. for example, the soviets, their feat of science and technology was that they had just recently conquered the arctic. they had been doing these expeditions up to the arctic circle. they had flights and people going up there. they had put a big arctic display up. they had polar bears, these planes. it was a wild display of the arctic. that was their technological feat. the u.s. does have a number of other

exhibits. their centerpiece is the big tower that they put up as a visual thing. it is like the olympics. host country is supposed to show off. you need to build these big things. that is what they built. in fact, one other side note, it was supposed to be engineered so that it looks like it was floating on this fountain that was blasting up under it. that would have been really cool. they could not make the engineering work. it just sat there above a pond. >> okay. speaking of that, you had mentioned that they had rockets and space stuff in 64. someone was curious if there was any aeronautical exhibits of planes or rockets at the 39 world fair?

>> yes. there were. air travel. lots of exhibits about that. they are showing off modern aircraft. that is rather than wood and fabric biplanes. that's what we mostly had in 1920s. aircraft, sure. the big exhibits that people were most in interesed in were trains. they had a whole show about it. the name of it is slipping my mind. they are showing you the evolution of railway travel. it is from the old wild west. there are these modern and sleek bullet trains. they even had a high-speed steam powered train. it is running between baltimore and new york. it brought people up to the fair. it is these modern trains that are still seeing steam powered. general motors did have it on display the newest technologies. there is a diesel electric train. that's what we use today. i should put a picture up. it looks like a modern train. this is a freight train engine. the trains are big. it is the cars, the

automobiles, the highways. people are just fascinated with. a little on space travel. a little bit on rockets. rocketry was sort of seen as being amateur child's play through 1920. it was not big yet. big after world war ii. again, hitler overshadowed the world fair. rocketry can work. that work is a weapon. it is a really effective weapon. the u. s. devote enormous funding to developing the atomic bomb as our superweapon. hitler put funding into developing rocket engines. you could cap a bomb with it and launch it at london. less about space travel. that is not become a thing until the 1950s. we get fascinated with it. we don't know about the space, h g wells, the war of the world's. less so back then. >> great. thank you. okay. someone wants to know, who are some of the now famous

architects were commission in the pavilions? is there someone that stands out? is more of a household name? >> no idea. that is for someone interested in architecture. that is beyond the realm of what i know. if we are looking at world's fairs in general, the 1800s, i think it was 1893 chicago world's fair. there was a bigger amount of hoopla over the fact that a woman had designed with the buildings. that was in the 1800s. yeah. i don't know about the architecture specifically. they typically bring in these architects. they built these brick grandiose designs. architecturally, one of the

problems was, how do you build buildings? the gm building was ten storeys tall. looked amazing. they built it cheaply. you're gonna terry down in just two years. these buildings are really flimsy. we are not going to do this. buildings would blow over in the wind. the round building was in a heavy storm. parts ripped off of it during a heavy storm. they were stuck on the outside. you don't need this to last more than two years. i don't know who actually built them. >> not to worry. i know that you mentioned attendance surging at the uk pavilion. what was the attendance in 1940 versus 1939? did as many people come? >> the attendance of these things, like everything, the projections were wild. we get 60 to 80 million people attending the fair. they ended up getting -- i do not recall how it broke down every year.

one of the things they tried was because they had projected 60 million people. they wanted to make good on their financial promises. the attendance never hit anywhere near what they thought it would. right at the end of season one, certainly season two, they lowered the price. it did bring in some more people. it kind of fizzled a little bit. the problem with lowering the price is that a pre-sold some of the season passes at a higher price. people wanted refunds. they think they are getting ripped off. financially and attendance

wise, this became a calamity. they expected 1 million people on opening day. they got 200,000. 44 million overall. that is nothing to sneeze at. it is not the 60 million they needed. in overall attendance, it was not a flop, 44 million is not a flop, but it did not reach the level that they had hoped for. inside of the fair, there was all kinds of competition. whose exhibit is gonna be the best? in season two, the british exhibit became really popular. that was right after the invasion of poland, the poland exhibit became really popular. overall, the number one exhibit was the general motors exhibit. people would wait three hours to get into it. it averaged about 30,000 people a day. there is this display about the 1960s -- general motors takes the cake as being the best attended

exhibit at the fair. >> great, thank you. so, someone did ask if it was a financial success. from your answer, i'm assuming it wasn't? >> it was not. it wasn't a complete bust, but like the olympics, it's very rare that these things make money. the corporation had borrowed a bunch of money with the promise of paying it back at certain interest rates, then started trying to convince the people. often it was corporations who got the seed funding in there first. when it was clear they weren't going to get paid back but pennies on the dollars, they tried to use it as a pr thing. like, yes, i support the fair because it's a good civic project, but financially, it was not profitable.

>> what was the public reaction or opinion to the fair? >> that's a good question, because it kind of ties in with the lack of profitability in that one of the public's reactions was that it was too expensive. this is in the midst of the great depression, ticket prices they thought were too high, but the biggest complaints were that the food prices inside the fair were way too high. so it's always funny today, there are complaining that a hamburger cost a dime, that was too much money. so, while people were fascinated by this, people cried during the gm exhibit, it was really overwhelming in a way. people were attracted to the technologies and all that. but, you know, it's still the midst of the great depression and people complained about the price and of the food so much that the ticket sales, the price, was cut. and the fair had to promise that later that year they would have cheaper food options available inside the fair, that it wouldn't be

such a money grab. so, people were cheap, if you read the media accounts they are complaining a lot about the price of the fair. partly, not to say was underwhelming, but partly the reason they never had the attendance targets they had hoped was it just didn't generate the buzz that people had hoped and we will never know if that was because the war breaks out and people aren't willing, people are pulling back on their spending and willing to go have this fun, celebratory thing. it's hard to say. >> it's funny, it hasn't changed much, right? you go to disney world and food still costs that. >> our beer at the stadium or something. >> we will always complain about the price of food. anyhow, someone else wanted to know, could new york or some other u.s. metropolis make a latter day world's fair or expo a financial success? has the magic of everyday electronic technologies and permanent

exhibitions like disney world's epcott rendered world fairs and expos passé? >> no and yes, i think is the answer there. but part of the reason these things fizzled is they are enormously expensive. they almost never turn a profit, they take all these resources to build. what, really, it has become is that countries don't need this anymore. we don't really do this, we don't need a huge exposition to show off how great we are and get all these countries together. i think partly it's become supplanted by the olympics, which we have the same complaints about. it's too expensive, countries lose a bunch of money on it and you're left with all this infrastructure you can't use afterwards. the things just torn down. i think that's a big

part of it, i think also now on major countries that is just not these huge swaths of open land available in the cities anymore, which is where they used to build. in philadelphia they built into the middle of the city, in new york it's just on long island. but space, these places are huge fairs, unbelievably huge. i think that's one of the things, and the person who asked that question is right. maybe we've gotten jaded or i can't even think of a technology now that excites me, from what i read, i wasn't around in the 1960s, but the way that the space race excited people. the way that electronics excited people, robots excited people in that way. now, it's like the most exciting thing is virtual reality and the metaverse. which is entirely lame if you ask me. i'm not going to go to the world's fair to put on goggles and look around and see a fake world around me. i think

that, and mainly the fact that we have less time, life is more busy. and there is such a plethora of entertainment options that i'm not going to spend two weeks going to a world's fair to walk around for the day, to see things that i already see. that's on one hand, and as i'm talking to through i think even now that it used to be exciting in an era before mass advertising and commercialization, which comes up really after the 1950s, it was exciting to go to the fair and go to a corporate exhibit and see general motors cars. these things are just giant advertising platforms, but that was cool. to see all the new things on offer. so, yeah, we've lost our sense of childlike hope for the future in that way. and we just numb ourselves with the endless entertainment available. the personal note here is i too, when i started researching world's fairs a number of years

ago, kind of surprised to see that they are still going on. even with that, one of the things i study a lot and love research of is food. the 2015 world fair in italy revolved around food. as a researcher on the topic, i didn't even know that thing was going on. i might have gone to it but i just didn't know. did know that right now there's one going on. it's lost its allure, i'm not sure this thing will ever come back in a big way that inspires people like it used to. >> speaking of food, we got in a question or two surrounding food from the fairs. first of all how did food displays represent the future of food preparation and consumption, if they did at all? >> that's a good question. i don't know off the top of my head that i recall if they represented the future of food production and consumption.

from what i've come across, there is no futuristic space foods available at the time. especially then, it was essentially most of the countries would, in their pavilions, have cafeterias that highlighted their own national dishes. i'm trying to think of an example. wish i had flipped through my notes to think of an example of a food that was on display that you could go to a cafeteria and eat. the thing i do know is the problem was, often, eating at the national cafeterias was more expensive than eating at the fairgrounds outside the pavilions. people complained about that too. it's more of we're coming to show you our, quote unquote, foreign foods. if i'm finland coming it's not a foreign food to me, but we're putting on our national dishes. the fair did make a big show out of saying that they are going to offer cheaper hot dogs and hamburgers to the masses, but i can't

think of any food corporation that put on a new display, it was really the big corporate giants like general motors and goodyear tires that setup, it was firestone tires that set up an actual factory to show you how a tire was made. of course, they called it the tire of tomorrow. but you had a working factory, which i guess is cool to look at, but it would be neat if they had food factories. but even then, the mechanization of food really hits in the 1950s and after world war ii. that's another thing that i can't give specifics on. >> someone excitedly put into the q&a the belgian waffle, maybe that was one. >> one of the technologies they displayed with an electric waffle iron. so, yeah, you can use the iron to make waffles, that might have been exciting. you could do this in your own home! so, that is a food product on display.

>> someone else said that you always hear about how the ice cream cone was invented for or at the chicago world's fair. are there any innovations that were created at the 1939 new york world's fair? something that wasn't on display necessarily but came out of it anyway? >> specifically in terms of food, not that i'm aware of. it is often worlds fares that launched new food innovations. the ice cream cone, the hamburger was launched, allegedly, one of the many origin stories, was launched at the 1904 fair. where they wanted to take a beef patty and put it between two pieces of bread so you could walk around while munching on it. the hamburger before that was really popular in the u.s.. i can tell you one of the things the organizers wanted to do but didn't. as a marketing thing, they wanted to make hot dogs

and hot dog buns in the shape of that trylon, the tri-sided tower around the brown building. that was the area where they were going to do that as a marketing thing. maybe that would've been cool, maybe hot dogs would be triangle shapes today if that had taken off. but what comes out of the fair not on the food side, certainly television, skyrocket's and takes off after the 1950s. the new modern automobiles, definitely the highway system that they put on display there. it takes 20 years but becomes, now, ubiquitous, it's how we drive around today on these clover leaf interchanges in these super highways. even with radar guided cars with collision avoidance and all that. so, yeah, there are some things that have stuck around that come out of the world's fair. >> all right. so, i think we have time for maybe two more questions. then i'm going to

ask you one question after that that is not necessarily content related, but someone noticed something in your backyard that they wanted me to touch on. you probably know what it is. >> i think i can guess. >> someone wanted to know, how many structures and buildings built for the fair are still standing today? i know you alluded to not being sure, so if you don't know, let me know. because we have a few people that overheard in about this. >> yeah, one. there is one building that remained, and it was constructed with the intention that it would remain after the fair. i think it's a government building today. they kept one, maybe this relates back to the president asked about architecture. it was the infamous robert moses, the highway builder of new york city, who had a hand in designing this fair. he wanted after the fair was over to turned it into a big park, much like central park. which i understand parts of it were, even to this day. almost all the buildings save for that one central one were torn down and

scrapped, which was pretty common in the context of worlds fairs. you keep one centerpiece and the rest gets thrown in the trash. in this, case melted down and made into bullets and tanks. some of the countries dismantle their pavilions, they are made to be easily taken apart, and they ship them back home. famously, russia, as i mentioned, ships theirs back home. i'm going to get this mixed up weather as 1937 or 39, but they always tended to, at the peak of the tower of their buildings, put a huge bronze statue of a man and woman charging into the future. in communist glory. that element is now in a park in moscow, actually on a fairgrounds in moscow. so, some countries keep pieces of them. most famously, the eiffel tower in paris was the centerpiece of their 1889

world fair. it too was meant to be torn down after the fair, they left it up and now it is the icon of paris. so, good for them. there's nothing really iconic that stayed behind about the fair in new york. >> great, thank you. it looks like we have a few new yorkers in the audience, because they mention it is now flushing meadow park. anyone who's in new york and wants to go and imagine what it might have looked like back then, you should definitely do that. >> there we go, i knew part of it at least was turned into a park. there we go, go for a jog. >> final content question. you showed a bunch of different technologies and you might've alluded to the answer to this a little bit, but, out of the technologies that were shown at the fair, which was the most successful and which was the least successful now that we have hindsight? >> the television, i think, is the most successful. of course, it dominates our life today. it

wasn't invented at the fair, as i mentioned it wasn't even debuted technically at the fair, the nazis beat us to that. but this ability to transmit images and news and everything stalls out because of world war ii. then by the 1950s, it's just rocketing. certainly the television. the least successful, i think, the notion of flying cars. it's something they talked about the 1930s, certainly play up in the 1950s that this idea is just around the corner. we talk now about how there is flying cars right around the corner, companies are developing them, and it's not going to happen. starting in 1939 they're talking about building buildings with landing pads for everyone's private flying car. so, the flying part of the car didn't work out. the radar, the ability for a car to track the car ahead of it and speed up and slow down, cars

have that now. it's still relatively recent. so, that took 80, 90 years to come to fruition. but certainly the highway system is, as i mentioned earlier, the idea of the suburbs, you live outside the city and commute and in your private car. that vision worked part of, me as i did this research, i kind of wish they had kept some of these exhibits. i wish the gm and the perisphere, they put it in a museum so today we could go back and look at it rather than just seeing it a pictures and reading about it. see what they thought the future would be. because i think if you went through the gm exhibit, today it would look a lot like today minus the flying cars. >> fair enough. so, now, the

non content questions. someone is curious if you use the typewriter and the rotary phone behind you. >> yes, the typewriter, it works, it's a 1926. the rotary phone, no. it works, i would assume, haven't used it in years. but yeah, the phone was my father's. the typewriter, i don't know where that one came from i have a number of typewriters. the phone, no, but the typewriter, yes. like i'm stuck in 1939, i'm a consummate historian. it is for letters to friends and families. so, it's functional. >> awesome. well, thank you so much. that is all the time we have for today. so, thank you to our audience for joining us and for your great questions, and thank you allen for another exciting and fascinating presentation. c-span as a free mobile app, featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on demand. he posted these biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips.

you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks, c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. weekly series, the presidency, highlights the politics legacies of u.s. presidents and first ladies. coming up, a conversation about george washington's farewell address, delivered 225 years ago. featured speakers are historians lindsay chervinsky and joseph ellis, as well as cnn's john p. avlon. >> good evening everyone. my name is kevin butterfield and on behalf of george washington's mount vernon, the mount vernon ladies'association, the organization that rescued mount vernon in the 1850s, and continues to protect and preserve it today. i want to welcome you to this conversation about george

washington's farewell address. on september 19th, 1796, george washington announced to the world that he would not seek reelection to the presidency. his letter to friends and citizens offered some of the most thorough, thoughtful, even inspiring advice which had every been given to the american people. more than a few genuine warnings were included there as well. a good number of the hopes and fears that remain with us as a nation are discussed in this now 225-year-old document. much of what we debate and discuss in 21st century american politics is addressed here in one form or another. in recognition of the 225th anniversary of this document, we brought together an incredible lineup of talented scholars to reflect on the relevance of the farewell dress today. we are joined by john avlon, an author, columnist, commentator, senior political analyst, fill-in anchor on cnn, appearing on new

day every morning. he is the author of books, including the one we are discussing tonight, washington's farewell. a new book on abraham lincoln coming out next february. his work is going to be important to our conversation here tonight. as will the work of one lindsay chervinsky. she is an expert on the cabinet, presidential history, us government institutions, a senior fellow at the center for presidential history at southern methodist university. a professorial lecturer at the school of media and public affairs at george washington university. also an open ranked fellow for the international study for jefferson studies at monticello. doctor chervinsky is the author of the award-winning book, the cabinet, george washington and the

creation of an american institution. joseph ellis is one of the nation's leading scholars of american history. author of more than a dozen books, ellis was awarded the pulitzer prize for, founding brothers, the revolutionary generation. he won the national book award for american sphinx, his biography of thomas jefferson. his most recent book, the cause, the american revolution and its discontents, comes out tomorrow. all of our guests are great friends of mount vernon. we are so pleased to be able to offer signed copies of the books. please look for links in the chat that can help you find those and also, please feel free to visit us anytime at mountvernon.org. joseph ellis, john p. avlon, and lindsay chervinsky, thanks for joining us. >> thank you for having us. >> we are here to discuss an important moment in american history, it is the farewell address. i gave the tiniest little preview of what it is. imagine someone is walking into the conversation right now. what is the farewell address? john, i will turn to you first. what is this text?

>> it is america's original civic scripture. it was the most widely reprinted document in american history, including the declaration of independence for around the first hundred years of the republic. it is the sum total of wisdom that george washington had accumulated in a life of war and peace, as president. he put down, working first with james madison and then primarily with alexander hamilton, as a warning to his friends and fellow citizens, which is how he addressed it. about the forces he feared could derail the democratic experiment going forward. it is one of the most prescient and relevant documents and also suggests some of the pillars of liberty. things we can draw upon to avoid those traps. a remembrance of the primacy of national unity. the importance of morality and virtue. the importance of fiscal discipline. the importance of political moderation in foreign policy of independents. that is what i would say it's about. >> these are a lot of themes we

are going to explore tonight. let me turn to you, lindsey. george washington created this text. although, as john mentioned, there were other authors. can you tell us a little bit about the years leading up to this? this is a moment where he decides not to be president any longer. as a great scholar of washington's presidency, could you set the stage of those last month or days of the washington presidency, as he is thinking about this addresses? >> i think the most important place to start is washington really didn't want to stand for a second term at all. he had wanted to be office for a couple of years and then hightail it as soon as he could. he didn't particularly like being president because he had to be away from home, he had so much stress and pressure on every single action that he

took. he knew that every step would establish precedent for those who came after him. he did not like criticism. he was worried that this reputation that he had spent decades building would be damaged by a poor choice or a poor action. he also had a real commitment to be importance to him leaving office while he was alive. he felt very strongly that the american people needed to choose his successor, that it could not come through his death. that the process of transition and election and the peaceful transfer of power had to be learned and practiced and cultivated. he was determined to try to oversee that. that was his mindset leading up to 1796. he had set his mind quite firmly that by early 1796 he was leaving. he decided in february and march of 1796, while alexander hamilton was in philadelphia to argue a case in front of the supreme court, they had a conversation about this address. they got the process rolling. shared a series of drafts over the next several months and

then sat on it until september, partly to keep the election season as short as possible. washington finally published it in the newspaper in september, to reach the maximum number of people. to make it clear that he was speaking to the people, not to congress or to a different branch of government. >> joseph ellis, we will be spending most of our time talking about the text itself, the kinds of themes that we find there. what would you add about the origins that led up to the creation of this document, that you might want to share about washington before 1796? >> i would venture to guess, john, as a student of modern presidentcy, you might contradict me. no president in american history did not want to be president more than george washington. not only did he not want a second term, he didn't want a first term. and when he was going up to new

york, he felt like a prisoner going to jail. and he really meant it. if you read the washington correspondence during the presidential years, almost half of them have to do with mount vernon. that's where he wanted to be. he really did. all of the views of the presidency are shaped by a more 20th century conception of it's significance. washington did not regard the presidency as the capstone of his career. he regarded it as an epilogue, one that he wished he didn't have to do. the great thing he did was win the war. i think that's true of all four of the first four presidents. adams'great thing was before the revolution, to bring it into meaning. jefferson's was the

declaration. madison's was the constitutional convention and the federalist papers. all of them didn't think about the presidency as the great moment in their lives. and washington was an aficionado of exits. in surrendering his sword, or even before that in newburgh, refusing to become dictator, and then a few months later in baltimore where the capital -- no, annapolis, excuse me, where the capital was. the surrender of his commission, when he did that, george the third said, it can't be. if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. he did, and for that moment, he was. what they were thinking, and jefferson writes about this right afterwards, he is there. i think jefferson actually wrote some of washington's speech in annapolis, as a matter of fact. i can't prove that. jefferson says that one man saved us from the fate that

befalls most republics. they were thinking of caesar, they were thinking of cromwell. subsequently, we can think of napoleon, we can think of mao, we can think of castro, we can think of a variety of leaders who never want to leave office. i won't mention one who might still be alive in american politics. the precedent he sets, i really agree with the way lindsay put it, it's often discussed as the two term precedent. that is ratified as a constitutional amendment in 1951, i believe. the real precedent is in a republic, all the leaders, no matter how indispensable, are disposable. that you do not die in office

like a monarch. that was the real precedent. i will conclude here, the dominant thing we need to remember is that this was not ever delivered as an address. now, both of our commentors already know that. it wasn't a speech, it was an open letter to the american people that first appeared in a philadelphia paper, and i think it's a new hampshire paper that gives at the title, the farewell address. the initial reaction to the address was, oh my god, he can't leave us. the american effort had not existed without him as its head. it was like the father saying to the children, you are on your own. and that was a trauma. nobody thought he was ever going to retire. they presumed he would just win

elections until he died. and again, he couldn't wait to get back to the place where you are sitting, kevin >> john, joe referenced something, the stepping away from power in annapolis. you write about this in your book. this is not the first bit of advice that washington shared widely with the nation. could you tell us a little bit about washington back in 1783, and how he also shared his guidance to the nation? it's called the circular letter, i think. >> the circular address to the states. that was originally called his farewell address. >> really, i didn't know that! is that true? >> yeah. >> you're not making that up?

>> nope. no, true story. and what's fascinating about that is there is broad continuity. but most importantly, with the power of the gesture itself, the simple act of voluntarily relinquishing power itself was revolutionary. and the quote that joe was referring to by jefferson is actually the epilogue to my book. i think it so perfectly crystallizes washington throughout his career, but particularly as it culminates in the farewell address. jefferson said, the moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this revolution from being closed as most other have been, by the subversion of the liberty it was intended to establish. and certainly, those were the stakes in 1783, as well. in the normal course of events, the military leader would displace the tyrant and then become a tyrant himself. so talk about the prevalence of ancient roman and greek precedent on this young republic, this was a real cincinnatus step he took. he was voluntarily relinquishing power to return

to his farm. it wasn't a pose on his part. it was completely genuine. and the advice he gives in 1783 is very similar, albeit seen through the prism of political fights he saw as president and the fights over the ratification of the jay treaty and foreign policy. but he says, first of all, this is not a time of celebration. it's a time of real responsibility. the revolutionaries won, but now we have to establish the republic and show the world that we can establish a democratic republic on a scale never before seen. right? because, among other things, it was settled wisdom that a democracy couldn't exist. and if it could, it could work in a couple of swiss canton's. it would never work in a country as big as the 13 colonies. he warns about the need for national unity. he was fighting with the continental congress all

throughout the war because they couldn't find a sense of collective resolve or focus on the common good. they didn't want to levy money to support the troops. he said that we need to have discipline and focus on a sense of unity. and to really think as citizens. one of the important points is independence and freedom can be a state of nature. liberty requires responsibility, and that is what lincoln--excuse me, i am just finishing a lincoln book right now. freudian slip. that's what washington said in the 1783 address. and again in 1796. >> one of the things i can do tonight, and i hope they can start this now, is bring up a few of the short quotations that people can pull out of the farewell address. this one, i would like to bring up because as we were just discussing, if you read down to the bottom there, he refers to the fact that he has given this kind of advice before.

but you see phrases here, disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his council. he reminds us about the circular letter in 1783. this is the way that he begins. this is right after -- i don't remember the exact phrase, here perhaps i should stop? is that right? he has a few paragraphs, and then he says, here perhaps i should stop, but then he goes on for many paragraphs longer to give some serious advice to the american people. when you see phrases like this, disinterested warnings, a parting friend, is this -- how does this fit with washington as leader and as president as you've come to study him? >> washington really wanted to see himself as above party spirit or faction. he really did see himself as president for all of the american people. at least white american people. and he wanted to represent them, regardless of what their

partisan identification was. that might be a little bit rose colored glassing the situation. he certainly had some partisan biases by the end of his presidency, which he didn't necessarily want to admit. because he felt like certain sides had been more critical of him, had stirred up domestic rebellions, things like that. things he really blamed on partisan spirit. but he wanted to see himself as above those things. and certainly, the most apolitical president we've had to be sure. leaving office, that gave him more credence to do that. had he still been in office, there would have been no way he

would have been disinterested because he would've been standing for a third term. by leaving office, he put himself in that elevated position where he could give that advice. he could claim, at least to be disinterested, even if people didn't necessarily agree with him. what's fascinating about the reception to this farewell address is that people who were inclined to think well of him saw that -- saw it as disinterested, as he had intended. those who were inclined to see him as a more political actor, like thomas jefferson, thought that it was very political. >> what would you add? how would you read that? >> i agree with what lindsey just said, and let me try to build on that a little bit. political parties, the founders as a group, including washington, all regarded political parties as evil vultures that were floating through the political atmosphere. jefferson even claimed, he said if i must go to heaven in a party, i would prefer not to go at all. they all talked that game. and washington believed in that

game, and i think john adams is the only other president that did as well. they really regarded parties as a threat to the stability of the republic. and so in washington's second term -- political scientists think that the creation of political parties is one of the major contributions the founders made to political thought, because it disciplines dissent and creates the possibility of a legitimate opposition, which is a good thing. washington and adams were cognitively incapable of thinking of a political parties anything other than an evil intrusion. he could not see himself as the head of a party. you might think he is an anachronism. but he is a classical figure. and i would build on something, again, that lindsay said. in the second term, the aurora,

the -- you will look up in textbooks and they will say, the opposing party that comes into existence is called the democratic republican party. wrong. it's not called the democratic republican party, it's called the republican party. the word democratic and democracy is an epithet in the 18th century. it means mob rule. democratic republican doesn't come into existence until 1860 with monroe. it's tricky, because that party morphs into the democratic party, but it's even worse than that. the federalists morph into the whigs and the whigs morph into the republicans. it's really tricky. but the aurora is the 18th century version of, john you might comment on this, fox news. and when they publish forged

documents, forged british documents claiming that washington throughout the war was a traitor, he was trying to be benedict arnold and got beat to the punch by benedict arnold. this was just off the top stuff. and actually, among the people commenting on his farewell address was thomas paine, who hated him because he didn't think washington got him out of france fast enough. he said, we must all devoutly pray for his imminent death. the criticism he was getting -- >> which is pretty funny, by the way, because he was famously an atheist. >> that's true, he was. you mean paine, not washington. the level of partisanship in the 17 90s is comparable to what we are facing in

washington now, okay? the press, and avalon, you have to listen to this. there was no rules for the press. all the news fit the print. washington stands firmly against that whole thing. he thinks if you have any problems, you can just vote me out in the next election. but the level of partisanship in the newspapers in the 17 90s's is scatological. washington really can't understand it. he just doesn't understand it. and i think he is hurt by it. i think that he survives the french and indian war, he should have been killed when he was a young man. he should have been killed several times in the course of the war for independence. he wasn't even wounded. but they wounded him in his second term. they really got to him. and he couldn't wait to get out

of there. i know we want to move into the discussion of his attitude towards political partisanship. i think the context is what i described and this specific legislation, that it really explodes on. that is the jay treaty. and his defense of that. here, i will shut up on this, i promise you. the word is republic. and that means raes publica, the things of the public. the public is different from the people. the people are usually misinformed. they are foolish in their opinions. that is the reason democracy is not a positive term. the function of a leader is to act on public interest, even when it's unpopular. adams carries this two extremes. he is the guy that defends the british troops in the boston

massacre. but he always thought, if what i do is really unpopular, it must be right. he could have won the election in 1890 by going to war with france and he refused to do it. he always said it was a proudest thing he ever did. the public is a big word here that we need to look at. and washington internalized that. it was the job -- one of the reasons the senate has a six-year term is supposedly to make them more likely to vote in the long term interest of the public. of course, that is the most partisan portion of the government. all right, i will shut up. but the public, he represents them. >> lindsay, when joe mentioned the aurora, you wanted to say something. >> yeah. one quick thing that i just wanted to highlight, when joe was talking about how wounded washington was, that was intentional on the part of the

newspaper editors. the editor of the aurora delivered ten copies of his newspaper every day to the front steps of the presidents house, even though washington was not a subscriber. he did so intentionally to get under washington's skin. we know that it worked, because they write about in cabinet meetings and jefferson took several notes. so this kind of political warfare, they were trying to inflict was quite intentional. >> let's get a taste of washington on parties here, and we can further explore this. this is some of his language, and there is much more of it in the address. it serves always to distract the public councils and feeble the administration. it agitates the community. it kindles the animosity of one party against another, foments the occasional riot and insurrection. it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself, to the

channels of party passions. john, first crack at some of this language here. >> leave it up for a second, because i think if you had to pick that headline today, this would be a particularly -- it agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms. and kindles the animosity of one party against another. it opens the door to foreign influence. we just had a riot and insurrection that was partisan in its nature. this calendar year, resulted in the worst attack on the capital since the war of 1812. it was fueled by misinformation and disinformation channels through partisan media and exacerbated by party figures who put party over country. it kindled the animosity of one party against another based on a lie. perpetrated by the then president. but amplified through partisan media. and also amplified via social

media by some foreign actors who saw an interest in dividing america against itself. it is all there, folks. right there. george washington warned us, he predicted us. and so especially if anyone out there tries to -- another phrase from the farewell address, act like a pretended patriot. you know, act like they are more patriotic than anybody else, which is itself, washington would say, a sin against national unity. if they fed into that stuff that washington warned against, they are part of the problem. let's not pull any punches about that. washington made a very explicit warning, we just lived through evidence of it. so we could not be more relevant, and that's precisely why we need to be listening to the farewell address and now, today. because we are falling into the traps that he warned us about almost 250 years ago. >> john, quickly, you are the one who has looked at this most recently.

when did they stop making it mandatory to read the farewell address before -- is at the full congress, or both houses, or just the senate? >> the senate still reads it every year. yes, it does. >> how ironic. >> well, yeah. i would argue the house is more partisan than the senate, although it's kind of a jump ball. what i thought you were going to say is, in the wake of the civil war, teaching the farewell address, memorizing it, is actually part of the core public school curriculum. so it is foremost in peoples minds, even though it is easier to memorize 272 word gettysburg address. it is in the wake of world war i, for a lot of interesting reasons, that it begins to fade. and then the original america first movement, the

isolationist's in the run up to world war ii adopted the farewell address. it fundamentally creates a miss impression that it's an isolationist document. it was read at a german american nazi rally, but we will get into that later. >> we will get a foreign policy soon. -- john gives us a great way that this speaks the 21st century. how would this have been read in september 1796? like you said, there's an election just around the corner. >> yeah. as i think john alluded to in the very beginning, this was an intensely partisan atmosphere. when we think of the challenges we are facing today, in terms of misinformation and disinformation. party structure, nativism, fears about foreign interference. all the things that we fear today, they had not done it before. and as joe talked about, they were students of history and

they knew that republics typically failed. let's not forget the constitution was actually a second chance. this government was already having a second chance of getting it right. there were some fears at this time that one misstep would lead to the nation's undoing. and washington shared that fear during the treaty debates that joe talked about. adams wrote in his letters back to abigail that he thought civil war was coming. he thought maybe the constitution would last another ten years, at most. that is really the vibe of this moment. one of the things that i think washington highlights in this party section of the farewell address is that the party animosity and intensity of the party spirit can lead us to forget the similarities, we have to one another. yes, we might have regional

differences and sectional differences, but we actually have much more in common as americans than we do as federalists or as republicans. and that is a lesson we really need today. >> can i take it for a second? i think that we need to recover the historical context of the 18th century for our viewers. she is doing that right now. i am building on her book in this remark. if you read article two of the constitution of united states, i will bet you can't tell me what the president can do. the definition of the presidency isn't shaped by the constitution, it's shaped by washington's own administration. i always vote for him as number one president, even ahead of lincoln. he creates the republic that lincoln saves. but let me tell you, the

average american in the 1780s and 90s lived out his or her life and died without a three hour horse ride. the mentality was local, not continental or national. and this is what underlay the perception that was strong, that we created a national government before we were a nation. and so it's what one historian called a constitution was a roof without walls. washington is the embodiment of a nation that doesn't exist. it's one of the reasons that he goes on the trip in his first two years to visit all of the states. somebody has got a book on it

right now. what we need to remember is the united states in the 1780s and 90s was a plural noun. okay? jefferson will go to his grave believing that we are still a confederacy, not a nation. washington is an attempt to create -- and it's one of the reasons why in the address itself, he keeps trying to get hamilton to insert a long paragraph on a national university. and hamilton keep saying, what in heaven's name does this have to do with the document? he keeps saying, no, you've got to put it in. it ends up two sentences. when you read this, they are creating an institution where americans from all kinds of

different states and sections can come together and interact and inter-marry. i don't think george washington university makes that plane, but the first institution that does that is west point, which comes into existence in 1803. >> washington is proposing a civic college, and purchases some land for it. that idea dies. and hamilton will go back and forth on it. he keeps concinving him to send it to congress, and that's where most of it goes. but if you look at the original farewell, which is at the american public library, they literally cut and paste that section. >> i think we are carrying too much on this, but john, if you look at that last address to congress, it's almost fdr. you know it i mean? i'm sorry. >> go on.

>> you have to get beyond that, john. you know what i'm saying. it's a vision very close to what john quincy adams will have as president. and it's a vision of a nation state with fixed domestic and foreign policy in a robust way. in that view, washington is a member of a very small minority. and anybody that opposed it, he is a tory because he is attempting to recreate a monarchy. jefferson is the main guy that's doing this behind the scenes. douglas malone who spent 50 years writing about jefferson, they said that jefferson in the 17 90s, i don't really understand what he's doing. it's been 50 years, and you

don't understand what he's doing? what he's doing is lying. what he's doing is treason. he is stabbing washington in the back. and i might be wrong, i've often said to students, i hope i was right. that jefferson wrote to martha when he became president, because he was only close to mount vernon. can i come see you? and she never answered, i don't think. but she said, washington said, i never want that man on my property. >> and it's right after washington's death in particular that martha has a very powerful statement about her distaste for jefferson. let me bring up a little more language here. we've already been talking about the union quite a bit, but it is all through this address, right? the word union, it appears so much you almost think you are reading abraham lincoln. it is all through this address. words like unity and union. here's a taste for it. the unity of government which constitutes you one people is

also now dear to you. that word now also jumps out to me. it is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independents, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. this statement of union is powerful. this is not the only chunk of the address that touches on this. john, how do you take this? >> this is core, and it's a little bit what joe was just describing, which is that washington is building the creation of a nation. he is very conscious of the fact that he is creating a national character through the example of his character and decisions he makes as a president, which set the precedent, as lindsay writes about, for the american government. but it is a hard sell, because everybody still thinks of themselves as a virginian first,

or a new yorker first, or a south carolinian first. so washington is trying to say, all the time that no, this works because of the federal government. it is the guarantor of your liberty. you are not safe from strife. you don't even necessarily have property rights unless we have a strong central government. you see even in that first constitutional convention, the constitution does not mention political parties. it does mention journalists, i'd like to point out, but it doesn't mention political parties. people show up to new york and they do the bill of rights, they are representing their constituencies and their conscience, not political parties. that is a later invention as has been discussed. i'm sure it will come up again. washington is constantly trying to say, look, all of our

interesting differences are nothing if we cannot focus on what's unites us rather than what divides us. in that very early debate about the ratification of the constitution we see so many arguments we still see today. a debate about a largely urban vote saying we need a stronger central government to unite the nation to give them certain powers. primarily rural folks saying no, a stronger central government is a threat to our way of life. that is a continuity in american debate that goes from the constitutional convention through today. i think washington, clearly on the side of a stronger central government, emphasizing that there is a balance to be struck. this is not all on one side of the ledger. the primary mission, the primary product is emphasizing the creation of a nation. full stop. >> lindsay, your thoughts on the washington with regards to the union. >> i would like to build off what john said, he talked about the importance of the constitution and what he's stating is you cannot have the

nation without a strong central government. again, this is another incredibly relevant architect for the 20th century and especially in 2021, the goal is to have certain rules, the recognition of authority, the adherence to the rule of law which will actually safeguard our liberties. you don't get to just have a free-for-all of whatever it is you want to do. as a modern society we accept that we are supposed to stop for a red light. you are not allowed to drive drunk because that is a limitation we accept to preserve more of the liberties and the freedom and the safety of more american people. obviously they didn't have cars in 1786 when he was writing this but the concept is true. as a part of a free society, you have to accept certain limitations. this is incredibly relevant coming on the heels of the whiskey rebellion. it wrapped up less than two

years prior to this address. he does actually allude to the whiskey rebellion in which he says there is a constitutionally mandated way where one can air your grievances. one can seek redress for the things that you don't like. the measures that you don't think are appropriate. unless the constitution is changed, obedience to the constitution is the true way of being an american. >> joe, let me ask you to address one specific thing washington spends quite a bit of time on in his discussion of union and unity, that is regionalism. he talks about the north, the south, the west. could you help people who are less familiar with the 18th century, what is he seeing when he looks to the north and south and particularly the west? what is that regional concern of his? >> the north south, the obvious issue is the threat of the civil war and the underlying

issue there is slavery. later in the program i would like to say that i wish there was one thing he did talk about in the farewell address that he didn't, he said to jefferson, this is i think even before he was president that if there ever is a war between the north and the south you need to know i will be with the north. >> he says that to randolph. yeah. >> does he really? i think jefferson repeats it. i'm familiar with it through jefferson. he sends his kids, not his kids but to columbia rather than to william & mary. he becomes a trojan horse in the middle of virginia in some sense. that is that. the other thing is the west. you know, i think john was mentioning that first farewell address the circular letter of 1783, that is his most lyrical

statement of all-time in terms of his vision for the republic. you can see it implied in the farewell address but you would have to know about it beforehand. that is, america's future is not with europe but to the west. lafayette says, come with me and we will do a grand tour. we will do paris, rome, we will do berlin. i don't think we'll do london. [laughs] he says, now, you come with me we will do detroit, we will do new orleans, we will do savannah. that is the future. that is the future out there. as a young man in the seven years war, he knows about what that is out there more than most other political leaders at the time. when you get to the louisiana purchase, it is funny because

they think dinosaurs are out there, you know? mammoth and all that kind of thing. washington, i might be pushing this too much to diplomacy but i think washington believes we begin with the largest trust fund that any new nation has ever enjoyed. we have this geographic advantage as well, with both sides of the atlantic and the pacific. he's mostly concerned, obviously, with the atlantic but -- maybe john and lindsey can disagree with me, we can play this out as an argument. washington's definition of american exceptionalism is exactly the opposite of what most contemporary thinkers think of as american exceptionalism. in the contemporary view, which we saw after we won the cold war. the russians are gone! we can make the world safe for democracy as wilson believed. we have the model that works everywhere. washington said, our model is

distinctive and unique and exceptional! for that reason, don't expect it to work in france, okay? the french revolution is probably going to fail. when the iraq war was going on, i was working on my biography of washington everyone wanted to know what washington would say about iraq. i said, he wouldn't know where iraq was. later, when they kept pressing the i said, he would say how did we become britain? >> [laughs] explain that one to me. i am pressing towards foreign policy, maybe you don't want to do that yet, kevin. >> let's go there now. >> the west is what drives him there. he believes that that is certainly the future for the next hundred years. >> okay, let's go to foreign

policy. this is another small segment of a fairly lengthy discussion within the address. here is a taste. the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nation is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. here let us stop. this is washington at the end of his presidency, is this how washington presidency played out? did he exercise this kind of foreign policy vision as president across eight years? >> yeah, for the most part i think he did. he didn't want to be beholden to any one nation. he recognized that relying too much on one country for defensive support, for economic support, was asking for trouble. especially at a time when france a great bit and were essentially having a second 100-year war.

they were constantly at each other's throughout. they usually pulled spain and others into the mix. the best way to get out of that was to not get too close to any one side. for example, in 1793 when france declares war on great britain, the united states and france did have treaties on the books. they had the treaty of amnesty in commerce and the treaty of defense left over from the revolutionary war. they decided that, actually at jefferson's encouragement, to interpret the treaty of defense and it's just that, a defensive treaty. it said that france in the united states were bound to support one another if they were attacked by their enemies. meaning great britain of course. but because france was the one that was on their door, they were not atacked and therefore according to jefferson's legal logic, the united states was not obligated to come to france's aide. which was convenient become the united states didn't really have an army or navy anyway with which to lend assistance.

so this concept to try to balance these two global superpowers was really his main goal for the majority of his presidency. trying to not get too close, having too intensive relationship with either. >> it is one of my favorite moments in de toqueville's america, he praises washington to have the steadfastness to maintain the tragedy. insisting that no one else would have been able to do it. -- can you talk to us about the legacy of that? take us in past the 18th and into the 19th and 20th century? >> sure, well first of all the statement of neutrality between france and britain is itself revolutionary. washington, as joe was indicated, is really fixated on the fact that we have a strategic asset that is unlike any other. i joke in my book, it's a version of what bill rodgers used to say that america has

the two best friends any country has ever had, they're called the atlantic and pacific ocean. we are insulated from the chaos of continental europe where they have been killing each other for centuries. that is a strategic asset. if particularly at the time where distance really inoculate that. he says, look, there is no way we are going to become a satellite for another nation. we have to become an independent nation. but he also says is we need at least another 20 years to build our own strength, military and economic, and then we can start making our own decisions rooted in our own interest and sense of justice. it is not an isolationist statement. it is just we are not a permanent alliance with other nations. we won't be a satellite for anyone else. we won't get dragged into foreign war, that would be a huge mistake. who we are now as a young nation that needs to build up strength. it would squander our greatest strategic advantage, which is our geographic isolation. this plays out through the 19th

century. it is considered basically sacred. it is easily enforced by the distance. by the fact that the world is, you cannot attack america very easily, i'll be it it had happened but, we were fairly isolated. john hey, who was abraham lincoln's private secretary and secretary of state for mckinley and roosevelt said that american foreign policy can be summed up in two phrases. the golden rule and the monroe doctrine. the monroe doctrine that basically says we are going to stay out of your business, don't come into our sphere of influence. there are temptations to empire. what jill was saying is, look, we are a republic not an empire. that is four foundational founding fathers wisdom. late 19th century that starts to get strained. by the time we get into the debate over world war i, and i write about this in my book, it is really fascinating because the debate of what we are

getting involved into wwi--and the ratification of the league of nations, are both conducted by two washington biographers. henry cabinet lodge. they're both arguing that they are defending the washingtonian tradition. capital of just doing it with a little bit more authenticity because he is saying, look, we have never got involved in a continental fight, why do we start now? wilson is saying that the ideals of washington are at stake. and a lot of the iconography, once we do get involved in the first world war, involves calling on washington's legacy. and then something really interesting happens, the world doesn't end. america turns the tide of the first world war fairly quickly. all of a sudden, it looks like maybe washington was not this perfect prophet. maybe we can get involved in foreign wars, do good, and promote democracy. it takes washington down a peg. in a significant way. now there is backlash during the first world war. when the second world