april 16th at 16th street baptist church, king took the stage at a mass meeting and he said, i had a dream tonight. i had a dream that little white boys would to school with little black girls and that they would swim together and play in the park together. and then he sort of in that famous king crescendo, he said, yes i had a dream tonight. that line was uttered first. birmingham alabama. that's another way that birmingham, everything and i want i guess i want i want us all to keep that in mind. like that's the sort of integrated future we should be striving toward. thank you, guys.

hello, everyone. welcome to washington times for this special episode of history. as it happens podcast. we're doing a series of episodes about, the declaration of independence.

why the declaration of independence? well, the subject may be old, but the issues are fresh. the american revolution is current events. i actually got that line from our guest today. hello, denver brunsman historian at george washington university. welcome to the washington times. thanks, martin. it's to be here. yeah, i don't think i could get a better guest because you're the guy who teaches the classes about george washington at the university named after him and teach them at mount vernon to tell us a little bit of the work you do. yes, i'm incredibly lucky i'm a professor and the chair of the history department at george washington university. so i get to teach a range of classes on early american history, including the revolution, war of 1812. and the one you mentioned, my favorite, george washington and his world, which takes place in his world at his mount vernon estate for gw students, that's exciting. although on the other hand, george washington didn't sign the declaration of independence. i mean, a slacker. i know, i know. what was what was he doing?

well, what was he doing? it was getting ready to fight the british. so he was in new york just welcoming. he might say, intercepting the largest armada of soldiers and sailors to cross the atlantic. to that point, about 30,000 british soldiers arriving in new york and was there waiting for them. that's right. at this end and around this time, they're planning or already underway an invasion of canada as well. that's right. that's right. yeah. of 76. yeah. a lot of people don't realize i mean we have lexington and concord in the spring of 75 but this was a continental war by july of 1776 is happening up and down east coast all the way into canada and all the way down to the colonies. june of the prior year. the battle of bunker hill. so yeah, war already underway for more than year. maybe i needed to find the john hancock at george. well because he had a big a signature of the 56 people who signed the document. that's right. what do i open the the by saying how the american revolution is teaching current events.

well, that's what you told me. what do you mean by that? yeah. so when i went to talk to students, you know, one thing we do today, we need to do as educators is is show that history is relevant and i don't think there's a more relevant event in american than the american revolution because we live in the society and with the frame of government that it created and so a lot of our politics today lot of the same issues i think you know go back to that period and you see these patterns. and so i think if you can clue students in to that, then they not only see the past in different way, but you see your own world today in a different way. yeah. i mean, we still inhabit the political world of these 18 states, right? that's right. and i think that's why that's why we're having this conversation. that's why we look back to this moment so much. not that events were frozen in time. lots have happened since then. there was a civil war just eight years later. right. but i mean, often raised this question with some of my other guests on the podcast. why do we go back to the founders or the framers of the constitution or the revolutionaries of the 1770s for guidance, for advice? how to frame legislation today,

for guidance in our culture, right? yeah. yeah. these pre-modern darwin men. well, it's not really a profound question or answer we're still inhabiting their political world. we're on their constitution, unlike the french say, who may talk napoleon today, but they're on their what, their 18th constitution or something like that. that's right? that's right. as americans, we can point the start of the country. there's a start date and these are the people there that created it. and so they continue to influence us. margaret thatcher, the the former prime minister of britain, had saying that the countries of europe were by history, meaning they formed organically over time, whereas the united states was formed by philosophy that is formed at specific moment in time. and that's a nation founded on ideas. yeah, many origin stories are based on ethnicity, religion, culture, religion whatever. yeah. although i mean, whether or not, you can point to a single date, the founding of a nation. we'll get into that. some say 16, 19 is a better date

rather than 1776. we'll return to issue in a bit. i mean, for most of my relatively short life, the revolutionary era always had this primordial place in our collective consciousness, as we've been discussing, not necessarily source of unity, but a common story, an origin story that was a source of inspiration for all americans. ever since, regardless of what jefferson, in his pen with the editing of adams and franklin, when he wrote those infamous or famous words, timeless, immortal words, right? regardless of what they meant at the time, those words were source of inspiration for all of us while the civil war is the one that continues to divide us. but do you see that changing? do you see the revolution as a source of division, too? you know, maybe a little. i think it's still the event that i think most americans embrace. both sides, you know, liberals in, conservatives doesn't matter across the political. i think everyone can find something there that is inspiring. but i think, you know, the job

scholars and of of research has shown that there are problematic things in our past even in a past that we embrace. and i think that's true with the declaration. well, certainly. and the declaration and the of which it was a part was not complete. it didn't end slavery, but you can also make the argument, and i do that it kicked off the anti-slavery cause in this country, the first of its kind right. certainly wasn't perfect. and wars all wars are horrible and they all affect average people worse than the elites in society for sure. so there's that. i mean, something you mentioned to me when we were preparing get together here is that the declaration was always part of a long, progressive tradition in our country as a source of inspiration. martin luther king at the march on washington. the anniversary's coming up this year when the architects of our republic, the magnificent words of the constitution in the declaration of independence, they were signing promissory note to which every was to fall heir. we have come to cash this check.

1848 seneca falls. elizabeth cady stanton. her famous declaration of sentiments was read and adopted, modeled after the declaration of independence and september 2nd, 1945, in asia. do you know where i'm going with this? i do. i will not write the enemies of men. ho chi minh proclaims the independent democratic republic of vietnam in hanoi in front of a massive audience. world war two is over. the had yet to try to re colonize vietnam and the first lines of his speech repeat verbatim the second paragraph of america's. yeah he doesn't he doesn't even change them. yeah yeah. yeah. so i think the jefferson writes those words and they're adopted by the continental congress and by for 1776, you know, all men created equal and i think ever then any groups in american society that didn't weren't experiencing equality certainly wanted a piece of that, whether it was marginalized people color

or whether it was women. you know, you mentioned seneca falls. you know, they their declaration of sentiments is all men and women are created equal. yes. and and so yeah, i think it was it was really kind of a beacon it was a goal for for different groups. and i think that's still true. i mean, i think still used in different social movements because it's incredibly powerful, you know, inspiring words. so it is a fair question. referring to my previous somewhat tangled question. yeah, yeah. what they meant versus the inspiration that came later. it's a fair question as to what and company didn't mean just using the word man. for instance, all men are created. yeah. yeah. did they mean only males or all human beings? i mean, can get really semantic about this, but what's your take on that. yeah. yes, i see this in two ways. i, i think in enlightenment sense, you know, this is the age of enlightenment, this age of reason in which they talked in universals. i think on one level, jefferson saying certainly all men and all

humans. and i think that's i think it's an abstract level. i think in reality, certainly in jefferson's reality, that phrase, you know, if written in a very legalistic sense, would all white men are created equal? because that was you know, that was the gains of different groups from the revolution. you know they weren't there weren't equal but but you know, i that throughout time other have taken those words and have also thought of them in universal ways. another one is abraham lincoln. you know, the gettysburg address when he quotes, you know when he quotes jefferson, he's saying all men, black and white, are created equal. so, so i think one thing we should be grateful for as americans is our country was born in this time enlightenment of the start of the ideas of and ideals of universal liberty. and i want to get into the philosophic underpinnings or the philosophical inspiration for or the writers of the declaration. in a moment, the title of this series of podcasts i'm doing in

history, as it happens, is the radical declaration. so yeah, was the declaration radical. what do you what would you mean by radical if you agree with that. yeah. yeah yeah, i think it was. and you know that doesn't mean that it was completely original. it's it's drawing on a lot of things. i think the document that's the most underrated is actually drawing on is the virginia declaration of penned primarily by george mason, which happened in june of 1776. it also declared all men equal. it uses the phrase, it uses the word happiness of and they didn't mean like, ha ha, i'm happy to. yeah, they meant happiness as in contentment. yeah, satisfying life. you a satisfying like maybe an equality of opportunity. the chance and i and we don't have debate from the second continental congress about the words all men are created equal. we don't know if people said, oh, that's going too far, but we do have some of that evidence when it was discussed in the virginia legislature.

sure. and there was some blowback. there was some discussion about what do we mean, enslave people? i mean, what what are we saying here? yeah. and in that particular debate certainly as virginia did and slavery. but decided that they were going to go with this enlightenment sense of i think that was the same decision made by the the second continental congress. jack cove has argued that the authors meant americans as a people were entitled to the same rights to self-governance meant as other nations of the earth, not in the way we talk about it today. we all have civil liberties. sure. what's your i mean, you've been discussing an already, but. yeah. yeah. what rico saying. yeah. yeah. so i mean i mean, jack might be right about the moment like when, when they make that. but i think that, you know, different are interpreted over time they have a life of their own and i think that certainly happened with the declaration. i think that's one of the most exciting things because as you teach american, i think one

thing that's really neat for for students to show how over time different groups come in under this umbrella of equality. and we, the people in these great phrases in our founding documents, which might have been limited at the time but have become expansive, they didn't have ho chi men in mind. sure. right. i mean, you know, so it's even inspired other nations. yeah. maybe this has happened to you in all your writing through your career. you mean something, but then somebody later on, years later says, you know, actually, i interpret this differently than maybe even the author intended. yeah, yeah. i think that's absolutely the case. well certainly today we americans, despite what i said before about maybe the revolution and we could talk a little about that later, too, about it, whether it's a pro-slavery revolution in the 1619 project about, whether the revolution is still a source of unity or division, i think for the most part, americans see it as a common story about origins. it's a source of inspiration, but we tend to project our own ideas back on those men. if they were writing for the

ages did they get the sense at all that they were writing for all time? you know it's hard to know. they're immortal, man. yeah, in a funny way. i mean, they did. i mean, i, they know they're on the stage of history. this is, this is actually part of the enlightenment. their thinking, the long term. and, you know, a lot of the letters they're writing, i think they expected people to read them someday mean they're certainly saving them. and think that's true with the declaration that jefferson and the committee that puts together the and the congress that approves it, they're kind of doing two things. i mean, i think there's a shot at posterity and and the soaring rhetoric at the beginning, i think, is, you know, going for that. but then there's some just, you know, brass politics in the declaration where they want to persuade the american people that is the right course. and they also want to attract other nations, particularly france, to support the cause. and they're dealing with some pragmatic process sake. yeah, problems there because they had been towards independence for a while, were going to return to that. i mean, just want to stay on this high level, maybe a little bit of an esoteric, although how

do your students react to this when you talk about the declaration the way we're discussing it now, are they excited by it or do they roll their eyes and say, oh, those they didn't mean, you know, all men are created? yeah. no, i think that's a good question. i mean, young people are naturally skeptical and that's something i enjoy teaching. i always keep you on your toes. but, you know, this is a class when i teach the american revolution, it never has trouble enrolling. it fills up. i think people are eager learn about it and and the students are hungry for the complexity and think i think if they get the complexity and if they learn the full story, even if some of that's not flattering to the country, i think it actually makes them appreciate some of the soaring rhetoric and the ideals that we're talking about even more, because then they feel like, okay, well, this honest. it's not, you know. no one's forcing me to believe that. yeah, well we've only been talking about the opening third of the declaration, by the way, i gave you a copy of the

independent. see, i have one too. i went to the national archives today. there was a guy outside just handing these out. i'm like, isn't this like a rare document? how can oh, it was just printed actually presumed it wasn't nicolas cage. right. i have not seen that. you know, the grievances, the grievances that are listed here, these don't hold up as well. i don't like to to scrutiny. i want to talk to you about the grievances. this is my interviewing. i'm kind of like in a maze. you never quite know when they're on the next turn, where are you going to be headed? we'll return to the grievances in a moment. yeah, about the radicalism. yeah, the radicalism. yeah. i think we need to remember that radical ism, right? that's why i opened the podcast by saying the subject is old, but the ideas are fresh. the idea that fundamental equality can be the guiding principle of a new nation. i don't think anyone has this idea better than gordon wood. i have his seminal here the radicalism of the american revolution. you know, i cite books during my podcast because as a journalist, great. so it's like a graduate seminar. you do exactly. i have to cite my sources as any

good journalist. and also i want to introduce people to this or books if they're not familiar with him. yeah, this is in the introduction of this book. the revolution did more than legally create the united states. it american society. he says the changes were radical and they were he says to focus we are today apt to do on what the revolution did not accomplish rather to highlight its failures to abolish slavery instance is to miss the great significance of what it did accomplish, he says, made possible the anti-slavery and rights movements of the 19th century and in fact all our current egalitarian thinking. it radically changed the personal and social relationships of people, including the position of women. it destroyed aristocracy as it had been understood in the western world for at least two millennia. it brought respectability and even dominance to ordinary people, long held in contempt and gave dignity to their menial labor and a manner in history.

i think to some that up would be to say the colonists now american citizens view themselves as citizens rather than subjects. it was revolution in that it reordered society, it overturned the existing order and people start to think about themselves and their relationship to others and their government differently. absolutely. and i could teach a class about that's very good. no, i think i think in that change from subjects to citizens, it does show that transformation and it was revolutionary that a subject under the crown is inherently unequal right. this is a stratified society with all kinds of, you know, different positions based on birth. whereas a citizen by definition is equal right. and so that's, as you say, it's transformed in society. and i'm friend of gordon wood, and it's a it's a fabulous book and he's obviously an amazing scholar. i think a one critique would be that there's a lot happening in

that period with groups that weren't included in the definition of citizen, that were actually radical to i think the revolution maybe was even more radical in many respects than maybe would always writes about in that book. and it certainly not anything he doesn't know. but in terms of african-americans prosecuting for their freedom and equality for women, you know, to be included, i think it just shows how powerful these were absolutely enslaved africans were not included, we know. but shortly after the revolution, you start to see free black societies in the north where slavery to give way, putting together petitions and petitioning their local governments, their state governments, even congress show up to the first congress saying, all right, let's rid of slavery. you know, it took another 80 years as we know, at least on a national level by the 13th amendment in 1865. but yeah, these radical impulses, even if they didn't include people right from day one and it wasn't like plebeian start running the place immediately, right.

i think jefferson, who was probably the most democratic of all, the founders, probably still thought that ordinary people had a kind of place in society and should be running society, but there was a leveling effect. i guess that's the word, although there was more of a leveling effect. and this is what this is something that what writes about that i think is right on that that it's kind of a pandora's box that the the founders, you know, open that they they are elites and. most of them are elitist and they didn't necessarily originally envisioned regular people participating in government and certainly in an equal way. but that's what happens right within a generation after the revolution. and that's woods large point is a white man who had no sort of equality in europe and in britain would experience that in the united states. yeah, i mean, we can it is easy to fall into the trap of scrutinizing the founders personal lives and calling them hypocrites. yeah, we do lose sight of the bigger picture. i mean, both things can true that thomas jefferson was

hypocritical because he was a lifelong slave owner, only freed a handful of his slaves. they were his flesh and blood. yes. yeah. his children. yes, the children. so. okay, we agree the declaration was radical it's not a long document. the declaration or either is the constitution. i mean, i think that's why it's great. it's brief. the brevity makes it powerful. students like that. yes, that's right. you can read i got this book over here about the enlightenment that's like 900 pages long. i mean, fit the declaration of independence in like two pages. that's right most people have not read the list of grievances since they're high school or college history classes. but i do want to get into this opening language a little bit more penned by jefferson with the help of adams and franklin, we talked about whether they knew they were writing for the ages, what was inspiration, because this is important some people read these opening words. let's see, this. let's see the separate and equal station to which the laws of

nature, nature's god entitle them, any reference to god often makes some people say, well, that's a reference. christianity or or religion. when it wasn't, this was lockean and natural rights. john locke historians have gone back and forth about how important was locke and in influencing the american revolution, he seems to have made some of it a comeback lately. what does denver brunsman say about john locke's influence on on the revolution? yeah. so jefferson is a is a master synthesis. he's bringing together all these enlightenment ideas and certainly particularly in his second treatise of government, i think that's when the primary things he's drawing from. he's also drawing from the scottish enlightenment, people like david hume and adam smith. some of the language about equality comes from them franklin, made it a critical edit in the declaration at one point, the original words said we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable. that's jefferson's language.

franklin texas, pancho says, no, we we hold these truths to be self-evident. that from scottish moral sense philosophy, this idea that you just know things as as a human being. and it's amazing that just with such a small edit, they're introducing a whole nother sort of branch of philosophy. so i think it's self-evident why do you have to say it? yeah, that is an enlightenment. common sense. yeah. applying common sense. moral sense. yep yeah, absolutely. yeah. so, locke. yeah, yeah. about antiquity. all right. so i, i have this massive i care about the enlightenment. this is written by richey roberts in a couple of years ago and going to go back to what, page 708. all right. so he's making this stuff up. it's coming straight from the text historians have wish to place the founding of the american within two historical and intellectual. one is the influence of locke. the other is the lasting importance of classical theories.

classical, plato instance. although plato is no democrat. and i think when john adams realized that plato really wasn't the in that he imagined them to be, he was a guest whereby the depends on civic virtue demands the participation of all of its citizens. bernard bailyn in his seminal work, which i have over here the intellectual or the i'm sorry, the ideological origins of, the american revolution. forgive me for that. yeah. says that classical antiquity was kind of window dressing, that. yes, all enlightened and educated men such as well jefferson actually did know the classics. but many of the other pamphleteer at the time were kind of just like what we do now, the internet, we pull a quote, we find and just, you know, to dress up our arguments without really understanding the text. do agree with that? yeah. no, i think that's right. you know, different scholars are working on this and i think there's some debate, you know, when there's this is a term in history, contested ground, you know how how deeply are they into the ancients and of the classical period. but i agree with what you say that kind of like the entry card

into of these debates, you have to show that you are familiar. you know, even george washington who never read latin or greek was getting the second hand english version of these things. using that in his letters. so it was kind of a sign of credibility that you were a club, right? yeah, they weren't trying to create a new sparta, though. yeah, that's right. yes. i think the lockean and others like him is more important influence. how were these in light? or i should say, were these enlightened, audible at the level of ordinary? so it's the summer of 76, right. and public opinion is still kind of not quite sure where it's going when it comes to declaring independence. wars were underway for a year. are ordinary citizens talking about locke yeah, maybe not locke, but definitely lee, i think some of these other parts of the declaration jefferson is writing about, and i think the ideas are filtering down the way we talked. they're reaching the broader public. the declaration is being read publicly in different places. and so, you know regular people

might not know the origin, these ideas, but they sound pretty good, right? if you're living in a society in which you're impoverished that you're not born into a station of equality, other people and all of a sudden someone is telling you that. oh, yeah, you're actually equal. you're is equal to the highest member of this society of george washington or of king george. the third was part of our side. you would be on the same station as them. well, that's an idea that i think know regular people can understand and embrace common sense by thomas paine comes out in january of 78. i had a profound influence, i think, on ordinary people, but not not the men at the second continental congress. yes. no. so, so common sense. you're absolutely right. runaway bestseller. that's what you call it today, right? the the second most printed book in history of the colonial period is right after the bible wow and it's good company, you know, and for every copy of it, historians figured that, you know, several people are reading it because it's left in coffeehouses and taverns and

it's passed around and yeah, you know, it's helped to certainly move hearts and minds and so the members of congress, i don't think paine is telling them anything that they didn't know. but the way politics works today, where pressure can come from below, we certainly see that happening. paine because shortly after between april and june of 1776, there's 90 there's been 88 that have encountered. but 88 local declarations of independence. how these are different communities, these colonies associate all writing basically saying that we should be independent, and they're trying to instruct their delegates and representatives at the continental congress and in the state legislatures, this is what we believe. and so while paine might not of affect did say thomas jefferson that much jefferson is affected by these ideas and these local declarations, and then he's affected by, you know, george

masons and declaration of virginia. so all in the air where the congress get its authority and legitimacy from because it it meets for the first time in august of 70 autumn august autumn of 1774. yeah the idea of even having a congress is highly controversial. the crisis had been underway for many already. and you know, in less than two years, the declaring independence, it seems that they got some of their legitimacy from the provincial that had replaced royal in the different colonies, 13 states, as we would call them later on. yeah, but that congress was superior to them though had supremacy when it came to decisions. yeah well well that's the debate that would continue on, you know, under the articles of confederation into the 1780s. but in terms of the original continental congress, it's like so much of america and i say this sounds funny, but it's true. it's made up, right? it's it's created just like the country was was created.

it it was invented. and so the continental was not a standing. it wasn't created by parliament. it's put together by the different. and i think you're absolutely right it gets its authority because the colonies say that it has authority by sending delegates to that place and at that very first continental congress that you mentioned, more of the delegates had been to london than had been to philadelphia. that's amazing. and that's so that shows what they had in common was this british identity. they don't even think themselves at that point as americans they're provincial, they're provincials. and it would take time for them to even, you know, embrace the term american, samuel adams, if i'm not mistaken, the first time he ever left massachusetts was to go to the first continental congress in philadelphia. yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. in 74. so they were like provincial provincials. so we started at 30,000 feet up, talking big picture, esoteric enlightenment ideas. we're going to start to get to ground level now and talk about the more pragmatic pragmatic, rather prosaic concerns that the delegates at the continental congress who were call them the

leaders of the revolution at this point are are thinking about and grappling with the grievance is. right. you told me that scholars are paying more attention to the grievances now rather than the soaring opening third of the document. why is that? yeah so? i think there's a few different reasons why scholars are focusing on the grievances. one just has to do with the way the academy works that people had written about the beginning of the declaration for so many years that, you know, we're expected to come up with new insights and new knowledge and and, you know, i in the in the seventies with the byzantine into the 1980s, there's lots of books that argue there's this one person that influences jefferson than anyone else. right. and i think i think the consensus now is that he's influenced by a lot of things. and like i said, eclectic mix. yeah. and it's a synthesis. and so scholars have moved on. they're looking at the grievances. and one advantage that has is it can get you more into events on the ground. things that actually happened in the 1760s and 1770s because what

those grievances do is they're you know, it's a litany of of complaints about the king. about the king and not so much parliament at this point. i guess, if you don't mind me objecting. sorry, denver. why did they feel like in this, you know, public very public document, they had to make a break with king george when the crisis had really been about paalam sovereignty. yeah. yeah. so there's a couple of things going on there. one thing is, this is very modeled. speaking of inspiration on the english bill of rights, which is written in 1689, this is right after, the glorious revolution and. this is just kind of the way english speaking people, you know, declare independence. they separate from the king. it's the king the other thing is that it's a product of what in the 1760s and seventies, at a certain point the americans say that they no longer will follow the authority of parliament. the parliament not govern for them. they still recognize the the authority of king. and so that's sort of their last

connection to the british empire. and there's a fair argument to be made that the american colonists were more royalists than people in meaning for a long time. they had actually loved the english monarchy even more than than people. and i think you see the same thing today. yeah, that's right. just any just really any tabloid. right. at a supermarket, that's all. i did not watch the coronation of whatever the king is now. i mean in true american sense this unearned privilege and this this silly pageant putting the crown on a guy that's your own protest. that's right. that's my own biased showing right there. yeah. i mean, the king george the third was a fairly popular figure for a while. very popular. very popular. and even so, even george, the second, who was his grandfather, still didn't speak english because these were german born kings george. the third is the first to do so. so. george the second was coming of maligned figure here in britain. he wasn't that popular. and then when he died the

americans are so sad they're lauren you know all these sermons about how george the second was and there's so much optimism and hope for george the third and of course that quickly dissipated it's given the different policies that britain pursued. i think there's. like 28, 27, 27, 37 grievances almost, all of them, they're all a sentence of peace. yeah, most them almost all them begin with he yeah. he refused. he has for a bit and. he has refused. he has called together, he has dissolved. he has refused. has endeavored. andrew roberts wrote a favorable biography of george the third, which i read another met you. the nice thing about this book is when you're done reading it he uses his doorstop. doorstop the misunderstood reign of george third. and i'm going to share something with he's more favorable george the third than maybe some other scholars are. he says here the declaration of independence is simultaneously

grotesquely hypocritical illogical. mendacious and sublime. and the parts that he refers to as mendacious are the grievances. yeah. particularly the one blaming. well, that one actually didn't make it into the declaration, but the mention of slavery that finally it in to the final. yeah, yeah. here we go. the seventh grievance. it's the final grievance he has excited domestic amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. oh, that's a little hyperbolic there. that's the part we don't read in july 4th picnics. right. so on the one hand, jefferson's saying king is inciting slave, and he's also inciting indian warfare on the frontiers. yeah, this is an ex post facto justification for a revolution

that's already under way. do you agree? yeah. and i think you know what you see is the grievances even more than the opening part. you know i talked about the the hard politics. they're trying to attract supporters. and, you know, i think this is you know, we say today in the 21st century, this is racist language, right? this is this is language a terrible language against native americans. and what he's saying is incited domestic insurrections. he's talking about slave rebellions in virginia by the governor of virginia, a war done more to free african-americans who came to the british side. so, you know, this is part of our revolution that i think makes it fascinating and complex. but the majority african americans and native americans of time side with britain. and this is you know, this is one of those things again teaching students that they're excited to learn. and i think it opens their mind to. some of the other parts of the of the document, thousands of enslaved black people were emancipated as a result of the war. yeah that is different than saying the british were trying to end the institution of slavery or that colonists fought

the revolution declared independence broke with the crown to defend slavery. and this is my problem with the 1619 project. it takes some evidence and then draws a false conclusion. the american revolution was not a pro-slavery revolt. despite what jefferson wrote here right here. and grievance number 27. yeah. so i think, you know, one thing that i teach about this and quite different than teaching about the civil war no professional that i know of right now would disagree with the statement that slavery causes civil war slavery, causes war. you can't make the same blanket statement about anything for the american revolution. there's all these policies, you know, beginning in 1763, going up through the 1707, those that all kind of come together. and the big point that americans are getting at is that they wanted to control their own destiny, wanted to be sovereign over their own affairs. they wanted to determine, you know what would happen in their

lives. now, if there was one thing that did, i think cause independence that kind of pushes it over the. edge it's the war. the war starts. more than a year before the declaration and washington is already in charge of washington's already stormy. some ways he's the first to declare independence. i think taking charge of the of the army. and so these slave rebellions can be connected to the dunmore, which never really material. the 1619 project is getting into they are part of the war so so they're very unpopular. and and you can tell they're unpopular because they're included in the declaration. so now that's different than saying slavery caused the american revolution. is it does it contribute like a lot of these other things? i think does and it depends on the region. it depends on the person. and it's complicated. yeah. dunmore himself in christmas eve of, 1774 is writing in his papers have these these are definitive. yeah he's already lost the colony by that point so i don't know if it can be called a tipping point his proclamation saying all people who reached

british lines you get their freedom i mean that was true that did happen. and as i mentioned thousands of enslaved black people were emancipated military emancipation. yeah but that's different than saying that any colonists i mean what the language the 1619 project uses now is some colonists, which is which was a good correction mean i think you know some sometimes way both our politics and scholarship can work. sometimes there's an overcorrection. so let's say 20 years ago, very few people knew who dunmore was. more people know dunmore. now they're everything about this convention, right? yes. they didn't think that slavery maybe had anything at all to do with the revolution. no, no. it was an exaggeration to say that it caused the whole thing. i think so but if we land somewhere you in in that spectrum, you know i think that's productive. i think that's i would agree with that. i think the initial language was a primary cause. now some conquest, you know. but as far as those slave revolts that dunmore was threatening or maybe even trying

to instigate. they never material. yeah. so yeah well yeah. and the irony is that everything he does backfires with actually you know and he was an enslaver himself. yeah. he was in his labor and many of the african-americans who did reach british line suffered terribly. i mean. yeah. from disease and other conditions. yeah. his is no humanitarian and i think it's just pointing out that that whole episode is prompted by african-americans themselves. yeah. actually trying to become free. they're creating a lot of instability that then dunbar tries to capitalize on. yes yeah. yeah. because they know if war out. and of course the rebellion was already underway in virginia. this is an opportunity for them. yeah, absolutely. absolutely. yeah recovering that part of african-american history is very, very important. yeah. so let's into the timing of the declaration because there's like this of nebulous gray area. the colonists were in open rebellion, but they weren't

quite independent yet and there were moderates, if we can call them that, hoping to reconcile still fairly late in the game, although their own demands, even the moderates demands and, all their behavior was pointing towards a lack of reconciliation because parliament and king would never accept a situation where they did not have authority over what was happening in the colonies. so i did a very brief, an abridged timeline of some important stuff. so i mentioned continental congress autumn of 1774, the colonies then formed provincial or extralegal assemblies because the royal assemblies of the royal governors are out there defying of parliament or begins at lexington and concord. then the battle of bunker hill, june 75, royal collapsing in colonies. then the colonies eventually create new government legal governments, which is in a sense independence. these are not just provincial, temporary ad committees running

things. august third, 1775, king george the third declares america to be in a state of rebellion because the wi-fi wasn't working that day took until october or i don't know if it was october, about three months later. yeah, yeah, about a couple of months. yeah, yeah. for the colonists to learn the continental congress doesn't know that they are in open rebellion. yeah. per the king for three months. why did it then take another eight months or so to declare independence. yeah. i think that gets back what we were talking about before about how british these people were, you know, how much they loved the king. and, and there's a term that's been in the academy for a long time and it's finally coming down to the high schools and it's part of ap us history. but the term as anglicans asian and and basically what it means that over the course of the colonial period something different happened it was people think the colonists didn't become more and more american over time. there's a lot a lot evidence that over the course of the 18th century, they're actually becoming more and more british

culturally in their attachment to british politics, religion and their love of the king, all those different things. so i think i'll style fashion. yeah, architecture, all kinds of things. yeah. all the, you know, tea sets, all the things of that, all the all the consumption. and so if you think about all of they really liked being british and at the end of the seven years were also called the french and indian in 1763. there's super happy that they're on the winning side the britain is defeated france and feel like the freest people in the world and the freest people in the world don't plan revolutions. and so is a very contingent event. i think, in the words of one famous scholar, john murray, it's countercyclical it goes against the grain of what happening that you know, from the point of 70, 63, you would expect these people to be canada forever. right but because of these different policies. they changed. yeah, yeah.

maybe one factor in the delay to declare independence make a public statement that we are independ now although the way that's even even that's the way that's worded are they saying we've independent and now we're simply letting you know or we are independent from this forward. yeah. was public opinion. yeah, public opinion was still very mixed and you had radicals in the continental congress, john adams, who are ready to do it right away. not quite right away. but you know what? i mean? moderates like john dickinson of pennsylvania who kept urging caution to reconcile, where was do we is it even possible to reconstruct public opinion during this period? yeah. so this is a big thing that scholars are working on and it's it's hard and we do have to do some broad generalized with the numbers. but i think, you know, generalizing broadly, we think that around 20% are very hard core loyalists. they're going to stick with, you know, the king no matter what we think around 30% or so as of

july 76 are strongly patriot, you know, pro in american independence. that leaves about 50% of the american population. and that's kind of on the fence. it's not clear which side they're going to go to. but another way of thinking of that is that there's a vast majority of people are not supporting american independence at. the point of the declaration, and that's why it had to be a persuasive document. and that's one reason why i think the war matters so much, because the outcome of the war individual battles in different areas you see people from side to side depending on army is controlling what area and that's prepare for a long term war against the most powerful empire, the world. that's right. you need uniforms, ammunition, logistics, all of that. yeah. so that an impulse to declare independence. sorry to interrupt you there. but yeah, we tend to think of the american revolution sometimes as you know, elitists, you know, with their, you know, nice colonial in a room penning

treatises on enlightenment ideas. it was a vicious war going on in some ways, a civil war. yeah, yeah, yeah. incredibly vicious. so this is another thing that scholars have written about in the last decade or so about really how grisly this war can. and in some ways, it's even even less civil, you might say, than than our american civil war, because it divides families. it divides communities it's towns not just whole regions and mob rule in some and sobs would show up to a house destroy is property and feather him expel him from the community. yeah there's a lot of mobbing. well, i mean, the boston tea party was act of mob justice, was it? yeah, that's right. right. and tarring a feathering. right is the most famous case of that. recent riot to me. right. go to the at that enough. you mentioned that something were doing these days so what finally tips the continental congress into independence in july was it basically the king? i mean, the king does give a

speech in october of 75. i talked about how we declared the colonies to be in rebellion august. and in october he gives a speech at open parliament saying, you know, the rebels are authors and promoters, a desperate conspiracy that use reaches january. about the same time common sense comes out. then there's the prohibitory acts, meaning all american commerce at subject to confiscation by royal navy. that still leaves us about four months away from july. so what's the what's the final kick it. yeah. yeah. so all those things are incredibly important. think the most underrated act is the prohibitory act of december 1775 because in addition to that, doing that with commerce saying that they learned about in february of 17. yeah. so that's a three month. yeah. it takes several months to learn. one thing that act does is it says the colonists are no longer under the protection of the crown. and so essentially britain is saying you're on your own, you're independent. the whole point being a subject is that if you show allegiance to the monarch, the monarch

would protect you and all of a sudden what britain is saying is, no, you're not under our protection anymore. you're on your own. we're making war on you. and so i think the culmination of all those things and then just the normal pace of the deliberation of explains the july date, there's one other wildcard thing that's happening. there's a rumor that's in the american colonies that. britain is in discussions with france and spain to partition the their various holdings. and it's in essence to give canada back to france and to give florida back to spain. they help put down the american rebellion. we now that the british navy actually planted this idea that they started rumor to discourage the americans from allying with france. then, in other words, you can't trust france. and so that rumor hits a fever pitch about june of 1776. what a lot of these things are coming together. that's a month prior. yeah, yeah, yeah. we're working with perfect

information now. yeah. yeah. the benefit of giant books in 200 years and all the things we still don't know, right? yeah, exactly. they didn't work with perfect information and they were very much conspiracists. yeah, yeah, absolutely. know from the early days of the republic the things that the federalist said about the republicans and the republicans said about the federalists. yeah. so the declaration was, i guess, agreed july 2nd. it's promulgated july 4th. yeah. was it greeted warmly, was it was it a popular. yeah. i mean i think i mean, yes or no. i think, i think it's certainly greeted warmly the hardcore 30% that i mentioned. i think, you know, as i said, congress is lagging behind a lot the country on that that you know, there has already been 90 declarations of independence. so in some ways it's kind of like, what have you been waiting for? so i think there's some relief and support there's there's also lot of apprehension because as we discussed the beginning just as they're independence britain's army is arriving 30,000. yeah up to point the british

have been fighting with pretty small troops, small armies and losing everywhere up and down the east coast. and that's going to change, beginning with the battle of new york, referring to the pragmatic or more immediate political concerns that drove the deliberations in the continental congress word that the were hiring mercenaries. also to me, they mean business essentially. we're dithering here. we're talking we're debating. we declare independence. should we not? the british are sending an army. they're hiring mercenaries. they're coming to kill us. yeah. to crush our rebellion. yeah. and i think one myth is that somehow the british didn't try very hard in this war. you know, they could have done more to win. i think they're doing all they can. they're marshaling all the resources they can, the best historian on this is andrew o'shaughnessy, a scholar at the university of virginia at monticello, who's written a great book about the british side of things and his is these aren't dummies these are smart people doing all that. they facing a very difficult

situation. i mean in our own wars of the 20/21 century, our counterinsurgent wars, we know how hard it is to lose their submarines things the british didn't have yet. the name of that book is the men who lost american, is it? yeah, terrific book. it actually with a chapter about george three. it does. it does. yeah. how i was going ask you how have how has the way historians teach the revolution changed? how about you? you've been at this a long we've been talking about the about it here during our discussion. but how have you changed the way you teach it? yeah, yeah. no, no, a great question. i mean, hopefully trying to read scholarship all the time and bring in a lot of these perspectives when. i started teaching more than 20 years ago. the american was almost the longest war in american history, second only to vietnam. now it's if counting in a certain way, it would be fourth. it would be behind. and afghanistan and vietnam and

those events couldn't help but i think kind of affect how we looked at it and i think how scholars have looked at it as very difficult very difficult. i that sometimes when you're not immersed in this period and looking at everything really closely, you know, it seem like these magic words came down. you know, independence was declared and it just happened. but when you get into the granular, you realize how difficult really things for ordained and had the king and parliament acted differently there would have been a reconciliation of course from their point of view we're in charge this is our empire. why would we let you secede without without a fight, right? yeah. yeah. and taxes, we didn't get to the mean. oh, no. taxation without representation. we made it through a podcast with. were these taxes really that onerous? you know. they weren't in the sense of like how much money the americans actually spent because a lot of them, they actually defeats, they get repealed. they didn't pay these. yeah. they didn't end up part problem and they were less they were

less taxed then in england. so so when the british said americans that you have kind of a sweet deal here, they weren't completely wrong. but it was it was the principle of it. it was the no representation. and i would say what happens over time? the americans we say they moved the goalposts a little bit. they'd go from no taxation without representation representation to no legislation without representation they end 1776 by saying britain, king george, we don't want you to do anything for us, you know, taxes or, anything else. and it takes you know, we talked how it took so long. it takes those 12 years to reach that point, where they're ready to, you know, sever all the bonds. yeah. because as you said. otherwise, life was pretty for the typical person in the 18 century, you know, free white, free white man. yeah. so labor are right comparing them not to today. yeah i'm running water and having no plumbing. you know, you get my point but there was there more material wealth for free people in a free

status in america than there was in europe. yeah, and this gets into some of the finer points about government theory too, about parliament. so i want to talk about what's going on briefly what's going on now. i washington university when i say now mean just in the last couple of years. sure the nickname for this sports is no longer the cap all c colonials we talked the beginning of the podcast a little bit about younger people, mostly on the left view are past. maybe don't see it as a source of inspiration, but say, well, you know, those they were hypocrites, they owned slaves, etc. wrote a piece. i have it right here in. the gw hatchet. this, i guess the student newspaper. it's always dangerous when a faculty member writes and i know george washington, you write was never a capital c, you basically said that the word colonial. well you know it's not unreasonable to say that has something to do with colonialism but is actually was about a style of architecture.

yeah so but you're okay with the name change anyway. yeah. so i support the name change. gw is now the revolutionary. so right on topic to what we talking about. and that could mean che guevara in latin revolutionary. yeah well we'll see. we'll see. but but yeah. so this name when i when i joined the faculty in 2012, i always thought it was a strange name that didn't really fit washington very well because. he didn't like the word colonial. he was a nationalist. yeah, was a nationalist. and if we, you know, if we get out of the perfect name, it would be the nationals. but our, our rebuilding baseball team has that name at the moment. and whenever he used the term colonial as a noun, which was very rare or as an adjective, he thought it as being provincial, small minded. and he wanted he wanted people in the united states to think of themselves as americans, not, you know, in that provincial way that connected their former colony or state. yeah, yeah, yeah. so i think so young people who objected to the name. well them that mean colonialism

and colonialism as a wretched history. i would say the majority of the students that were against and that you know, and i also told them and i said well, there's also a good george washington reason to change that. and also last point, there was a student essay actually, this is an op ed in the washington post. the student at university. yeah. said that the university change its name. don't call it george washington anymore. your point is, this was one student, one opinion. the university is not dropping the name george washington. that's absolutely right. yeah. so i was part of what was called the naming task force, the up the guidelines for how we might change different names of buildings or the colonials gw and the first decision that the committee took is that there would be no change in the name. and and i have to say that while there might be a person here and that might hold those views and, we certainly support the rights of our students to to share their opinion. there's no group or movement of students who wants to drop george washington as the name. now, i predict the future about.

but least for now, i think we're content with being the the gw revs. my view on this when it comes naming and statues and memorials is if somebody has claimed to historical significance that are broad. yeah and not just slave is that one thing yeah so washington say the traders who tried to destroy country confronted the confederacy. robert e lee stonewall jackson jefferson. they do not deserve to have anything named after them anymore. their only claim historical significance is secession, civil war. george washington is different. that doesn't mean we should put them up on a pedestal either. we should confront his fool, right? as a lifelong slave holder, etc. but slavery also changed quite a bit too, from the 18 century into the into the 19 there that that'll be a subject the next podcast. so i don't know i guess final point is it's hard to pinpoint a single day as the start of our

nation, especially since the declaration of independence doesn't create a government we have or our second constitution, the articles of confederation and now the current constitution. but as it's good it's as good as any it seems. july fourth. yeah. i mean, i think an official, you know, the people in the congress, especially john adams, thought that july 2nd was the magic day because adams was always a yes, because that's the day they passed the resolution independence. and so it kind of makes sense, but it shows how powerful the declaration was that this document, which could have been just, you know, real plain and just kind of served a basic purpose. one sentence, yeah, it could have been a sentence or two. it could have just been that resolution know, reprinted the fact that it did this inspirational language that is carried over centuries, we're coming on the 250th anniversary of it. it is kind of remarkable that we do associate july 4th as our start start date. yeah, i guess, i'm three years early on the. oh well we can do this again. denver brunsman. yeah it's good watching this have been fun everyone. thank you for