death at peacefield. all right, we don't have that during we have a very little bit in bringing this. what was thecle, important thing to note about abigail adams? >> she was influential. as we think back to the american revolution, she is the only woman -- her record of letters provides the only insights we have of the revolution at a sustained level during the entire revolution and the early national period. she is historically significant. she also is an exemplary person. she talks about women's lives at the time and what it was like to be america's first lady and not just the wife of an american mr. an american minister, but to be

a wife and a daughter. >> the thing that i always think about with abigail is the relationship, the partnership. without abigail, there is no john. without john, there is no abigail.>> john is important to history. >> yes. with the support she provided to him in europe, in the presidency, in the vice presidency, she was so trustworthy that she could to -- take care of things. so he could go off and be this great public person, which was exactly what she wanted.>> to our guests, our thanks for helping us understand more about the life and legacy of america's second first lady abigail adams. thank you for your time. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> wednesday night, we continue our encore of the first season ladies," with dolly

madison. , september 9, a look at the life of edith roosevelt. our website has a special section on the first ladies, including "welcome to the white house," which chronicles life in the executive mansion during the tenure of each of the first ladies. and there will be a special aition of a book, presenting biography and portrait of each first lady. and thoughts from michelle obama on the the role of first ladies throughout history, now available for the discount -- $12.95,ounted price of plus shipping. >> coming up tonight, the impact of what it cuts on military preparedness. at midnight, another chance to see our encore of first ladies, influence and image, on the life

of abigail adams. and then the town hall extending the nsa surveillance program. under the current sequestration law, the pentagon will have to cut $500 billion over the next 10 years. the brookings institution examined the effect of cuts on military preparedness. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to another panel discussion. this is dissecting the pentagon strategic choices and management review. i am marvin calvin. i am a senior advisor to the center for crisis reporting which is located just next door.

way back in august 2011 which is only two years ago congress passed and the president signed into law a legislative monstrosity called the budget control act. it was a way of doing something when nothing seemed worse. at least at that time. a joint committee was set up to control the spiraling deficit. congress warned that if they fail to come up with a solution sequestration would automatically although.-- automatically follow, meaning massive cuts in defense and all other programs. those cuts have now begun. the pentagon was already billion to cut $150 over the next 10 years. sequestration would require $500

billion in cuts over the next 10 years. last week, the defense secretary warned that cuts of that magnitude would not only affect entitlements such as salaries, , and life,ucation but defense readiness and capability. the u.s., for some time, had been ready to fight two wars at the same time. would noe cuts, that longer seem to be possible, winning the american defense strategy would have to be radically altered. what to do, in a macro and micro sense? have asked highly respected defense and budgetary experts to explain reality and options to us. mckinsey egeland.

she helped governor romney during the last presidential campaign. his loss should in no way be ascribed to mckinsey. our other expert is michael o'hanlon, a senior fellow at brookings. although he has written many books, he is most recently the author of "healing the wounded iant." our panelists authored an op-ed in the washington journal, urging congress to reverse sequestration, or watch military readiness go into decline. mckenzie, why don't we start with you? i will ask you a couple of questions, and then we will go to the audience. we are going to finish at 11:30. .> thank you for monitoring -- for moderating. it is a pleasure to be up here with you and my good friend

michael, who recently authored but we were also together with secretary hegel and his team last week, at the briefing about these choices and the outlook. i am sure we will talk about what was discussed in that conversation. i think you have set the ground very well. that important to remember sequester is not the starting point. so much in washington feels like we are always starting at square one. but sequestration is the fourth year of budget cuts. the drawdown has been well under way. our spending peaked in 2010. there has been reduction in capacity and real budget cuts ever since. roughly, been almost, a $1 trillion taken out of current or planned dod spending before sequestration. that is why this is tough.

you hear the secretary and the deputy secretary talk endlessly about how damaging sequestration is. this is not the first dollar of defense cuts, nor is it the first capability or capacity being unwound as part of this process. think wethe things i will talk about this morning, unfortunately, are overdue. many of the choices the pentagon recently laid out are things that should have been under consideration for years ago. defense cuts started over and then robert gates. not that they were not of value or utility. but this is not the first efficiency drill at the the. there were a lot of things done wrongly, in those previous years. i am not sure the lessons learned sunk in. a washingtonnow is

that continues to have to go back to the same pots of money and the same priorities every year as part of the defense drawdown, because we are doing it on an annual basis, doing it he smell, chipping away at the margins -- we are doing it piecemeal, chipping away at the forins, instead of planning 10 years and working backward. intead, we do what we saw 2013. half a year in, we will have serious planning. help,ot think that is any when a dollar tab is already on the table. >> i agree with you. mckenzie cannot be blamed for governor romney's loss, but is also kind enough not to remind us that she is from the great

state of georgia, with the atlanta braves well ahead of the washington nationals. i appreciate her discretion. framed.l some of the additional budget cuts that are now being considered, i think, are ok. mckenzie and i do not have the exact same view. i do not want to suggest that everything i say, she would endorse. we do think there is room for efficiency. some of them, if you can get congress to authorize them, you , andctually implement them probably reform information technology systems at the department of defense. they are worth doing. the briefing we heard last week from secretary hegel and his team, which developed some of the ideas that were also expressed by deputy secretary carter in his congressional testimony that everybody can read on the web -- we saw an estimate that perhaps $40

billion could be saved over 10 years from new efficiencies. that is on top of deficiencies identified as part of devious budget-cutting reviews, like additional base closures. it is worth pointing out that congress has not yet authorized many previous efficiencies, so if anything, we are deeper in the hole, it has even to get to previous levels, we now have to either persuade congress to change its mind and authorize orngs like ace closures, find other ways to save comparable amounts of money. closures, that base for example, are authorized. these could save around $40 billion over 10 years. every time you asked the pentagon to try harder, they are going to find another $5 billion, or $10 billion. on balance, there is never going to be the end of all possible thoughts. -- all possible cuts. it is ok that it is you.

$40 billion -- let us say we can do that. there is another examination of possible savings, which mckenzie and i wrote about in the op-ed. they have to do with things like reductions in certain elements of military compensation, or at least reductions in the growth. these are not easy, and they are not inherently desirable. i think all of us would agree we ask so much of our men and women in uniform that the idea that we should cut their compensation is not a proper phrasing. we would, if anything, like to make sure that every possible benefit that can be proposed, that they receive. certainly, wounded warriors. certainly, the families of deployed soldiers. certainly, troops leaving the force and trying to get a g.i. bill so they can transition to the private sector. all of these people deserve

compensation that is not in any way hindered or compromised. but there are certain ways in which military benefits have not always been modified or streamlined to accommodate the new ways in which we live. there is the trouble still of commissaries, which exist in many towns that have plenty of walmarts and other such stores. there are other ways you could make compensation reforms. they are not trivially easy. i would not call them deficiencies. they are actually cutting back on the compensation, or at least the rate of growth of compensation, for our volunteer force that has done so much on behalf of the rest of us over these last 12 years, and before. if you add up all those savings, which are along the lines of what i would agree with, and similar to the kind of ideas in our op-ed, that is another $85 billion in savings. we are up to about $125 billion in additional 10 year savings,

out of the $500 billion that could be required by sequestration. the good news is, that is almost the amount the president is proposing to save in his latest budget plan. so we do not have to make a lot of cuts into force structure or weapons modification. there is room for some cutting. in my recent book, i advocated about $200 billion in two-year -- in 10 year savings. are all going to have somewhat different takes on what the right number of army divisions or brigades, how many joint strike fighters we should purchase. my take was that we could save, in addition to this 125 billion dollars from efficiencies and compensation reforms, maybe another $75 billion to $100 billion from cutting programs. the pentagon seems to have arrived in a similar place, but then it had to keep going.

this is not a criticism of secretary hegel or deputy secretary carter. this recent review, the strategic choices and management , as it isammer sometimes derisively called, but people who do not like the idea of cutting again from the pentagon budget -- we will have to look for ways to save this five hundred billion dollars. sequestration is the current law of the land, and it will happen. beyond the kinds of changes i have already mentioned -- the efficiencies, the compensation reform, and some modest changes to capability, scammer did a couple of things i do not like. likedot sure the authors it either, but they had to put these ideas on the table. one is to downsize the u.s. army quite a bit more than is already being planned. i want to mention this in my opening comment. let me give you a sense of what is now being considered for the u.s. army.

is u.s. army, right now, just over a half-million active- duty soldiers. it had grown up to 560,000 during the peak of the iraq and afghanistan wars. he also mobilized reservists and national guardsmen and women. numbers are quite modest compared to the 1980's, the cold war. we had the active force that was much larger, including during korea, vietnam, and world war ii. this was a growth from the clinton years, and from the early thinking of secretary rumsfeld. that was in the 475,000 range. but it was not huge and did not reverse the cuts made at the end of the cold war. we are already planning to go down basically to work clinton and early bush had been. the army was headed previously to go back to 490,000 active

troops. this in vision's reductions of down to maybe 400-1000, or perhaps even lower, if sequestration hits in its entirety. many cuts are taken out of the u.s. army. i think this is a bad idea. the administration suggested that this kind of cut back to the army was not necessarily a bad idea because it complies with strategic guidance given last year at the pentagon, the defense argument of 2012. to do big do not want counterinsurgency missions anymore. iraq and afghanistan have been frustrating. let us wash our hands. that is the sentiment we had after vietnam, for similar reasons. and yet that sentiment, taken to excess, leaves you unprepared for the next time you might have to do a counterinsurgency, whether you like it or not. there is the old bolsheviks saying, you may not have an

interest in war, but it may have interest in you. syriaappens when not just occurs, but this affects lebanon and jordan? what happens when india and pakistan come to the verge of nuclear war over kashmir? the only way out of this potential escalation might need an international force to manage a trusteeship for kashmir. hypotheticals will sound crazy now, but about as crazy as it would have said in 2000 if i mentioned afghanistan as the source of a 9/11 attack. you cannot always anticipate where war might spring up. i would even mention korea. we have a lot more to discuss. constant cuts to the u.s. army being considered within the scammer process, i think, are highly imprudent, and leave us catching on to the latest fad in warfare.

we are tired of counterinsurgency, so let us to -- let us pretend we will never have to do it again. we have made this mistake before. we should not make it now. >> let me ask you a quick yes or no question. do you think, by the end of this year, congress will have acted on sequestration specifically for the military? >> no. but theyay have acted, will act separately in each chamber. there will not be a change to the law. >> we can realistically look forward to the implementation of sequestration? >> i fear mckenzie may be right. if you look at the 2014 budget -- i will be quick. the cuts that would be required by sequestration or so harsh for that year. there is no way to phase them in realistically. there is even a worst debacle than sequestration over 10 years. the pain dwarfs even what we are

going through this summer, and it compounds what we are going through this summer when almost half the air force is not flying. the quick make use are piling depots. we are not fixing stuff we need to keep safe for our forces. converse may ultimately say that $52 billion in defense cuts that sequestration would require needs to be softened a little. maybe they add the cuts to the backend. they do not do anything that fundamentally changes the basic logic of sequestration, but they soften the blow. that is possible. the sequestration next year is so horrible. >> if that be the case, we are still working with the reality of very massive cuts. bit of agiven us a hint about the practical effect this will have on the military. but a military exists to implement, to fulfill the desires, the strategic aims, of the country. as i mentioned earlier, we had

lived in this country for a long time with a belief that we could fight 2 wars at the same time. we mean, if you go back 10 years, iraq and afghanistan at the same time. account,not take into as you are implying a moment ago, that there could be an outbreak of hostility into eight -- in kuwait. if we look at the strategy, and the amount of money that is going to be available to be spent, what do you think will be the effect on the strategy itself? what would you recommend to the president, for example? and he does listen to republicans, so it is ok. what would you recommend to the would considerhe as a change in the strategic aims of the u.s. to conform to the economic reality.

>> i would not want to advocate that. i am disappointed that the defense department has already moved on from the long-standing planning.two war quietlyning is changing to move away from the capability 2 wars for any length of time. the department is sticking by its january guidance that michael mentioned. we call it the pivot or rebalance. emphasis onreased asia, and trying to hold the line in the middle east. is at the expense of capability incapacity and other arts of the world.

budgets are falling quickly. they do not have a choice. we do not have a single ship in southern command. that is the reality. it is a relatively sound strategy. the dq dr -- the qdr panel, a stress test -- they called for a pivot before the obama administration, and someone argued the bush administration. it is a sound strategy. see thelem is, i do not department can continue to hue to it, even though that is the position of the pentagon. >> meaning what? >> emphasis on asia and a toehold in the middle east. >> and you are saying that

economically we are not going to be able to do that? pivotingre already away from it, in realistic terms. notprevious position is to break the strategy. -- thereement reviews was a plan to implement the budget with no sequester. the guidance was questionable. i do not know it was fully resourced. postal's, bydget senator patty murray -- larger than the president, in the latest budget process. the full sequester would break the strategy. they literally would throw it out and start over from january. based on the holes that michael is referencing, we are not just talking sequester dollars. we are talking efficiencies that will not be realized.

and we are talking about readiness holes. all of these things combined mean that any scenario is, at minimum, bending the strategy, if not breaking it. dohink it is sound, but i not know, realistically, how you keep it. >> you have written that you go from two wars at the same time to one more plus two. i assume you mean smaller engagements. could you spell that out for us? is good you are focusing on the strategic choices before us as we think about different defense budget levels. otherwise, it just feels like moving around chips. there is obviously room for debate within a given military or defense budget will stop it is not as though all wars come in the same cookie-cutter size and shape. time, we may be

thought we would have to fight iraq and north korea at the same time. it turned out to be iraq and afghanistan. you can debate whether we had to do them both, but we did do them both. ultimately, our military was too small. we tried to have the capacity for two at the same time, but we were short in our calculations. that is why secretary gates had to increase the size of the army and marine corps. there is the 2010 quadrennial defense review. administration began to soften a little little bit the requirement for the second war to be quite as definitive immediately. this is a 20-year-old debate about war, in terms of whether these wars have to be exactly simultaneous, and both lead to the overthrow of the enemy government and occupation of its territory, or whether there is room for the second one to be more gradual and less definitive. in 2010, president obama started to move a little bit away from

that robust rhetorical emphasis on two wars. i think he was correct to do that, because saddam hussein was gone. likely to be an overland invasion threat to its neighbors. alsois still there, but relatively unlikely to be an invasion threat. it could be a threat to its neighbors, but probably not an invasion threat. that was 2010. in 2000 12, in the famous defense strategic guidance, the january guidance, the administration softened a little further, and talked about the second war perhaps not really needing to be thought of as an all-out war at all. there was still the notion that you might have to punish a second aggressor, and maybe wait for the first work to be concluded before you could swing over and deal with it properly. there are semantics. >> it is like playing with reality. >> a little bit.

but i would support the logic through that point. we did have to shift more of our focus toward china. we have to worry about deterring china. and also toward iran. these are unlikely to be classic, big land wars. the could be maritime, air, cyber, special forces. softening the ground war a 1.5 capability was ok. now, we are seeing with strategic choices and management review, and the sequestration motivating the whole thing, is the possibility of going down to maybe one war and nothing else. korea,ou can still do provided your entire army is available. unfortunately, that is often not how the world works. we know our friend just left the angs to try to negotiate palestinian and israeli peace.

if that succeeds, there could be an international implementation force to make that acceptable to the israelis. wind up, as president obama said he would do, preventing iraq from developing a nuclear weapon, the idea that this is a one-off, that we bomb and then call a truce and go back to life as normal, is pretty optimistic. there is a decent chance we will have to reinforce some of our allies in the gulf with american ground there are a number of scenarios. that is why i talk about one plus two. you should be able to do one all out war and to simultaneous smaller missions. hopefully they are multilateral. they could be long-lasting. that is where i come up with an army that should be around 420. >> what is the part of the world

that the united states military must be focused on more than any other? >> in this moment it is the middle east. strategically, the defense department has to do both. they have to think about the world as it is in this very moment and reality. what is happening? and conflict breaking out in crises everywhere. then think of buying 10 or 20 years. they need to do both. >> presumably they are. >> they are. if you look at the example the budget request from last year, the immediate concern is the middle east. i think that is exactly right. >> that means what? break that down.

mike spoke about iran. one could think about syria. want to think about the huge problem in egypt. there is everything going on in north africa. what the middle east mean to us now? >> what it means to us is probably debatable. >> you military experts. >> let me say quickly for dod right now it is iran. looking at the capabilities that might be required to deter conflict breaking out or miscalculating in international waters or prevailing in some type of military efforts, whether we are supporting someone else are undertaking our own. there are many other things happening. they went to a special forces and counterterrorism missions. that is certainly not what we are limited to.

there is ongoing planning. i do not know, that is an example. >> i'm trying to get at this. i have a feeling we are talking theory, not necessarily reality. think about it. you have both spoken of iran. if the united states in the next year or three decide that and must take on iran and the nuclear program and korea the erupts, it is not a matter of a small operation. korea is big-time. we arty have troops in south korea. the idea of one plus two, the idea of whittling down two, sounds to me as if it is not

related to reality. united states has to be in a position whether it is 1 plus two of taking on any combination of military challenges. can the united states do that realistically and might of what is happening in the american economy? in light of what is happening in american politics. in light of the fact of sequestration. we are having strategy being determined by people up on the hill who may not have a clue as to what strategy is all about. is that right? >> i am glad you are framing these very starkly. it is our national security after all. we have to get away from a theoretical discussion. i threw around numbers. if you ask me why we have to be able to do to smaller missions at the same time, i would say typically because that is the

area we are doing. the expectation is that we will keep 10 or 15,000 u.s. troops there for a number of years. middle east peace is president obama possible. i do not know what kind of force may stop it. probably one or two brigades. the probability of war against iran is probably in the 30% range. hopefully not 50%. if we do wind up in that kind of a strike we should remember we do not always get to decide when wars and. you may get to decide when you start them. you usually do not get to decide when they are over. having to show up on the persian area is a pretty plausible

notion. when he thinks are the smaller missions we are likely to do two and maybe three at a time. i am not even talked about my preference which will be or an ultimate bosnia style solution in syria where the u.s. deployed them there as part of an ultimate peace deal and probably not within reach this year. if anything i've understated the requirements. 450,000 troops in the active- duty u.s. army i think is small. it is not throwing him teen piles of cash at an already bloated pentagon. >> mike talked about the army and it affect. what about the navy and the air force?

can you give us some sense what if these cuts take place will happen to the u.s. navy in the u.s. air force? >> sure. the consequences are pretty stark for both of these services. of course in the marine corps as well. it was framed to us as part of the pentagon presentation that this is one of our forces globally. they are out there ready to respond. that is leaving out the air force that has just evacuated personnel last night from u.s. citizens from yemen and other places. the marine corps does have that significant role. we taught navy cut i will include them as well.

it is pretty consequential. let me start with the air force. the air force is the second biggest loser under the budget debate and not strategic. it is clearly outlined for the budget. this is not strategic driven. we can say that upfront. i do do not think anyone disputes it anymore. the army is getting a lot of attention and rightly so. michael is so eloquent and talking about why that is a problem. the security of defense outlined that he is going to change the so-called golden ratio of the service budget shares, the historical amounts. the implication there was that the navy is the relative winner but no one is the winner because everyone is coming down. the army is the most significant and heavy but the air force is a close second. in this briefing it is on tactical fighting forces and on some lift forces. there is certainly more that was not mentioned as part of the

briefing that requires a significant chunk of our forces. these are old and it should be considered anyway. if you consider your air force, your swing force, global force, which i do this is disconcerting. these are the kinds of things you will give up. the air capabilities, the secretary talked about these groups. all of the associated shifts -- >> two or three cut down from where we are now? >> correct. technically it is an 11 carrier force with a waiver of one. >> we have come down to eight is the sequestration went through. >> that is the prediction. >> tell me in a practical way

how that may end up hurting the united states. >> these are global lily pads we can take anywhere that is water. we can use it to use whatever we need to do. primarily they are a deterrent force. they are a fourth multiplier. the navy does not have a choice. cannot recall who mentioned it. if you look at the u.s. navy budget and composition, 60 of the navy touches something that has to do with the aircraft carrier. that is what goes into it, the ships that say with it, etc. you can see the damage that would be done to our world wide forces. i reference the marine corps.

we would be giving up a lot. we saw this partly in iraq. the inability for us to negotiate in any sort of military service for the long term would have ambushed with a lot of intelligence. in the region we would have had naval support as well. we gave it up to iran as part of the deal. >> help us out a bit. would you like to add to what she is already given us? >> great points. they're looking to do things

differently. there's only so far this can possibly go. i will look at why the cuts that she alluded to would be too extreme. last spring a sequestration was about to hit. they decided not to send a second carrier to the gulf. a lot was made of that. for the sailors who were about to go, it is unfortunate they were asked to jen up and then stand down. i do not worry that much about what it did for the country. i do not think it was that

important to have two carriers to the gulf all the time. if we end up fighting iran a could be. i think we can be a little less skittish about putting combat aircraft on land in the middle east. historically we have not wanted to associate ourselves with the autocracies of the gulf cooperation council and the arabian peninsula. they have not always wanted to associate themselves. we did not like it when our airbases got attacked. we agreed after the invasion in particular just to scale back. we still have some airbases in the region. cuts are elsewhere.

we did not have a lot of combat aircraft. we could change that. we can get them to host 50 fighter debt each. the carriers need to be cycled in and out. you wind up needing five in the forest uses saying one. it is a great way to have combat airpower if you do not know where you're going to have to operate and you need flexibility. that is an example of where i would be able to see this in one ship. maybe even two. on the other hand, china is adding $10 billion a year to its military budget each and every year. i do not expect us to fight china. i do think we have to sustain a very robust presence. i would like to see us be able to ramp up our carrier presence

in the pacific. that has been a focus of secretary panetta and secretary hegel, the rebalancing to where the asia pacific. we are trying put 60% in the pacific. he used to be more like 50%. you not going to achieve the desired effect. i think the navy can shrink a little. even if you put these kind of ideas on the table and you are breaking a lot of china to do what i said, this is how you get to maybe $200 billion in additional 10 year savings. sequestration to me as just a bridge too far. >> i think i'm asking this as much for myself as everyone in the room. you are giving us a little bit of the flavor it is to figure these things out now. in a realistic way, the united states is hurting economically. you have to cut the budget.

you have to cut the pentagon budget. there are two questions that come to mind. one is what about the rest of the american budget, not just the military side? we seem to be a sort more with the military side of the budget and complaining about cut their family are about the rest of the budget. i appreciate military needs and all of that. is there somebody in your experience at the military side who was saying we are only part of this problem and we have to be aware of everything else in american society that is going to be affected by sequestration? do you even hear the in your discussions? >> i have heard it from the secretary and the last secretary

of defense a lot. even the predecessor talked about security efforts beyond dod. there is a great concern at a political level about this. to be fair, reason so much is on this and particular is there has been these efforts. they are putting in more dollars relative to its own size than it is the largest. it is only fair and my mind and certainly as unique and turned its constitutional mandate. it is not that unique but it is reasonable to have an emphasis on the defense department in particular. this is the fourth year of budget cuts.

almost all of these agencies are coming off a budget wave of good news. we have the stimulus bill and the first year of this administration. that was a plus of every agency defense. that is when the budget started going down. i will defend this for a moment. >> i am not seeking to criticize the pentagon. i'm trying to put it into a context involving the entire budget and all of the needs of the united states, not just the military needs. if you turn it around and say that we live in an extremely

turbulent world and maybe we would like, after afghanistan and iraq, to pull back. and do nationbuilding at home. are we capable of doing nationbuilding at home in a world that remains as turbulent as it is? >> i am going to cite the opportunity i had recently to write and op-ed with david petraeus. one was this week and one was earlier this year in the washington post. we have tried to argue that these deficit deals that have been proposed would be wonderful to have an many ways. they are not essential. what you need to do, given that america's economy has so much promise, what you need to do is tip the curve on how we are increasing the debt. if we lower our expectations a little we can wind up in a reasonable place for the next five or 10 years. long-term entitlement is a big challenge. our colleagues have written eloquently about this. in the short term, if you had a modest increase in either income

tax rates or a modest cap on deductions the way mitt romney was proposing last year and you had a couple percent change in the cost-of-living adjustment for social security for social security recipients that would accumulate over time, you could achieve half the cuts in the discretionary accounts that sequestration would impose. if you do that, you have prevented the debt from getting bigger relative to the size of the economy. then all the things we have going for us, our energy resolution, the advanced manufacturing, the gradual recovery of the real estate markets. all of these things can kick in. washington does not need to see itself as a location of this

great showdown of loaded government versus liberty and the tea party. we do not have to be quite that melodramatic about our role in washington. it is an important role. the private economy and american people will do a lot of the heavy lift and based on forces that are already out there if we can just get the darn debt to start growing relative to the size of the economy. you can actually live with deficits in the range of $300 billion a year or $400 billion a year. we sometimes make the problem seems so impossibly hard. it is not impossibly hard. with reforms well within these we can tip the deck curve to the point where relative to the size of the economy it is no longer growing, it may be shrinking a little, and let these other positive rings happening take over. >> i have no objection. let's turn to you all. if you have questions, please raise your hand. ask your question. please, no speeches. i see a number of people in uniform.

i will try to get to them as well. >> they added a second that deputy of stay. they have a small cabinet department. secretary hagel has spoken of an enforcer to help make sure the efficiency cuts and other things are done. would it make sense for the defense department to establish the second deputy to establish the resources? >> you have a smile on your face. do you have an answer? >> thank you. a couple of problems. yes and no. i am always loath to grow bureaucracy and add new positions without them taking away somewhere else or figuring out a way at the defense

department, specifically this appointment class. the department of defense has made recent changes to bring in a management officer. my colleagues and other things have faced off on that question. he makes an eloquent case that there have been times where we have had two deputies and works very well. i would argue if you are current, and there's no way to argue without sounding like a cruise is a of the man and job, but like a criticism of the man

in job, but if he can be executed from his office maybe we can expand this elsewhere. what we have seen before now in the last decade plus, and i'm talking about one of my colleagues. we have seen a lot of policy heavy and this is with people with backgrounds. i do not like that. that is what i do not like. i would prefer somebody who is coming in from the outside, someone who has been in the industry or run a business successfully or who has overseen management. they have had this model for the defense department in the past. this model has proven that it works.

i am not knocking the guys who are in a job. perhaps this was the right way to do it. where we are right now is we need a strong deputy. that is more important than the secretary of defense portion right now. >> the idea of this market being a bloated leas, all kind of dough is being spent unnecessarily. do you think that would actually help? >> i think i come down where mckenzie does. the position is supposed to do this. i think ash carter is doing a good part. >> my question is virtually

sequestration has become the law of the land. across the board there are multiple hires right now. in yemen americans have been asked to rate by air live. the usa is the world leader. it has the cutting edge technology. >> what do you think? >> without defining the foreign- policy, in the case of al qaeda, are we making more friends or enemies? what are we not doing? >> you are raising a very good question. to me it is a fundamental question. the military is there to

implement a policy. mike was alluding to this a moment ago. i think he was being too diplomatic. it is not just a matter of the people who put the budget together. it is the people who run the government and have to run the strategy. they have to perform really money. in many ways it has. now it is operating in a world with uncertainty. you have a conflict that is

obvious and not easily resolved. >> the power searcher is often this debate. defense policy is the child of a parent call foreign-policy. that is how it is opposed to work and it has not worked that way at all. we see this coalescing of the debates. what we're really talking about that are foreign-policy issues. we are now having a meaningful debate. it is being done so poorly and inefficiently. >> from the back. yes, please, right here. thank you very much. >> it is important to note that skimmer is not something the administration necessarily wanted to do.

it is a cumulative effect that is having a real impact. it is sequestration that is the problem now. if you look at structure levels below 450,000 for the army or a cut to the navy flow, it is not something the administration is interested in doing. when secretary hagel made his presentation the other day, he had this interesting strategic choice between capacity and capability. i would like you to talk about that a little bit.

capacity is about structure. capability is about modernization and at the edge. obviously, you're not going to choose one path or the other. given the strategy, could you look at capability and that choice and tell us? thank you very much for that question. the administration is not enthusiastic about these additional cuts. the place where i was having a slight difference with them was almost more tone. they suggested that cutting the army down to the low 400s would follow the logic of the defense strategic guidance from last year. with the issue modernization and capacity versus capability, there are so many different angles to take.

let me take our joint strike fighter. i am a fan of the joint strike fighter. it has had trouble. it is doing better. i am a fan. i am not sure we need 2500. it is sized largely to replace structure. not quite the more or less. i think it should be set more. there are certain places in the world. we flew them over a rock for a dozen of years army did not have any problems with aircraft getting shot down. there's always an extra margin of the. is it worth $100 billion to the country? what i have tried to lay out in

my own writing and why i reasonable room exist is scaling back the joint strike fighter to something that in my eyes would be roughly half the size. that would be toward high-end efficiency. possibly some strikes against iran or north korea. otherwise your air force structure to the extent you need to keep most of it with a greater combination of existing fourth-generation planes. or you refurbish the ones you got. you may be leaning to unmanned systems. if you do that you do not save cap the budget. you may save 20, 25%. you still wind up with far and away the best combat force that the world will see for the next-

generation. that is the way to strike a balance. when you start doing cuts you wind up with this kind of a choice. either zero or an army of less than 400,000. obviously, there are other ways you could do it, too. i do not think we should live with either of those choices. we have to look to rethink. i think we can cut a couple hundred million dollars in the plan than what was in last year's budget, what obama is proposing, but sequestration is too deep. >> i love the question because it is the question. what we should talk about and continue to focus on is strategic debate.

your question is now this is where we are and where do we go from here. two problems with the capability and capacity choice that the secretary outlined, and it is pretty stark. it ignored the fact that capacity is in part a function of capability. leaving that aside, it presents a binary choice for policymakers as if those were the only two. i have a problem with that. something not being debated enough is the department of defense's choice to maintain readiness at all costs, the portfolio part of the defense portfolio. let's put aside if that is good or bad.

let's talk about that that is an option. the joint chiefs said this is the most ready military in modern history. there is arguably a debate that could be had, capacity, capability, and readiness, so there are options that are not being discussed. the secretary -- it is a foregone conclusion that we will have to take from capability and capacity. the second point is it is an illusion of choice. it is going to actually be -- the numbers we are watching multiple times, sequester, the readiness hole, and efficiency is never realized. they are going to take from both and they already have been. the notion that modernization among the capability portfolio will be a disproportionate thing when it already has been in the last four years of defense budget cuts. these are already happening. these will just accelerate the choices. that is unfortunate.

>> i love your phrase about the illusion of choice, and i recommend that be the title of your book. on this side here, yes, please, right in the middle. >> arms control association. i think in washington it is easy to get a consistent that sequestration is a disaster, a terrible way to cut budgets, a terrible planning mechanism. if you could imagine yourself at a town hall meeting this month with a member of congress, i wonder how you would explain to the crowd there who is responsible for sequestration. why can't we just end this? what do you think an honest answer that question would be? >> thank you for that question. >> i am happy to start. i think that the genesis of the

idea -- we have all read our "washington post" accounts, and i hope it continues to do its excellent journalism. there and elsewhere, who first talks about the idea two years ago, jack lew or somebody else. i would not criticize anybody because at the time it was pointed out that at the time it seems better than doing nothing and now we have our doubts. yeah, it is now worse than nothing in terms of how it is affecting, not only defense, but other discretionary accounts, like you're allowed to cause. they are seed for the future -- science, education. i care about these ideas from a national security point of view just as much as i care about the defense budget. they are being hit by sequestration, entitlements, and

tax reform are getting a free ride. that is exactly the wrong way to go. i would say sequestration is worse than nothing. having said that, why have we not been able to move beyond it in the last year or so? that is the other part of the question, because the origins of that arm will shared origins. here if i had to allocate land, i would sort of say 65% to the tea party wing of the republican party, a 35% to the staunch defense of entitlements wing of the democratic party. the only reason why i give -- there's plenty of blame to go around. 35% of blame for democrats is not meant to be a pass or a soft critique. maybe i could be talked into 60%-40%. president obama's budget request this past spring was plausible, looking for compromise. and he is the top policymaker in his party. where i would criticize the president is he does not like to talk about it very much. he is not trying to rally a

spirit of shared sacrifice around the country the way some of my heroes, paul tsongas, warren rudman, and bob dole and bill clinton, some of the people from the 1980's and 1990's who were willing to talk about the reforms they did not like in order to try to create this spirit of national solidarity. there has not been anybody doing that very well, including the president, although his budget itself is better than what it was or better than the tea party budget it, in my judgment. the president has moved to a good intellectual place. his budget is a perfectly reasonable compromise between the different points of view. he has not done enough to sell it. and the tea party has treated any kind of tax reform as if it is likely to be the end of our economic growth, failing to

recognize that historically tax rates now are lower than they were under reagan and clinton, and failing to recognize that entitlement growth is something that we are all collectively responsible for. mitch daniels and others have said that. i give them credit. the tea party has talked about the growth in entitlements like it is a runaway train. over the next years, it is. in the short term, i do not think we need to break medicare and medicaid in order to make progress. we can scale back the rate of cost increase in social

security, for example. that is a more palatable near- term mechanism, what we continue to have the big debates about longer-term reform. i'm getting a little bit off my defense specialization, so let's say there is plenty of blame to go around. i will finish on that note. >> i wonder if i could pick that up. this idea of the advantage of compromise, the need for compromise, and i think mike is absolutely right in saying that the president has demonstrated in a number of ways a desire to reach out and a desire to compromise. the tea party has not done that. and that is a fact. and i think that we lose the spirit of the madness of washington politics right now if we forget that one side of the argument is not wishing to compromise and the other side appears to want to compromise, and you cannot get a deal in this city ever in more than 200 years unless the two major factors have come together and agreed to do some kind of compromise. my editorial is at an end. next question. yes, sir, right there. >> thank you very much. my question is talk about how the various cuts in the defense would affect perceptions of u.s. military power both in our

allies and other countries. thank you. >> just this morning i was reading deputy secretary carter's remarks to that effect, which sounds qualified, and he was reflecting reality. everybody is watching and taking notice. the times -- you get the sense in washington that everyone that the people making the decisions here in this town. what he is referring to is friends and foe are potential foe alike. our allies are worried that we have got a cut-and-run planned, that we are putting on a happy

face or lipstick on a pig. they see the numbers shrinking or our presence shrinking or the capability shrinking, but they hear everything will be fine, pivoting resources, all is well, and they intuitively are sensing things are different. and those who would seek to capitalize on a moment of perceived weakness, i guess you could say they are also watching, and i would argue calculating differently about the timing of accelerated nuclear progress in their programs or any other kind of challenge from terrors like assad. your question summarizes the answer to me, that, yes, everybody is watching. >> let me give you an example of what we have been trying to do, and we have referred to it as that rebalancing towards the asia-pacific. as you know very well, jeffrey, that rebalancing is a multifaceted strategy. it was well handled by people like hillary clinton in the

first obama term. the president himself deserves primary credit. it was relatively notable for its modest steps. there is not too much huge change in the rebalancing. that is a good thing because we want to remind the region and china that we are still an asia- pacific power without leaving confrontational or giving the impression of a containment strategy in the making. i agree with what it amounted to. if you actually cost out the changes, the changes, the reapportionment of defense resources towards the asia- pacific, i did a back-of-the- envelope, and it is a $10 billion or a $12 billion effect

in terms of the budget your spending elsewhere, spending in the asia pacific, roughly speaking. this is a way to think about this question you are making. we can try to protect that $10 billion increase to the asia- pacific, but it is hard to do so when it accounts for much of your global defense spending. the overall numbers are coming down, and you will try to claim that your efforts have been increased relative to what it was before. rebalancing to the extent that i support it, to the extent that i think many in washington of both parties have supported it as a carefully calibrated and appropriate way of reasserting our interest in the broader asia-pacific theater is now being directly challenged if not undercut by sequestration. in the short-term, there's no big deal. in the short-term, the pilots can take the summer off, we are mistreating our civilians, and i am frankly a little upset about

how we are treating our civilians with these furloughs, but from an asia-pacific point of view, , i'm not sure adversaries or neutrals scare that much. we are putting a few more weapons in lines waiting to get repaired down the road. we are not cutting the grass on bases. you can try to talk your way of the sequestration and say the effects are temporary or modest or will be repaired next year. if you sequester again in 2014, i do not know how you sustain the argument. >> national defense university. a little bit of my question, so i will push mackenzie on the illusion of choice. some of our colleagues at

another institution, less prestigious than the two represented here today, say there is a strategic choice, a real strategic choice about the temporal dimension and the risk we are currently facing. which is a pushback on marvin. war's frequency and cost is specifically perceived by some people as being much less today empirically. do we have less risk today that we should be smart about and invest in modernization for the future? is the industrial base fragile and weak and is it at risk and should we invest in modernization? at another question, what should be investing in because there is an idea that we know what we are investing in, what kind of wars we want to fight. mike wants more adaptability and the defense should provide

guidance. is that what should be doing, present tense, readiness, modernization in the future? >> illusion of choice. >> frank is so eloquent. going back to the war game where we conducted the shadows choices in management review, and you should be familiar in think tanks, i will speak to them because we have recited each other's pitch by now. there is some great points that came out of that, and one is that it is debatable. that is what i was saying, that the defense department is setting up a varied choice capability when there are many other options that could be considered. one is duly cut readiness. how much, across what components come across the services, how would you execute it, and what impact would it have on war plans? i think that needs to be open and up for discussion, because it depends on what you want to do.

if the focus is in the near term, mortgaging the future for the near term. you won't mortgage capability for readiness now, or do you want to take more risk? those are the kinds of choices that the secretary left out of the strategic choices and management review, but i think the point of an event like this is to raise that awareness. on the industrial base, i think there is no doubt, i think there is a perception problem that the industrial base is very relatively well on the large-cap side under the sequester, for a variety of reason. there are better planners at dod who saw this coming and prepared years ago. leaving that aside, the perception is that everything is fine and manageable. i worry about the medium suppliers and vendors. that is a concern here.

i will give, depending on the credit, there has been a great emphasis on the industrial base review, sector by sector. it has been underway for years now. i am not sure how much has been taken up for action, and not sure how much they can do. their intent is good, but the dollars are not going to be there to take care for the long term. you pick up the third one. >> i was going to come back to readiness, because i am glad you are raising it, but i also would like to put in a word in defense of the traditional notion of

keeping readiness high. have a lieutenant colonel who, if the marine corps needed him, you are looking as fit and trim as ever, and you could be a great war fighter. if you miss a rotation of reserve duty, it is a big deal. sometimes we get into this idea that a lot of our military is working so hard, give them a break, let them rest. the army was trying to do that for much of the last decade. they realized this focus of being readied all the time was less important than letting people just see their families and take care of their mental health. however, you would be quick to understand this better than i, frank, let's remember the recent recruit, the 20-year-old who has never properly trained up to the standards that we have come to think ever since tom cruise in "top gun" taught us in peacetime training that never had that standard. now they are being told you can't go shoot ammunition. we still have life ammunition for your rifle, that is good news, and you can read any books at your base that you want, but the exercises were you drive down the road to the neighboring base where there is an area for

a small maneuver, we do not necessarily have all the resources for that, and we do not have the resources to fly you to one of the national training centers to do the large unit maneuver warfare training that historically has been what has made the marine corps and the army so darned good. we do not have that kind of money right now, because you will cut $52 billion out of the physical 2014 budget. you will have to take a lot of it out of readiness. the debate which is important, and we would agree over the longer term you have to wrestle with that. in the short term you take it out of readiness and out of new contracts for industry. those are where you can go for money in the short term. now you have your 20-year-old recruit who is potentially up

for call for korea or somewhere else who has never in his or her life done a proper large unit maneuver training exercise. i think that -- it will not take us back to the hollow force of the post-vietnam era, but it is a little bit of a risky decision and potentially very unfair to that recruit. >> thank you, mike. thank you all. i want to conclude with sort of a small little war game. we are not a war game involving military strategy, and that involves the south china sea, a relationship with vietnam, a relationship with the philippines, with taiwan, and, of course, with china. now, as all of the military people are thinking through how many planes, how many tanks, this and that, there are things happening right now in the south china sea. some people regard what is happening as threatening. some things that are threatening on the near horizon, others push it way back, 15, 20 years.

the people who were in vietnam see it as an immediate danger. people in the philippines, same way. taiwan, same way. the chinese are doing things that you could argue all great powers do. and china is now a great power. it has to be regarded as such. how do we respond intelligently within the constraints that you both have articulated so well, i think, when you see a problem like the south china sea, does that mean you have to send more ships there, more planes they are, does it require a different kind of nonmilitary diplomacy? when the secretary of defense

goes to vietnam and says we are developing a commitment, you and i, that is a loaded word within the context of the u.s.- vietnamese relationship. when the u.s. begins to talk about commit to the defense of vietnam, against whom? obviously, china. vietnam and china have fought each other many times over a thousand years. what is the smart thing right now, taking this military review into account for the u.s. to do? and i will start with mike. >> the smart thing is directed nice that our strategy has been working. for all the ways that we have to stay vigilant toward the rise of china, and towards the real enemy, which is north korea, the overall approach we have had has been successful. we have been present, have strong alliances. china is growing to the point where it is not going to be an unrivaled kind of american superiority, but the last thing we want to do is accelerate the pace of transition. and this is not necessarily -- to china being equal to the united states in the asia- pacific militarily. there may be a day, although we have great allies and experience in our armed forces and that

will be a long ways off before they get to that point. i do not think we want to accelerate the perception of american relative decline. i'm not sure that "decline" is the right word to use, and i would prefer to avoid creating that impression. and therefore i do not want to see sequestration because it will undo the rebalancing. one more point that your question raises, and i will try to make this brief, but some people say if we cut the military, at least we will not have the temptation to go fight as much. if the japanese want to fight over the islands against the chinese, let them do it. we are better off staying out, and if we have a smaller military, we will be disinclined to get involved. i do not want to fight the chinese over the islands, but leave that aside, if you look at when we fight and when we do

not, i do not see a correlation between higher defense budgets and greater likelihood of intervening. the world wars began when we were unprepared. the korean war again when we were unprepared. the vietnam war was little more complex, and you know that case well, but if we fast-forward to the reagan years, in many years the reagan years are still -- people can correct me if they wish afterwards or whatever -- but the reagan years are still seen as the golden years of american defense policy, because we built up the budget and we did not really use the military. isn't that a wonderful outcome? it is not all ronald reagan's great judgment that led to that, that there was no correlation between increasing the budget and increasing the proclivity to intervene militarily. in the 1990's, for operations are supported, we cut the budget and increased the number of overseas activities, and george w. bush did not run for president -- if you go back to his campaign, he did not run promising a big defense buildup and he was not intending to make foreign policy the centerpiece of his policy, and he ended up making the most fraught decision about the war in iraq. i do not think cutting our military will be the best way to keep us out of trouble in the south china sea. i want steadiness and resolve and let's sustain the rebalance. that means we can make modest

cuts in defense. >> amen. i feel like i should applaud. i think that was very powerful on michael's part. i would not put all my eggs in one basket. i want peace through strength or a modern-day version of it because i want a military that deters. i want other things, too. i want strong allies, our partners' capacity to be robust enough to defend themselves if needed and take care of their neighborhoods, so to speak. i want all of our tools of soft power to be effective, partly through the reinforcement from our hard power.

i want a lot of things. i want economic strength, etc. but the pointy edge is to have this tremendously capable military that just gets into their mind a little bit, right? >> is their mind the potential adversary? >> friends and potential adversaries. >> friends as well? >> that is what we call shaping and influencing, but we see every day with our own kids. as a parent, you want to be the one shaping and influencing your kids, but then they go to school everyday and somebody else is telling them something. but you always wanted to be a calculus. and like i said, it is not just the defense part.

i want to be strong and being strong. i would second everything michael said and say where we and i know that i speak for erybody at brookings in saying ank you all for coming, and thank you all for being with us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, and encore of first ladies, abigail adams there it then, another look at townhall. then, later, he a for him on the impact of cuts on military preparedness area -- prepared

nests -- preparedness. a look at how the u.s. protects its and an interest. is cad suite, former chief of staff at the homeland security department. then, a service employee international union talks about lobbyists reform. later, washington journal's spotlight on magazines, featuring devin leonard's of bloomberg is a swig. he will discuss an article about the $4.5 billion at thection project homeland security headquarters. live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. secretary of state john kerry removed his senior adviser on initiative, to have

the senior departments first office etiquette to the outreach of the global faith community. join secretary kerry wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. her of anti-suburb person who think that everyone needs to live in new york city. i was very sensitive to be coming across as an espresso sipping elitist of some kind. that is not why i wrote this book there i understand why people like the suburbs. a lot with daily life in new york city a lot. the trends were just so undeniable and the fact there is a shift in the way suburban america is perceived, by the people who live there is too big a story to ignore. wesley gallagher on where the american dream is moving, sunday night at 9:00 on c-span2. "first ladies"f

begins monday, september 9. with a look at the life of edith roosevelt here at all this month, we are showing encore presentations of season one each weeknight at 9:00 eastern on on every first lady. tonight, abigail adams. ♪

> abigail would grow to be the equal of john adams as confidante and dearest friend. >>she has really revealed herself as, yes, an 18th-century woman, but her concerns sound very modern to us today. >> john and abigail adams have become so prominent in the minds of americans because of this collection of papers. >> the story of abigail adams and the revolutionary war is the story of sacrifice, of commitment to country. abigail rose to the occasion. >> abigail was adamantly opposed to slavery. >> she was quite a behind-the- scenes dynamo. she warned her husband, you cannot rule without including what women want and what women have to contribute. >> the backdrop to the occupancy of the white house is one of political defeat and personal tragedy. >> she is worried about heras>> she is worried about her husband and defends him against slander. she is concerned about her children, their upbringing, their education. >> she could hold her own with anybody in her own time and since. she was in every way her

husband's equal. >> born in 1744, abigail smith married john adams at age 19. over 54 years of marriage, they had five children together, including a future president. ahead of her time in many ways, and a writer unparalleled to any first lady, she penned this to her husband during the american revolution -- good evening, and welcome to c- span's "first ladies: influencea and image." for the next 90 minutes, we will be learning more about abigail adams, the second first lady of the united states. we have two guests at our table who have spent much of their professional careers learning about the adamses and bringing their writings to the public. let me introduce them to you. edith gelles is the author of numerous books, including "abigail adams: a writing life" and "abigail and john: portrait of a marriage." c. james taylor is the editor- in-chief of the "adams papers" at the massachussetts historical society. thanks to both of you and welcome. abigail adams, just by virtue of

the fact of being wife of the second president and the mother of another president, earned her place in history. you say in your book that she is an historical figure in her own right. how so? >> primarily because she left us letters, and we have a record of her life. her letters are not ordinary. they are extraordinary. they are wonderfully written and there are many of them. abigail was a letter writer at a time when women could not publish for publication. her letters became her outlet, and they are the best record we have of women's role in the american revolution and the period of the early national government of the united states. >> last week in the martha washington program, we learned with great sorrow martha washington burned all of her papers, her letters, her correspondence with her husband george. only two of them remained. we have just the opposite here. thousands and thousands of them. explain the scope of the trove of materials that you have to

work with as scholars through the writings of the adams family. >> the adams family gave to the massachusetts historical society a collection. we have never counted them individually, but probably 70,000+ documents over several generations, and probably about 300,000 pages. for abigail and john, which is the most important of the collection, there are about 1,170 letters they exchanged over the years. >> how frequently did they write to one another? >> it depended. when they were together -- for example, we do not have any letters after 1801 because after john leaves the white house, they're together almost all the time. for periods, for example, when there is fairly regular mail delivery between massachussetts and philadelphia, or later washington, d.c., they wrote at least once a week and sometimes twice a week. i almost like to think of it like phone calls. >> this program is an interactive one, which makes it more enjoyable for all of us, and we hope you take part. in about 15 minutes, we will be taking your telephone calls.

we will put the phone numbers on the screen so you can phone in a question. there are two other ways you can be involved. if you go to twitter and use the hashtag #firstladies, we will include some of your tweets. you can also go to c-span's facebook page, and we have posted a spot where you can send questions. i am going to start with a facebook comment. "she looks like a tough cookie." by looking at the words of abigail adams, was she a tough cookie? >> oh, my goodness, no. yes and no. one of the important things to

understand about abigail is that she started out as a naive young woman whose expectations were to have a normal life like her mother did. the revolution disrupted that, and her whole life shifted. this is one of the reasons why she has become such a great model for us women. she used the opportunity of this disruption in her life to grow as a person. she begins as a naive young woman, and she does become a very sophisticated, worldly, opinionated, kind woman. >> i think this is one of the things that makes her the most attractive. a good character in a novel develops over time. she is like a good character in a novel. she develops. >> what were her roots? where was she born? what was her upbringing such that she became a woman of letters? >> she was the daughter of a minister, reverend william smith. her mother was descended from --

if there was nobility in new england -- the clergy and the political world of new england., of the massachussetts bay colony. her mother's family were nortons and quincys. she grew up in a household that was quite middle-class for that time and had two sisters and one brother. she was, by all reports, sickly as a child, and therefore did not go to any kind of public schooling, of whic hthere a few, but was educated at home by her mother. she read at random in her father's library. >> when, in the course of reading her writing, did she become political? can you describe her politics? >> i am trying to think. very early on when john is at the continental congress, she craves news. she wants the newspapers. she wants pamphlets when they are published. one of the things -- we know she was consuming the news at that

time. all of the news is what was printed. she begins -- i would say by the middle 1770s -- she is on board. >> in what capacity? what was her political thinking? >> she was an ardent revolutionary, she was very supportive, not only of the revolution, of the fact that john was participating. as a matter of fact, they were partners in everything that he did. at some point, he writes to her thanking her for being a partner in the activites. later on, i think she is more perhaps conservative than john in some ways when it came to national politics. >> we will be looking at some of her letters throughout the program. a very famous one is -- and we used it in the open -- was her, "remember the ladies." that is a letter that is of particular interest to you. you write that the scope of it we always hear that section -- is really much broader. why is that letter significant in understanding abigail adams?

>> the letter does many things. my sense of abigail is she wrote at night, and she would enter a kind of reverie in which she followed her thought pattern wherever she went. she changes topics in her letters very many times. it starts out with a political statement about why the southerners can favor slavery and still be doing a rebellion against atyranny.

>> and she questions that. >> and she questions that. and then she moves on, and in the middle of a paragraph, makes this, "remember the ladies" statement. then it goes on further to suggest that if john did not

like this idea -- actually it was a remarkable thing because he was in a position to do something, to make a change, because he was on the committee that was drafting a declaration of independence. he actually could have made a move for women's rights at that time. it is remarkable that she did suggest that. >> can you give us a sense of what powers women had in society at that time? they could not publish under their own names. they certainly could not vote. how could women be influential? >> it is a much more subtle thing. in the same way -- many times, a decision is made today, and people think that the husband makes the decision. there is a kitchen table discussion that goes on before that. in the adams household, there were a lot of kitchen table

discussions between john and abigail. abigail may not have been the most obvious in making the decisions, but i think she influenced john a lot. we know much later after the revolution when he has his political careerthat she is very influential in helping him \formulate his ideas. >> we want to tell you a little bit about what the country looked like in 1800, as john adams was leaving office. we have some statistics we will put on screen to give you some of the scope. by that point, the census in 1800, interestingly, was done by

john marshall who went on to the supreme court, and ultimately done by secretary of state james madison. all such familiar names from history -- the job of census chief at that time. the population was 5.3 million across 16 states. they were 998,000 blacks, about 19% of the population, only 12% of them free. that 5.3 million was a 35% growth in the country in 10 years since the 1790 census. one interesting thing though, the average life expectancy if you were born in 1800 was just 39 years. the largest cities were in the country new york, philadelphia, baltimore, unchanged from 10 years ago. what are some of the things we should take away from those statistics, that snapshot of america?

>> one of the things is there is an expansion going on. this is one of the things that is very difficult for the adamses because politics are changing, and the changing politics means they are new englanders. they are federalists. as time goes by, as the population moved south and westward, it makes it more difficult for politics that they believe in. >> we are going to invite your telephone calls. we will be going to calls in just a few minutes. i am told you want to read us a passage from one of the letters. >> i would like to remark on the 39-year life span. that is not exactly accurate to the extent that children died much more rapidly. if a child survived to 12, probably the life span was much longer. many, many people lived into their 70's, as the adamses did. >> the five children -- how many of them survived to adulthood? >> four. >> four? you are getting a passage ready for us. you wanted to read us from the letter we talked about earlier, "remember the ladies"? >> right. in this particular letter, abigail was ruminating about conditions in her life and what

was going on in her world. she says, "i would long to hear that you have declared an independancy." she knew john was on this committe. "by the way, in the new code of laws, which i suppose it will be necessary for you to make, i desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors." which is a bold and remarkable statement for a woman to have made in that era. >> based on the relationship we have seen detailed in the letters, would it have been a surprising thing for her to say to john adams? >> no, i don't think so at all. as we go back to the kitchen table, i am sure that before he rode off to philadelphia, she filled his ear with a lot of ideas along the way. john in his response notesthat there are several groups of people -- servants, slaves, etcetera -- who are also moved during this time to think about their rights and their independence. >> what was her viewpoint on slavery? >> she was opposed to slavery. she had a servant, a black servant, who had in fact been a slave of her fathers. i think the woman -- what was the story? >> phoebe. >> phoebe abdee. did she have the right to be free after -- i cannot remember. >> abigail cared for her for the rest of her life after her parents died. in fact, she lived in the adams house. >> when they were in europe. >> the adams business was a farm. how did they manage to work the

farm? what kind of labor did they use to support family labor? >> tenant farming mostly. they did have hired labor. it became very problematic for abigail during the war, the situation of having labor on the land. i want to go back to the letter just a little bit. you mentioned john's response to her, and what she does in this letter in addition to saying, "why is it that southerners can support our revolution when they keep people in slavery?" -- then she goes on and says, "remember the ladies" -- and then she says, "if you do not pay attention to this, we ladies are going to foment our own rebellion." and then it goes on further to say that you should treat us the same way that god treats people. she invokes the puritan hierarchy.

in this one letter, she brings out so many ideas. i would suggest that her threat to foment a revolution is indicative of one of the ways the adamses related to each other. they teased eachother. his response to her was a tease also. "well, it sounds to me as if every group, any tribe is going to make a revolution." jokes are a way that people have of deescalating an argument. it brings it down to normal. they really -- one of the ways in which they related, it seems to me. >> these two prolific letter writers, how did they meet each other? >> they met at her father's

house. he went as a dinner guest with a lifelong friend, a guy named richard cranch who then married the elder sister of abigail's. abigail was not yet 15 at that time, and john, at least in his diary, was not particularly enthusiastic about her at first. apparently, things changed over the years. he was 9 years older than her, so he was 23-24 years old. >> he also had a girlfriend at the time. >> there's an amazing story that he was about to propose to this woman, and one of his friends burst in and broke the mood,, and she went off and married somebody else. it came within a whisker of him proposing to somebody.

>> he was a lawyer. would that have been a profession that her family would have appreciated her falling for? >> the family lore suggests that it was not. when charles francis adams wrote about it, he suggested that her family disapproved of her marrying a lawyer. she was also very young when she met him. i think they were being protective of her, as well. >> was john political at that point? did she know she was going to be choosing a life of politics? >> no one knew about the revolution. that is one thing we need to keep in mind, that all of this is happening at a period of time when there is no revolution. there is no revolution on the horizon. they think of themselves as british people. sure, he was interested in politics the way young men were, and he was running for office by this time, wasn't he? >> a very, very local -- his trajectory was to be a great lawyer in massachusetts. that's what he saw he was following that line and probably would have been >> it is important to note because these two were married for 54 years, and as we're hearing from our guests, were great partners. even if it was in the beginning not a love match, it grew to become one. we have as an example this one letter. this is called the "miss adorable" letter, and we are going to show that to you next. >> what is so appealing about the family series is the intimacy that the letters reveal. the earliest extent letter we

have dates to october 1762. we call it the "miss adorable" letter because that is how john adams opens the letter. it was john writing to abigail. he says, "miss adorable, by same token that the bearer hereof sat up with you last night, i hereby order you to give him as many kisses and as many hours of your company after 9:00 as he shall please to demand and charge them to my account." he continues, "i presume i have good right to draw upon you for the kisses as i have given two or three millions at least. when one has been received, and

as consequence, the account between us is immensely in favor of yours." a very teasing, affectionate tone. there are just some wonderful moments in the courtship correspondence. >> it's fun during this series to bring these founding fathers, people that we see in these very two-dimensional poses, come to life and have real human personalities. these people were clearly having fun and enjoyed one another. >> this is one of the most appealing things about john and abigail, and some of the other adamses, but particularly john and abigail. they have a life that you can follow because of the documents. you see them in good times and in bad. you see death in the family, you see triumph. i was going to say, it's like "downton abbey," but it's not exactly, but it's a wonderful story. the reason is because we have so

many documents. there is texture there that you do not have with the other founders. >> based on how you've described her admonitions to john about remembering the ladies, brenda elliott on twitter wants to know >> one of the things that we know by reading abigail's letters is that women were aware of their subordinate role in the 18th century. because we have abigail's letters where she writes about this, we know that she was not exemplary. other women in her period of time time, her good friend mercy otis warren, for instance, was totally agreeing with her and totally a colleague.

i think that one of the things we have learned in the women's movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is that we can trace the movement for women's rights back further and further in history. abigail happens to be an outstanding example because she left us letters that say these things. she was also very eloquent. not everyone could write like abigail. abigail was a wonderful writer. >> our first telephone call on abigail adams comes from jan, watching us in new york city. >> hi, good evening. while abigail certainly was one of the first great american female writers, shouldn't it also be acknowledged that she was a poor mother, despite john quincy, since another son committed suicide and another son drank himself to death?

>> thank you what she a good mother? >> yes, she was a very good mother. we live in a post-freudian world in which when something goes wrong inside of a family, the mother gets the blame. first of all, these children were living through a revolution. second of all, their father was not at home for 25 years. she was doing it all by herself. she was coping in a situation which was extraordinary. i think that applying 21st century standards to mothering and even the psychology that has developed in the early 20th century does not fly for the 18th century. >> mary is up next in santa rosa, california. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. i am interested in finding out what the relationship between abigail and thomas jefferson was. did abigail and thomas jefferson correspond during john and thomas' year of not really

speaking to each other? i've also heard that abigail had an intimate relationship with him as far as correspondence went. i am wondering how true that is. >> they were very good friends at one time. the highest point of the relationship was when abigail was for a while in france and then in england, and thomas jefferson was a diplomat abroad at that time. they were very close, very close. as a matter of fact, for a while, while jefferson was in paris and she was in london, they bought goods for one

another and kept little accounts for one another. at one point, one of -- jefferson's younger daughter came from virginia to france but stopped in london on the way, and abigail took care of her during that time. during the national period, particularly after the election of 1800, the relationship really fell apart. it was over politics. during that time, abigail was very disappointed with jefferson. >> next up is matt in osh kosh, wisconsin. >> thanks for taking my call. i was wondering what some of the intellectual and stylisitc influences on abigail's writing were, other writers she might have read and how they might

have influenced her. >> thank you. did she have influences on her writing? >> of course, she was a great reader. this is the beginning point of beginning to write well, to read good literature. she read the bible, she read pope. i am going to let jim also talk to this. >> when we do the research on her letters, one of the things if she is quoting somebody or citing somebody, we always want to identify who it is. sometimes, she is not using quotation marks. educated people in the 18th century knew a lot of things automatically. i would say the things she quoted most often or things that she referenced most were shakespeare, the bible, alexander pope, and the classics. >> this next call is from their hometown quincy, massachusetts. this is kumu, you're on. >> hello. congratulations on having this wonderful series on the first ladies. i live in quincy, massachusetts, and we are very lucky see and experience and breathe the adamses life up close every day. my comment was going to be about abigail's sentiment about remembering the ladies. i think she pretty much -- not paved the way -- but she shined light on the fact that women can shape and change destinies, not just of one's life, but of nations and the world if they

set their mind to it. it is very important because women are the primary factor in bringing up the children. she did it just at the brink of the united states as we know it today because the adamses were instrumental in the constitution and the forming of this nation. in fact, quincy is actually called the birthplace of the american dream. she may not be formally recognized as a primary role in women's rights, but she definitely had a very important role in shaping women's place in this country and in history. >> thank you. more of a comment and observation than a question. that caller was from quincy. we will taking you next to the quincy home of the adamses as we prepare to tell you the story of the revolutionary times in which the adamses lived. >> the story of abigail adams and the revolutionary war is a story of sacrifice, of commitment to country. abigail rose to the occassion. for the first 10 years, they

lived in this home, from 1764- 1774. it is where they raise their four children. this is the birthplace of their second child, john quincy adams, who went on to become president of the united states. the primary link between she and john adams would be letter writing. it was from this house that he was provided a window into what was happening back here in the colony of massachusetts. she would report to john about the militia in boston. during the battle of bunker hill, she took her son and she would watch the battle of bunker hill with her son and report about the fires and smoke. she was the eyes of the revolution to john adams and the second continental congress in philadelphia. we are in the hub of the household. this room in particular could be considered the classroom for abigail the schoolmistress and

hurt corporate children. one must remember the schools were closed down. the children cannot benefit from a formal education. it was up to abigail to teach them the lessons. not only arithmetic and french, but also morality, literature, and what was going on in the revolutionary war. she was their primary educator here in this home. this is the room where many of those lessons would have taken place. she reported to john adams at one point, she began to take up the works of ancient history, and she was having john quincy read her at least two pages a day. i do not know if anybody has read that history, but for a seven-year-old, he had a very good instructor in abigail

adams. during the occupation of boston, there were many refugees leaving boston and into the country. they needed a place to live. abigail adams wanted to open the home next door, john adams's birthplace, for the refugees. she rented a house out to a farmer and his son. but would provide assistance to abigail on the farm. she reported to john that she met with some ill treatment. she asked mr. hayden and to share his house with refugees, but he refused. by the time she received a response, like many things, she had solved the problem yourself. she paid mr. hayden to leave the press -- the premises, providing her the opportunity to house refugees. there are troops marching in her yard, practicing their maneuvers and preparation for war. she reports to john that john quincy is out behind the house, marching proudly behind the militia. at one point there were militia's living in the upstairs attic and the second floor. she welcomed these men to her

home and support to the revolutionary war with her actions. >> the adams's lights put them in the defense in the founding of our country. we have a timeline of key events in the adams life. 1744, she was born and married john adams 20 years later. soon after that, the stamp act. then in 1770, the boston massacre. i wanted to ask our guest about how endangered the addams family were living in the midst of this preparation for war. having been sympathizer's against the british government.

>> for the first decade of their marriage, abigail and john lived together. it was during this decade that event escalated towards war. there is a simultaneous parallel current -- occuring a personal level and global, a political level. during this period of time, there was no danger. there was danger once, once there was fighting in the massachusetts bay area, yes, there was danger. more than that, they did not know that there would be dangerous. they never knew where the next troop deployment was going to happen. she was ready at any minute to move away from the house, to move inland, to take her children to safety. >> how much time was she alone while john adams was off working on the foundation of the government?

>> my goodness, from 1774-1784, they were apart most of the time. he came home a couple of times for a couple of months. during that time, she worked alone on the farm by herself or raising the children. >> she was writing these letters explaining the situation -- a concern was he about his family?

>> he was very concerned. there is one heart wrenching moment in which she is pregnant and she is writing right up until the time that she begins labor, and because of the time and distance -- which is so hard for us to understand now, with our instant communication -- he is writing hoping that she will have a daughter and that everything will be fine. in the meantime, the infant is born dead. she had a premonition that this was going to happen. while he is writing happily, joyfully, she has buried this child. he knows that she is capable of doing almost anything that a

woman or man could do during that time, but there is a certain helplessness on his part. he is so consumed by what he is doing their, but then reflex -- he will send letters, kiss tommy and johnny. a lot of it is very emotional. >> when war broke out, i read that she was so supportive that she would do things like how the effort by melting down a cuter housewares said they could be made into bullets. was that common? >> sure, people were doing that altogether. i'm going to pass on that. >> let's keep it up -- a couple more calls as we learn more about the revolutionary years of the adams family. next is a call from denise in michigan. >> hello. i would like to know if the series from hbo was reflected in

any way of how things really work, in the sense of family. i know they did not go too deep into that. i would also like to know, when you talk about five kids, was that the baby who died? was it correct about the sun drinking? -- the son drinking? >> first, the hbo mini series. >> it was good history. it was drawn up also, so you have to understand in order to make it appealing, a little license was taken. generally, it was pretty good history. >> there was this tweet -- the caller asked about the five children and didn't include the child who died? >> the child who died was the third child, born before charles. there was abigail jr., then john quincy, then a third child named susana who lived only one year, and there is very little reference to this child in their correspondence. we know very little about it.

abigail was pregnant at the time of the death of susana. her third child charles was born. at the end of life, when her daughter in log lost a child and the daughter-in-law was in st. petersburg, abigail wrote to her, and for the first time i have seen, she made reference to having lost a baby daughter. it was a closed topic. >> the caller also wanted to know about the son who was an alcoholic and died. >> charles -- people did not know about alcoholism in those days. it was considered simple.-- sinful. it was not considered a disease. charles is throughout the correspondent's treated as a person -- correspondence treated as a person who was sensitive. he went to europe with his father in 1779, and he had to come back because he was home sick. he was a sweet child, a pleasant

child. but also fragile, and he may have got into trouble when he was in hartford. >> you know from the letters between abigail and her sisters and that they kept an eye on him, that there was a problem. it is never fully discussed. one of the things that was difficult for abigail was that her brother was an all collect. -- an alcoholic. >> on twitter -- if she had been born at a different age, would she have been like eleanor roosevelt? >> that is hard to do. she certainly would, she had all

the attributes of a very dynamic woman who was opinionated and would have had her own goals to pursue. she would have been very influential. she was very influential in the presidency. >> a lot of historians -- there have been a four surveys of historians over the past decades abigail adams always comes in the number two or number three position as most influential. why? >> who would be number one? >> eleanor roosevelt, i think. why does she end up in the number two spot? >> there is a distant in time. people have other images. people that knew -- people are

still alive and that no eleanor roosevelt. she is modern. if you did a survey now, jacqueline kennedy would probably rate much higher because people know and like her at that time. the only thing we have from abigail are the letters. >> and she is still in the number two spot. not bad. she seemed to route this to hundred years being the second most influential first ladies based on the letters you have been spending your career on. >> also, if you see her influence on her husband, i do not know there have been many first ladies that have had that kind of influence. >> a specific example of an important policy that you see she worked on him? >> i do not know of a particular policy. it is that he consults her all the time. her letters at a certain point are divided into two things, this is what is happening with the children, this is what is happening on the farm, here are my thoughts about politics. she shared all the time. by the time he got to be president, and he was not popular with his party, she was his major adviser.

>> here is another in a video piece of a letter, add if to john, focus on virginia. [video clip] >> everybody knows this letter and associates it with abigail adams. what is lessening -- lesser- known and what is fascinating is that the remember the ladies comment comes quite far down in the letter. the first section of her letter to john is questioning and voicing her concerns about virginia's role in the revolutionary war. she writes, what sort of defense virginia can make against our common enemy, whether it is so situated as to make an able defense, are not the gentry lords and the common people of vassals? are they not like the uncivilized natives? she continues, and one of her probably most pointed comments on slavery -- i am sometimes ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breast of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures

of their spirit of this i am certain, that it is not founded upon that generous and christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. >> how influential was this opinion about enslaved people on john adams's thinking? >> he had to be more practical. he is in congress. he is dealing with these people. he cannot alienate them. he had to help pull this together. it is easy to be a critic when you're not there. throughout the first 60 years of the country, people had to tread softly in order to keep the union together.

>> we are going to fast forward. the country is formed. the washingtons are elected president and serving in new york, than philadelphia. john adams is vice-president. how does he and abigail decide their household? did she move to new york, or philadelphia? >> john was vice-president for eight years. she moved to new york for one year, the first year, because the capital was new york for the first-year. she loved it. she had a beautiful house on the hudson river overlooking the city of manhattan and overlooking new jersey's sore. she loved it -- shore. she loved it. then she moved to philadelphia and she spent the entire year ill.

her health was always precarious. she decided after that year in philadelphia, they decided together that she would stay at home. there was no precedent for the first lady and the second lady to be living with the men. it was by choice that martha did it. abigail had the liberty to choose to go home. she did for the next six years. >> we learned last week that the city of philadelphia was decimated at the start of the second washington term with yellow fever. 12% of the population died. did she have an illness related to that? >> it is hard to put a name on it, but no. she did have rheumatism. beyond that, the symptoms she describes are very hard to

diagnose. >> there was no role model for being the second lady at the time. on twitter -- >> i am not sure about that. >> was she a national figure? >> no, not at all. she was known because she had been -- of the problems they had is that people thought they were monarchical, they had been tainted by their time in europe. i think this is one other interesting things about abbot rell -- abigail, she grew up minister's daughter, and then she sat beside -- is at

versailles, so she is a much more sophisticated person. abigail was international. >> what is the relationship between martha washington and abigail adams? >> it was wonderful. abigail loved martha. she met her once -- when she was the mother of the vice- president. whenever they had a social event, there were very close. whenever she wrote about martha, which was not much, but when she did write about martha, it was in the most glowing terms. >> one of the things she did was just after she knew that john was going to be elected, she rode to martha washington, asking her about how to be the first lady, how she would carry the role. >> martha wrote back and said, you know inside yourself how to behave. >> we know that is a tradition that continues today for new

incoming first ladies, reach out to the people that served before, to understand the enormity of the task. here is a call. >> good evening. thank you for the program. i read one of your guests books and some earlier works on john adams. i still think the most comprehensive biography, technically of john adams, but really of them both, was one done more than half a century ago, two volumes by page smith paige smith. i think that stands out. >> nobody writes about john adams without consulting paige smith. he is a foundation for writing about it. what is remarkable to me was

that the adams papers had just been opened to the public at a time when he started writing his book, and yet, they were so thoroughly researched. >> it was the first thing i read in graduate school. it was my introduction. >> the caller was nice to mention your books. i want to show some of them. we're hoping people be intrigued enough to read more. "abigail adams: a writing life." "my dearest friend: the letters of abigail and john adams." can you dive right in and get a sense of the person? >> yes, you might need a little bit of historical context, the letters are personal.

in some ways, they are timeless. the talk about problems that people have today, concerns that people have today. but the political context, but the intimacy. but your book is excellent because of the footnotes and you take people into it. abigail's letters had been in print and she has been read since 1840 when her grandson's first published an edition of her letters. she was a best seller through the 19th century, people knew her. she has always been famous. >> i am not able to find a tweet as quickly as i need to. somebody asked a question, did the adams to think about their letters being published? >> as early as 1776, don is telling her to keep the letters. at a certain point, there is a consciousness in some, particularly his letters.

they know at a certain point, and i'm not sure when the cross the threshold, that they are important. that is one of the reasons the family saves the letters. early on, it is the motion with the mists of four letter. later on, their letters extend from 1762 -- the miss adorable letter. later on, their letters extend from 1762 onward. >> this is a tweet --

>> i do not know that is true. >> what we said is that abigail and martha's friendship helpd facilitate the relationship between washington and adams, when they were trying to understand what a president and vice-president might do. is there any evidence of that? >> i think john and george washington got along pretty well all the time. john adams was extraordinarily supportive of washington and was personally injured when some of the press turned on washington, could not believe it. martha and george were a hard act to follow. they knew they would be difficult. >> we will move into the years of their one-term presidency. before that video, there's a time in one of your books, you call it a splendid missouri being in the white house. explain what that phrase meant. >> it was blended in that they

were at the pinnacle of his political career and her career. they had risen to the top. it was nothing but trouble, agonizing trouble from the very beginning. at very first, john was very enthusiastic about becoming president. abigail said, i'm going to stay here in quincy. she said, i will not be there until october. he said, that's fine, you do not come until october. once he was in the presidency, he discovered it was the loneliest place in the world. he started writing letters, drop everything that you're doing, come here, i need you immediately. she did. >> one of the interesting things, one of the reasons she was hesitant was she said, i like to be outspoken. she knew that in that context, she cannot. when she was in quincy, she could. >> when she was in quincy, there was a house they built another called peace field.

>> in 1787, abigail realized they outgrew their cottage. she began to negotiate through her cousin to purchase a house we're standing in front of right now. john adams enjoyed a lot of peace and tranquility at this time, as did abigail. he called it peacefield. there were two rooms on the first floor, to go on the second, and smaller bedrooms on the third floor. there were about seven and half rooms to this home -- to this home. this was their home base. before becoming first lady, abigail would spend nine years in this house. the first year, she was setting up the house after returning from europe. she had remembered this house as one of the grand houses in quincy. her perception of grant had changed after living in europe. she began making plans to enlarge the house. she wanted to improve on the

size and height of the ceilings and the space. she would write to her daughter, warning her not to wear any of her large the other hats because the ceilings were too low. she began working with an architect to enlarge the home. they added a long haul and along entertainment room where she would receive her guests. with sensitivity to the architecture on the outside and the flow of the home, she had the builder did down so they could lower the floors and get the high ceilings that she desired without disrupting the architecture. you step down two steps and you're in a whole different world. a typical day for abigail would be to rise at 5:00 in the morning. she had many chores to do much for time was spent in the farm, taking care of the orchard, taking care of the house. she also liked the early morning hours to spend by herself, preparing herself for the day. most of portly, having a chance to indulge in one of her novels. although this was a presidential

home, it is the home of a family. abigail, instead of having servants do all the work, even as a first lady, she would also be contributing to the kitchen and running of the household. this is something she continued throughout her life no matter her position was. she was very involved. she had children and grandchildren visiting. it was an active and lively household. she spent a great deal of time writing. again, their misfortune was our fortune. in one letter when he is asking her to come to philadelphia, abigail would write of the room that she was in and the view that she saw. the beauty that unfolds outside the window thames' me to forget the past. this is an indication that while abigail was back here, she was on a new beginning as the first lady of the united states, as the wife of the president, and still a mother.

she would describe life. so romantically that john adams would reply in one of his letters, oh my sweet little farm, what i would do to enjoy thee without interruption. >> of the four years of his presidency, how much time did she spend their vs. the capitol? >> she had to stay there for an extended time. john actually followed her and stayed there, too long according to his cabinet. she tried to stay there for as much time as she could. again, her health caused her to be at home. she was quite ill. she was possibly close to death during that time. >> how did he serve as chief