>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, the fourth of july with david mccullough. we look back at kfrgszs about america and it beginning. there but for george washington there is no america. >> that's my feeling. i think he's the greatest president we ever had. i think he's the greatest american ever all because if it weren't for him, you just said, there would be, in my view, no united states of america. and he did it all right. particularly when he became president. he said the example, just as he was setting an example as the generals, the commander-in-chief in the very dark days of the revolution. >> rose: david mccullough for the hour. next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> the glorious ideas and ideals of the declaration of independence which we celebrate

as we should every fourth of july and as we know our secular faith would have been nothing more than a declaration, words on paper, if it hadn't been for the people ought doing the hard slogging, the fighting, against all odds, suffering terribly. one of the reasons i wanted to write the book was a line that abigail adams wrote to her husband about this time. she said "future generations who will reap the blessings will scarcely know the hardships and sufferings we've endured in their behalf." and we don't. we don't sufficiently know. >> rose: i knew she wrote that, and when i read that, it reminded me that these people knew they were making history. >> absolutely. absolutely. they knew that they were -- were being called upon to play a part in one of the great historical dramas of all time. and that they would be judged by how they played their parts,

each, individually. henry nars, one of the most admirable people. >> rose: an aide to george washington. >> commander of artillery. former boston book seller who knew nothing more about the military than what he read in books. 25 years old. he writes the very day the text of the declaration of independence arrives from philadelphia he writes "as we play our parts history will judge us ill or favorably. the future will judge us ill or favorably." so they know that they are part of history. i think that's extremely important to understand. great that you point it out because that gave them a kind of sense of responsibility they didn't have much cause to have hope when you consider the odds against them.

no real army, no navy. no money. no gun powder. washington never commanded an army in his life. >> rose: speaking of knowing his role in history. george washington, who we get to know here, was carried forward because he understood what he had to do even though he didn't have the a great strategy, even though as you say he was not a great general by any other definition except that he was a great leader. >> that's the key to washington. he isn't an intellectual like john adams or jefferson. he isn't a great orator like patrick henry. he isn't a brilliant napoleonic sort of figure. he's a leader. people will follow him and he has integrity and he won't give up. he never forgets what it's

about. what war is for. and again and again you have people saying that they're not going to quit because i will not leave this good man. you have to remember at one point it was down to 3,000 troops. that's all he had left. hundreds, thousands had either quit gone home when their enlistments expired, handed over to the enemy. >> rose: because they were given pardons! >> absolutely. and people in new jersey, when washington and the army were retreating across new jersey when general lord howe, the british commanders, offered for anybody who would sign the loyalty oath people in new jersey came by the thousands to sign as quickly as they could. if there had been polls taken, daily polls taken and run in the newspapers it would have just disintegrated immediately because people would realize

it's over. >> rose: you thought of this story midway through the john adams book. >> yes, i did. >> rose: what caused you to think about it? the letter from abigail? >> no, it was when i was writing the chapter dealing with the summer after the declaration of independence was signed and the whole war effort is starting to fall apart and then came the battle of brooklyn and the escape from brooklyn. the miraculous night escape by washington. and when you write in biography, you can't stray from your subject very much. elizabeth longford who wrote a great biography of queen victoria was a -- "you can't leave your subject for more than five pages." and she's right. you can't. and i wanted very much to write about in some detail about the battle of brooklyn and about the escape from brooklyn well, you

can't do it here but you can do it in the next book. so i began with -- which surprises some people. i began with george iii going before parliament. >> rose: that's how the book begins. >> yes, in october of 1775 to declare that the american colonys are in rebellion. that their leaders -- these rabble-rousers -- >> he calls them the unhappy americans? >> they're traitors. the tells them so that he, the king, and the british power, british army and british empire are going to bring these people to heel. they're going to crush the rebellion. and it's when that speech reaches boston on the first day of the new year because of the great delay in crossing the ocean, the first day of 1776 that the people in the army under washington, people everywhere realize this isn't going to be a short unpleasant business which will wind up in

reconciliation. and we better be fighting for independence. now, they don't dare say it right away. although some of them are writing it, like nathaniel greene is writing it in his letter. >> rose: another aide to george washington. >> yes, nathaniel greene who, like young knox, knew no more of the military when he joined up. and when he was made a jeb at the age of 33 knew no more of the military than what he'd read in books. but we have to remember that was an age that felt if you wanted to learn how to do something or know something a good way to do it was a close study of books which is the whole idea of the enlightenment. washington, green and knox all had about the equivalent of what we would say a fifth-grade education of formal schooling. >> rose: everything i know about this is because of your book. these two guys are new englanders and george washington is a very, very patrician virginiaen. >> rose: and he ardenly dislikes

new englanders. he looks down on them. think that's they're dirty and unruly. they have this unfortunate idea that they like to decide things for themselves which, of course, you can't have in an army. but he overcomes that bias, which is really a big inner struggle. has to because that's all he's got is the new england army. he has some people from the middle colonies that joined him. >> rose: now, he takes command at age 43 in '75. >> never commanded an army in battle before in his life. never. and he today congress "i'm not qualified for this job. i'm not the man." but he also knew that he was better than anybody else they could pick. and they choose him not because he's a great general. they know he's fought in the french and india war and had a distinguished record. they pick him because they know him as a person and they pick him because they know him as a

politician. he is a political general and that sometimes is used in a dismissive or a less than complimentary way. we should thank god he was a political general because he never forgets who's boss. congress is boss. >> rose: so we've got washington at 43. he goes to the constitutional convention, though, in a uniform even though he's saying i'm not the man -- >> yes. he's saying he's available. >> rose: there's a contradiction there. >> well, yes, and no. i think he's being perfectly honest in both. he will serve if called upon to serve. he is ready to serve. he has his uniform. he's reminding them that he is a military man at heart. but he's very genuine. look, i'm not the ideal fellow for this job. and he makes a -- some very bad mistakes in judgment. he was outfoxed, outplagued, outnumbered to be sure.

made to look pretty inept at the battle of brooklyn. he was so indecisive at the time of the siege of fort washington that he really cost that bastion that they thought was impregnable along with several thousand of his troops and hoards of supplies and the rest. these were terrible defeats, charlie. these were very, very serious. yet he did not quit. he did not succumb to his own sense of defeat and failure and the people who followed him with only a few exceptions were determined to stay with him. as was congress. >> rose: it is said about him that he had this special quality and that you couldn't quite put your finger on it but you knew from the people who saw him up close that he had it. almost like an x factor. >> yes. he the was a commanding figure.

>> rose: calm? >> oh, yes. 6'2, probably weighed 190 pounds in perfect physical condition. the prime of his life. he was a young man. only 43. but they're all young men. greene, 33; knox, 25; adams was 40, jefferson was 33 when he wrote the declaration of independence we feel forget this. >> rose: yeah, we do. franklin was the only one who had age. >> and he was of a different generation. he was old enough to have been their father. but we see them as the white haired founding fathers, patriarchs, elder statesmen, but at this point they're not. it's a young american's cause and they were not in the majority, ever. the people who were for the revolution. they're never in the majority. they were maybe a third -- adams -- know one knows what the proportions were.

there were no polls or surveys taken but at least as many people were against the war as were for it. >> rose: and they knew what would probably happen to them, the leaders, if they lost. off with their heads. >> yes. >> rose: they would be all hung. >> yi. >> rose: at the crack of dawn. >> yes. >> rose: let me talk about the war for a second. '75 they go to boston. they win some early victories, don't they, in '76? >> no. >> rose: no victories? nothing? >> well, in the sense -- >> rose: didn't they surround them in boston? >> they drove the british out of boston. made it impossible for the british to remain in boston. but this incredible feat of ingenuity and doing the impossible, hauling the canon from -- >> rose: did that give them confidence? >> oh, absolutely. probably gave them too much confidence. they felt pretty big. after all, they'd driven the british empire out of boston. >> rose: exact lift and this was the biggest army, the biggest superpower in the world. >> yes. >> rose: and they had taken them

on and driven them out of boston >> they were jubilant. they were a victorious team and they marched to new york to face them on the field of battle for the first time. and they suddenly have a name. they're called the continental army. they have a flag to march under. they have their general. and they're going to be joined in new york by the people from new jersey, new yorkers, pennsylvanians. it will become more than it was in boston. truly a continental army. >> rose: and what happened? >> they got sick in great numbers. epidemic dysentery, smallpox. they didn't understand the rules of hygiene. they -- washington divided his army, leaving half in manhattan, taking half over to brooklyn. >> rose: mistake? >> mistake. mistake to try to defend new york. new york was indefensible because they had no sea power.

they had no navy. the british came into new york with a fleet of 400 ships. >> rose: if the british navy had gone up the hudson it would have been over? >> oh, yes, indeed, it could have been. when washington fought the battle of brooklyn with about 9 of his troops over there it was soundly defeated. 300 americans or so killed. over a thousand taken prisoner, including three generals. it was a route. it was awful. now, there were pockets of valorous performance on the part of some of our troops. and the miracle is that they didn't lose more. but at that point the army was in the midst of a real trap because all the british had to do is bring their fleet up the east river. >> rose: east river, not the hudson. >> but the wind was in the wrong direction. if the wind had been on the other direction on the night of, say, september -- august 28, 29, i think it would have been v all

been over. george washington and half of his army would have been trapped. >> rose: no united states of america if that happened. >> i don't think so. >> rose: just because of the wind history was changed? >> absolutely. but then the next day after the defeat of the battle of long island, they decide they have to escape. the night of august 29. they organize a retreat at night back across the east river. is by rounding up every boat they could get their hands on on the east river, on the hudson, new jersey everywhere they could get boats. brought them all over and they took that army off of brooklyn in the night. 9,000 men cannon, equipment, horses, everything without the loss of a single man. now, an organized retreat in the

face of an enemy of overpowering strength is the hardest thing in military operations to bring off successfully. and the fact that this amateur army, undisciplined troops, green troops, people who never marched with a rifle or musket before that they pulled this off and it worked was miraculous as the wind being in their favor. >> rose: you've got to realize what they're facing. the largest expeditionary force ever mounted. >> who had just defeated them a horrendous battle, a huge battle. the biggest battle over fought on the north american continent up until that point. and the people who save the army were marblehead, massachusetts, mariners under a you have to little general named john glover. so off combination of both fate or luck or circumstance hand of

god as many have said, with the wind being exactly what they needed but you also have the skill, the ability of those mariners to pull that off. the boats were going across so loaded down the water was only inches below the gunls. not running lights. they have to be absolutely silent. the enemy is poised to -- if the enemy had any idea that they were going to evacuate they could have descended on the army and annihilated them. truly. right then. then they get across, most of them, morning is coming, there's a lot of them still back on the brooklyn side it's still light and it would be curtains for them. in comes a fog that covers all of brooklyn. but it doesn't happen on the new york side! now, if you're writing a novel and you had that happen you'd say no. >> rose: we're going too far.

that's too much. >> it's not real. >> rose: too much of a perfect weather. >> yes. >> rose: at this time what was the mood of washington? >> oh, it was one of abject discouragement. he was exhausted. he hadn't slept for three nights or more. they all were exhausted. and he -- i'm sure he realized that he played his hand wrong. that he misjudged the whole situation. he never covered what was called the jamaica pass. there's a pass through the ridge that runs along long island and they had nobody post there had to stop the british. so the british sent 10,000 men on a nine-mile march through the night up and around and they just completely outflanked us.

it was perfect. perfectly performed on long island. and everything was done just right. now if general howe attacked after he had and they were retreating back the fortifications on what is new present day brooklyn heights it could have ended then. >> rose: whu what does it say about the british and their leadership and tenacity? >> well, military scholars and historians have debated for 229 years. why didn't they move in for the kill? some say he didn't do it because he had such bloody experience at bunker hill where the americans were in position on a high ground and he wasn't going to attack. the loss of a thousand men. but on the other hand he would attack our frontal position later on. i think he felt why destroy them

completely when we've got them and we're going to win this. let's pull back a bit. let's not just crush them. >> they wanted to maintain -- >> and politically he was a whig. >> rose: not end up like that south did after the civil war. >> that doesn't mean he wasn't a very tough and professional soldier. he was. and very smarth. and very courageous. >> rose: the two howes were brothers? >> the two howes were brothers. >> rose: richard and -- >> william. richard was the admiral and william was the general and they were very highly placed, very influential figures in society. they were aristocrats as all officers were and any picture we have of a bumbling aristocratic fool in high command during the revolution is not so.

>> rose: what about misconceptions of george iii? >> george iii is seen as the crazy king who lost the colonies. >> rose: and he is, in fact? >> he was a very intelligent man very interesting man. i find him a very sympathetic character. he was a great collector of books. he was a wonderful painter. he was a musician, he was a devoted father and husband. he was intelligent. samuel johnson thought he was charming company and samuel johnson did not judge people lightly. but he saw as his duty to crush rebellion. his mother had said "george, be king" and when your mother tells you to be king, you be king. >> rose: (laughs) yeah. >> and he was still pretty young and the madness of king george, which we know about because there's a play or movie, that doesn't come for 20 years later. long after. >> rose: let me say this. this is history at the ground

level. this is history on the battlefield. >> yes. >> rose: this is diaries from soldiers. >> yes. that's the real story i wanted to tell. >> rose: and you liked some of them. >> i liked them a lot. >> rose: hodgkin's. >> joseph hodgkin's, great, great guy. >> rose: your favorite character.q+> ipswich shoe maker. i'm possible to fitch, too, from connecticut. >> rose: tell me about both of them. hodgkin's first. >> hopl kins was a shoe maker with children and wife at home named sarah to whom he wrote regularly. no matter what was happening. and they're wonderful letters and he talks about marching for the glorious cause and he fights and he fights on. after the escape from brooklyn in this terribly demoralized army hodgkin's is writing to his wife and he's just received a letter that the little boy, their youngest child, has died.

the little boy was sick. he's very worried about him. we forget, sometimes, these people are thinking about their families, they're thinking about their loved ones. so they've been defeated. it looks like it's over. they're exhausted, filthy dirt, they have no proper uniforms or anything. he hears that this child that he adores has died and yet he picks himself up and he goes on and he will not stop. >> rose: because they believed in their mission? they believed in the wholly idea that they were creating a nation? >> yes, i think so. joseph hodgkin's and jay benghazi fitch never talk about the declaration of independence. it's interesting. i never found life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness mentioned. >> rose: how about equality? >> yes. i think more it's "our nation, our country. our country. we're going to decide this for ourselves. we're going make the kind

society and the way of life that we want. we're not going to be dictated to." >> rose: that's what always drives revolutions. >> yes. but they're not fighting because they're exploited and suppressed. they had the highest standard -- americans had the highest standard of living, average americans, of every place in the world. >> rose: but they wanted to shape their own destiny. >> yes, exactly. and they were proud of who they were. and they wanted to show these brits that they could fight as well as anyone. given some experience. they're learning from experience. washington, greene, knox, glover they're all learning as they're going along. >> rose: and that was one of the values that washington had. he could learn from his experience. >> exactly. so when he's defeated he doesn't say "oh, woe is me." but "what can i learn from

this?" experience had been his teacher all through life. his father died when he was quite young. he was on his own from about the age of 16. as always. but the jabez fitch story is different because he's keeping a diary and he kept a diary no matter what was happening, including after he was captured and taken prisoner. they put one of those vile british prison ships in the harbor here in new york. i think he must have hid -- the you shouldn't picture a beautiful leather diary. they're writing on scraps of paper. i think he was hiding in the his shoe because it was against the rules. you weren't supposed to do that. but the fact that they wrote the letters, the fact that they kept the diarys is part of their great contribution to their country. because now we know what it was like. we can be in their shoes, in their skins, and feel what they went through. these very human beings. and also i think what comes across is how tough they were.

from these people are people who had been beat up by life, just by life at peacetime by our standards. we are sort of contained in cotton compared to how life was then. >> rose: they did not know how it was going to turn out. >> right. and they also knew that without courage, without an understanding that life isn't always a big gift of a bed of roses, you're not going to make it through life. because life was hard. any new englander, for example, knew that it's best to expect the worst. the life on the new england farm most all of these people are farmers, was a struggle. it was a battle. and, you know, many of these fellows had no shoes. and, of course, in the wintertime it was terrible and there are legendary stories of

their leaving bloody footprints in the snow, marching in their bare feet. that's true! it really happened. but you also have to understand that a farmer, particularly a young farm boy, as many of them were, went barefoot all summer long from about late may to probably october. they had tough feet. they weren't like our feet. and that's -- that's something to understand. they knew how to fix a broken wagon. they knew how to pull out a stump or dig a trench. they were used to hard work. >> rose: right. they knew how to survive outside. >> yes. >> rose: let me take you back to the battle. so they retreat to new jersey. >> yes. >> rose: down to 3,000 men. ill-clothed, ill-fed. >> cold. >> rose: cold. it is now december.

november/december. things are precarious. george washington on christmas night decides what? >> well, all hope is gone. he said himself "the game's pretty nearly up." sometimes when all hope is gone the thing you do is attack. >> rose: freedom is having nothing else to lose. >> yeah. so he's wanted to attack all along. from boston on he's constantly wanting to attack. and his counselors of war again and again and again are pulling him back from that. wisely. had he launched an attack on the british in boston it would have been a catastrophe. >> rose: overwhelming forces. >> absolutely. >> rose: but he decides christmas night they're going attack, they're going cross the delaware and strike at trenton where there are 1500 german

mercenaries bivouaced for the winter. outposts. well, the major part of the british army has pulled back, most of them back here to new york. and and they cross at night and march through the night. to give yourself an idea of how rough that was, the only fatalities, the only men we lost at the battle of trenton were two guys that froze to death on the march. >> rose: wow. the. >> just froze to death. and they hit early this next morning and it was a route because it was total surprise and they came in determined to really win. and and when it was over washington turned to one of his officers and said "this is a glorious day for america."

and it was. he knew what the psychological attack of the victory would do. >> rose: what did it do? >> it gave people the idea that we might win. >> even though it took six, seven long years. >> absolutely. well, they didn't know that yet. that we could beat them. it was possible to fight them and beat them. now, it wasn't a big battle. it wasn't like that battle of long island. the battle of brooklyn. it was a small battle. it was a fierce fight. bloody. the they were not drunk from christmas celebrations the night before as many people have written and said. they weren't. is washington then had to do something and the natural decision would have been to retreat back across the delaware where he was pretty safe because he didn't have any hose to get across.

but he didn't do that. he turned and made a big loop around and came up at princeton and started again. two victories one right on top of the other. and that combination just changed the morale of everything. you can read hit in the letters of abigail adams. you can read in the all kinds of people, ministers and attorneys, people in all walks of life writing about what it meant to get the word that we had won at trenton. and princeton was important, the one of the most important events in the war and consequently one of the most important events in history it would truly change the world. that little attack on trenton, which was a little village. >> rose: and he took 2,500 men over. >> yes. and two other attacks were launched farther down the river.

the. >> rose: and in this case washington was the field commander? >> he wrod with the troops but he was not immediately. general green and general sullivan were in command of the two prongs of the attack and our old friend the boston book seller henry knox was in charge of the artillery and the artillery really were decisive in that battle. >> rose: so these two guys that george washington chose early in '75 served him brilliantly. >> and they served him through the entire war. they were the only general officers to say the distance, to go the whole way with washington. only two of them. washington, knox, and greene the only ones that fought through whole war, of the general officers. >> rose: they would come in and serve and be killed. >> yes. >> rose: hamilton came in at some point, didn't he? >> yes. >> rose: did he serve as an aide to washington? >> at this point he was a young artillery officer and he fought

in trenton and princeton and the battle of new york. >> rose: what did he think of washington? >> he idol idesed him. later on they would have their differences and he would become washington's secretary of the treasury. >> rose: did washington have -- after he is one of the great men in history helped -- there but for george washington there is no america. >> that's my feeling. i think he's the greatest president we ever had. i think it's the greatest -- he's the greatest american of all because if it weren't for him there wouldn't be a united states of america. and he did it all right, particularly when he became president. he set the example, just as he was setting the example as a -- as the general, the commander-in-chief, in the very dark days of the revolution. >> rose: i think we've got to understand how human they were because that makes their achievement all the more

remarkable. if they were gods, gods can do anything. and they weren't superhumans. they were extraordinary people and some of them were truly brilliant 2-a miracle. but these people were making a country. making a revolution first and then making a country against the most daunting odds imaginable. >> rose: when did the phrase "present of the creation" first come. but i think there was the it too of dean acheson's -- >> it was used as the title of dean acheson's marvelous book about the truman years. but this is the real creation. and they're not just starting a new company or a broadway show. they're making a country, a nation, and they don't know how it's going to come out. >> rose: if they'd take an poll in philadelphia, in the country in the 13 colonies in 1776 they never would have gone ahead with it. >> only about a third of the people were for it.

>> rose: odds were against them. >> and it wasn't popular. it was not popular. the. >> rose: so what manner of man and woman was in favor of it? >> >> to a large degree they were new englanders and virginians. and we have to include the carolinians absolutely. and maryland. but the central states, principally new york and pennsylvania were very much against it. they were led by a man named john dickinson. >> rose: but i'm asking what was the nature of the revolutionist is my question. were they intellectuals? were they political fire brands? were they -- what? >> they were all that. they were intellectuals, fire brands, ambitious politicians, decent hardworking people who had farms. >> rose: and were offended by the way things sfwhr >> they thought they were not being granted the rights that

were their birth right as english subjects. in other words, they're not revolting to create a new and different society. they're saying wait a minute, you're taking away our rights as english subjects, free englishmen. a government of laws, not of men. and you're taxes us with -- and we have no choice in that and you're taxing us to pay your own bills back home. why should we pick up the tab for your expenditures in england when we have no part in that life, most of just never seen england and, besides, it's probably time we started our own country. >> rose: no taxation without representation. >> yes. and when they say free and independent the consent isn't they can't be free unless they're inspect and they can't generate the moral fire, the morale, let's say the spirit to fight a war unless they're fighting for independence. so they have to do it in order

to give spirit to the army and they won't be able to get help from abroad, namely, france, if they don't declare their independence because france is not about to come in and give financial and military support to a country's going to make up and go back and be part of england again. the french support of our american revolution-- which it was essential to our victory in the american revolution-- was primarily as a way for the french to get at the english. they weren't anxious for government of the people and all men are created equal. france was monarchy. more of a monomarquee than great britain. so -- >> rose: it's amazing when you think about that. on the decision of the war against france, john adams believed that the most important thing he did was to want peace with france. >> yes, most americans don't realize that we were fighting a

war with france in the last years of the 18th century during the john adams administration as president. we were fighting an undeclared war at sea. but it was a real war. exchanging fire, capturing ships. all the acts of war at sea. but the undeclared war at sea could have very well ignited into a real war with, as it happens, the new high dictator if you will, the emperor, as he proclaimed himself, napoleon. but adams steered a very careful dangerous, treacherous even course among the shoals and the world pools of diplomacy and managed to keep america neutral. not to side with either england or france. jeffersonians wanted peace with

france at any price. the hamiltonians, or the high federalists as they were called, were very eager to go with -- to war with france. it was good politics and it would have guaranteed adams' reelection had they gone to war with france. so when he succeeded in keeping us from going to war with france after the humiliations of the so-called xyz affair, he felt he saved the country from a colossal blunder and he was right. but it was at the expense of his own political fortunes. >> rose: and where did he place that effort in terms of his own historical legacy? >> where did he place that? he thought it was number one. >> rose: that's what i thought. >> i think he was proudest of that of anything he'd done. and it really does-- and other historians agree-- rank as an extremely brave politically courageous act, a true profile in courage. there are many similarities between truman and john adams and very great differences. >> rose: what are the similar

sneeze >> both farmers' sons, both short in stature, not charismatic or handsome, both great readers of history. >> rose: both letter writers. >> both very direct, both letter writers, exactly. both very direct in their candor and both underestimated. and both men of character and integrity and both vice presidents who followed looming -- idolized presidents before. having said all that, there were tremendous differences. >> like? >> adams was brilliant. adams was an intellectual. a giant mind. truman was very intelligent, but not that. adams was learned, probably the most widely, deeply read of his

-- american of his day. more so even than jefferson. a farmer's son. and adams did not like party politics. he thought party politics were vile. he thought the country would be destroyed by party politics because people would begin to think more about the fortunes of their party than the fortunes of the united states of america. imagine that. >> rose: one of the other similarities was they both had a great sense of the country and what it meant. >> rose: >> oh, absolutely. and they were true patriots who showed that by risking their lives. by going to war, by going to serve overseas as adams did in the midst of war, crossing the atlantic four times. signing the declaration of independence that declared him as they did all the others. >> rose: were they loaners or not? was truman more of a kind of club guy and adams -- --

>> no, truman was not a loaner add all. he was very active in the masons. he was a good party man. they're both devoted to their wives. >> rose: abigail and bess. >> yes. and they were both well advised by their wives backstage. >> rose: bess was a wise counsel to harry truman? >> yes, i think she was. bess abhorred public life. she would freeze in front of the camera. became a cold stone face. but -- whereas abigail loved public life. abigail adored politics. in many ways abigail adams was a better political thinker than was her husband. she had a wonderful capacity for judging people. >> rose:ly get to that book in a moment. suppose i'd said to you, david, this is a good idea but this is going to take ten years of your life. >> i would have said no. >> rose: you would have? >> oh, absolutely. i'm glad i didn't know because i never would have done it.

>> rose: but you never thought about quiting? >> no, never, never. no, i've been very lucky in my subjects, charlie. the more you learn, the more you want to learn. and every book -- i have never known a great deal about any subject that i've embarked upon to write about, ever. and if i knew all about it i wouldn't want to write the book. it's a journey and you learn so much by doing this and you learn a lot about yourself. >> rose: like what? >> well, i -- this may sound strange but i think writing history requires a great deal of imagination. i don't mean that you're making things up. that you have to be able to transport yourself into other time. into the shoes of the those other people, get inside their skins, if you will. and that takes imagination. that takes each think and sympathy. i don't mean sifrp thet nick the

sense of feeling sorry for them but sifrp thet nick that you understand what trouble they were in or how complicated the situation may have been. and what they didn't know. you have to always remember they don't know an awful lot because they're caught up in the moment just as we are. they don't know how things are going to turn out. >> rose: that's a -- go ahead. >> but i also feel that for me it's been a -- an opportunity for self-expression because i can express things that i feel about human nature, about life, about the bonds of friendship, family, about loyalty, about bravery under difficult circumstances and about our country that i'm dying to express. that i want to express. i can't understand how anyone who professors to love our

country can have no interest in our history. >> let me go back to jefferson, too. jefferson burned all the letters that he and his wife wrote. >> yes. >> jefferson lives in a different world than adams. he was born and raised in a different world. his first memory was being carried on a pillow by a slave. first thing he remembered in his life. he is, of course, our great voice, our great pen, as they said then of the american ideal. >> rose: is that what they call him? >> he was the pen and adams was the voice. and he speaks for the equality and the common man. and here he is living as far removed from the daily rounds, life, of the common man as one could get, served in every possible way by people held in

bondage, by slaves. adams-- who is of the common man-- adams who was a farmer's son, whose mother was almost certainly illiterate, whose grew up knowing that life-- particularly on a new england farm-- is a struggle. he's saying "you've got to watch out for the common man. i know, i'm one of them.". and the majority, if they get too much power can be as despotic or as dangerous as an individual. so there's the i didn't think and yang of the american revolution. >> i'm always fascinated by the idea of first adams, jefferson, and franklin, of those three, is it automatic that jefferson loved paris more than the other two or is it hard to tell? >> i don't think he necessarily did love paris more than the other two. >> rose: jefr on? >> adams spoke french more than he did, read it more readily.

franklin took to the way of life immediately. jefferson was there longer. he was there five years. i think in many ways they were as happy as any years in his life because he was awareway from slavery. >> rose: although wasn't hemmings with him? >> yes, but they were free while they were there. >> rose: do you think he was so troubled by slavery it made him happy he was away? >> i think he knew it was wrong -- >> rose: why didn't he give it up? >> that's a very good question. we'll never know the answer. i have a feeling it had to do with finances. he was always in debt. his greatest wealth was in his slaves. which was true of many southern planters. >> rose: he died very poor, didn't he? jefferson? >> he died broke. >> rose: broke. broke. with fine wine in his cellar? >> yes. and he never stopped spending. he must have been a smooth talker when he went to the bank because how he could get away

with it, all his life. he was never not in debt. but i think that jefferson wanted to bring something home from paris. he brought home paintings 80 crates of books to raise the cultural level of the country. i think that was a genuine mission. i know it was a genuine mission and that's exactly what these people felt. these americans were not disenchanted with their country. they weren't, like, so-called lost generation. >> rose: they went to learn something and bring something back. >> yes, they weren't alienated from america and, again and again they would talk about "this is going to make me a better american" or "i feel i'm a better american." >> are you talking about the people at the time of jefferson? >> these are the people at the time of 1900. they're not going to bring home 80 crates full of stuff they'll bring home themselves as a

better statesman, politician. >> rose: excuse my curiosity about this but i've asked you about this bfrplt when the famous story that jefferson and adams died on the same day. >> yes. >> rose: who was it that reached out to whom? because someone told me or you told me that it wasn't either -- that the person -- i first heard that it was adams' wife, abigail, who was responsible. then i heard, no, that she actually -- >> no, it was benjamin rush in philadelphia, the physician, a sign over the declaration of independence. >> rose: felt like what? >> he felt that those two should have a reconciliation. >>. >> rose: before they sdmid >> before they died and adams agreed right away and wrote to jefferson. >> rose: so adams wrote to jefferson and abigail had nothing to do with it? >> in fact, abigail was more angry. >> rose: that's what i thought. that was new information to me that abigail didn't like jefferson, was angry at jefferson more than john. >> yes, but she felt he had betrayed her husband because he's the one that put the

reporter after adams during the campaign when they were running against each other. >> rose: on jefferson's order? >> yes. and the irony was that he was the same one who turned around and revealed the sally hemmings relationship on jefferson because jefferson, he felt, hadn't rewarded him sufficiently for the job he'd done attacking adams during the campaign. but they were really -- they were true friends. they were as different as night as day and they died on the same day and they didn't die just on any day, they died on the fourth of july, their day and adams truly did say jefferson survives. >> rose: survives? >> survives. >> rose: and jefferson was dead. >> and jefferson had died that

morning. >> rose: wow. july 4. >> yup. i had the opportunity to write about some of the most spectacular human beings i've ever -- i don't mean they were necessarily great but they were interesting. i'd be interested in the people. an entirely virtuous person is not very interesting. >> right. >> an entirely perfect score -- >> rose: goody two shoes and all. that you want flaws and warts. >> i think writing history requires a great deal of imagination. i don't mean that you're making things up but you have to be able to transport yourself into that other time and into the shoes of those other people, getting inside their skins, if you will. and that takes imagination. that takes each think. and sympathy. i don't mean sifrp thet nick the sense of feeling sorry for them but sifrp thet nick that you understand what trouble they were in or how come play pli kate it had situation may have been. and what they didn't know.

>> which of these stories, which of these characters, which of these books means the most to you? >> can't >> can't answer it. it's like asking which of your children. i can say this: and flo question about it. of all the years, 40 years i've been -- the happiest, most fulfilling years-- and i've loved every subject i have that undertaken, i've been very lucky with my subjects-- we the years i enjoyed most were the years writing the john adams book because of that material. it was such a privilege to keep company with those people. they set such a high standard for us. >> rose: you believe that you -- if your subjects live to an older age they lose some of their inhibition. they have a different perspective on things. they're freer to talk with more

perspective? >> i think so. i feel that way. somebody said -- i don't know, maybe you know that courage is having done it before. and i feel now that i see more clearly than ef-before. to write well is to think clearly and that's why it's so hard. but it's also why it's so enjoyable. writing is hard work. but i'd never equated wez happiness. i'm often happier when i'm working than i am doing anything else. i'm on vacation everyday. >> rose: that's because you found something you love. >> i love it. and i want you to know what i love. >> rose: yeah, me, too. >> i do. and i want you to know much more about our country and i want people to understand that we,

too, are being judged by history. history isn't just something that happened before we came on the scene. we're part of history. and how are we going to measure up? how will our political discourse our participation as citizens, how will we look when they take a look at us 50 or a hundred years. >> rose: you've been part of our history and i thank you for sharing them with me. >> rose: >> thank you, charlie, very much. as always. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is night"nightly busin report" with susie gharib and tyler mathisen brought to you by -- >> sailing through landscapes through a river you get close to iconic landmarks, local life, cultural viking river crews. welcome to a special 4th of july edition of nig"nightly business report". wall street had plenty of fireworks with this year with the s&p 500 gaining a hefty 12.5% in the first half of 2013, the best of 15 years. since world war ii big increases of the first six months of the year usually lead to gains in the second half, tyler. >> indeed, they do. what do we expect in the next three months and three months after that? we