john quincy adams, son of john adams, and what we have on loan from the adams national historic park is a set of cuff links which what makes them unique to john quincy adams but they're also tied to john adams is that inside of each of the cuff links, there is hair from both his mother, abigail adams and john adams and the other cuff link set has hair of john adams which he didn't have a lot of and his wife. so the hair -- it seems kind of weird, some people think it's creepy that we have family members' hair in our jewelry but it was a very common practice, a way of remembering relative who's had passed away just keeping a piece of them close to us all the time. so that's pretty -- they were pretty neat and they have on them in latin essentially it says remember, consider the relatives. so i think about that. so you can think about your past that way when you're wearing these cuff links. for andrew jackson, we have a what's referred to as a turkish pipe on loan to us from the hermitage in tennessee. not a lot known about this pipe. but it is pipes were one of the more common wayses o

john adams, john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world. the most republican book in the world. now, i have picked up my bible thousands of times over the course of my life, but i got to be honest with you, i've never once picked it up and said, now for some good republican reading, right? it's not exactly what i'm thinking when i pick up the bible. but he's not alone. he's not alone among his contemporaries in making this claim. i have some lapping wage from john ticcenson, a founder we should all be more familiar with, somewhat forgotten in our own time but he was acclaimed in his own timesa the penman on revolution. on more than one occasion he makes almost precisely this same statement. here i have him saying the bible is the most republican book that ever was written. and, again, even these two are not alone among their contremp rears rare flis ma -- contemporariries. it's a divine handbook for doctrine, proof, correction, struction, and righteousness. but it is it republican? and in what sense is the bible republican? what are they ta

frugalty served him and the country badly when war broke out with britain in 1812, having starved john adams navy, adam -- madison was forced to entrust much of the battle at seat to privateers, as if the president in modern times were to outsource the war in afghanistan to bill gates or warren buffett. for the better part of two centuries, historians judged madison the intellectual to be a better theorist than war time leader. in the latter capacity he was seen as the unlincoln, solely lacking in ruthlessness or strategic capacity and yet, as an illustration of how presidential reputations can bounce around like corn in a popper, in the wake of subsequent conflicts and assaults on civil liberties ranging from the incarceration of japanese americans after pearl harbor to more recent debates sparked by our own war on terror, madison has come in from reappraisal. to his add mir rers he is the supremely constitutional war time president. a leader who never abused the liberties for which his armies are contending. no one went to jail for criticizing the administration and conduct of the war and

to why did john adams say -- why did john adams say the bible was the most republican book in the world? well, i think we know. he tells us. he thinks it's the most republican book in the world because he believed that without national morality, a republican government cannot be maintained. and because he believed that the bible contains the most perfect morality and the most refined policy ever conceived upon earth. what is he telling us? it's republican because this is a republican handbook for citizenship. it teaches citizens in a republic how to behave in an orderly, decent fashion, thereby giving citizens the capacity for self-government and for a republican regime to succeed. so let me conclude with this question. does it matter, does it matter whether we acknowledge the bible's contributions to the founding? and does it matter whether the bible is studied alongside other intellectual influences on the founding fathers? and again, we acknowledge that the founding generation is drawing on diverse intellectual, political traditions. but is it important for us to include the bible in

john adams, john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world, the most republican book in the world. now, i have picked up my bible thousands of times over the course of my life, but i've got to be honest with you, i've never once picked it up and said now for some good republican reading. right? it's not exactly what i'm thinking when i pick up the bible. but he's not alone. he's not alone among his contemporaries in making this claim. i have some language here from john dickinson, a founder we should all be more familiar with, somewhat forgotten in our own time, but he was acclaimed in his own time as the penman of the revolution. on more than one occasion he makes almost precisely this same statement. here i have him saying "the bible is the most republican book that ever was written." again, even these two are not alone among their contemporaries in making this statement. now, the bible is many things to the christian. it's god's word, the whole counsel of god, it's a guiding lamp, a divine handbook for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousnes

john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world. the most republican book in the world. i have picked up my bible thousands of times over the course of my life, but i have got to be honest with you. said,r picked it up and now, for some good republican reading. it is not what i'm thinking when i picked up the bible. but he is not alone among his contemporaries in making this claim. i have some language from john dickinson, a founder we should all be more familiar with, somewhat forgotten in our own time that a claimed in his own time as the penman of the revolution. he makes almost precisely this same statement. here i have him saying -- the bible is the most republican book that ever was written. two are notthese alone among their contemporaries in making the statement. the bible is many things to the christian. it is god's word, the counsel of god, a divine lamp, for instruction in righteousness, but is it republican? is it republican? and in one set -- what sense is the bible republican? what are they talking about here? as i hav

john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world. the most republican book in the world. i have picked up my bible thousands of times over the course of my life, but i have got to be honest with you. i never picked it up and said, now, for some good republican reading. it is not what i'm thinking when i picked up the bible. but he is not alone among his contemporaries in making this claim. i have some language from john dickinson, a founder we should all be more familiar with, somewhat forgotten in our own time that a claimed in his own time as the penman of the revolution. he makes almost precisely this same statement. here i have him saying -- the bible is the most republican book that ever was written. again, even these two are not alone among their contemporaries in making the statement. the bible is many things to the christian. it is god's word, the counsel of god, a divine lamp, for instruction in righteousness, but is it republican? is it republican? what sense is the bible republican? what are they talking about here? as i h

john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world. the most republican book in the world. i have picked up my bible thousands of times in the course of my life. but i got to be honest with you, i never picked it up and said now for some good republican reading. it's not exactly what i'm thinking when i pick it up. he's not alone in making this claim. i have some language here from john kick inson. -- he was claim as the men man of revolution. he makes precisely the same statement. here i have him saying that the bible is the most republican book that ever was written. and again, even these two are not alone among their contemporaries in making this statement. now, the bible is many things to the christian. god's word, the council of god, a dividing lamp, instruction and riech usness, but is it republican? is it republican? and in one sense is the bible republican? what are they talking about here? well, as i already mentioned, there were americans in the founding era that believed that hebrew republic, the exodus to the core nation of

that's what he dealt with. >> i notice when i read david mccullough's biography of john adams, john adams was also attending, wherever he was, different church services, different denominations. i found that to be unusual compared to how we attend church today. it seems like we go to our denomination. do you feel like that visiting various churches -- we mentioned that was bridge-building with our earlier founders. is that something that could help us with that today? >> well, i think that that -- you're right, i mean, and in the 1700s, there's such intense conflict between especially catholic and protestant, also between baptists and congregationalists. arguing about the difference between presbyterian and congregationalist pollty. that's like an issue you shed blood over, right? it speaks to a time when people were, number one, a lot more theologically conversant than we are today. i mean -- but they also took these things, you know, so seriously. i think in retrospect you think -- especially in our day and time when you can't take christian commitment for granted in the culture. so it

john adams moved in on november 1, 1800.well, the white house has actually been a continuous residence for head of state longer than buckingham palace has been the official residence for british royalty. it's true, 1837 was when that happened. tokyo's imperial palace in the lower left, 1869. and i spent five years working in moscow, the kremlin, became the official seat of the soviet and now the russian government in 1918. it'd been in st. petersburg and, well, in moscow prior to that. but it's only been for a century now that the kremlin has been residence for head of states. so the white house really has a much more ancient history than people think. every president, as you know, has lived there except for this one, george washington. picked the site for the white house, 1600 pennsylvania avenue as you know. he picked the winning design for the white house, and this is actually what construction of the building looked like. this is a beautiful painting for the white house historical association by an artist named peter wad

john adams, john adams described the

john adams, john adams described the bible as the most republican book in the world, the most republican book in the world. now, i have picked up my bible thousands of times over the course of my life, but i've got to be honest with you, i've never once picked it up and said now for some

she ends up upsetting john adams, but everybody upsets john adams, because she does not paint him very sympathetically in her history of the american revolution. but it is significant that he cares what she says. it is significant that her opinion, narrative, any kind of -- that her opinion merited any kind of emotional response, or response at all, and i don't feel like we could move off that document without making note of how extraordinary that is, especially given how long women would wait for the right to vote and on issues of equality that continue and persist to this day. to have female voices and strong and influential female voices at the founding is so important. and one of the things we are trying to do through this revisiting the founding, is to bring in different voices and say it was not just these stodgy old white men with property that talking about this. now there were many of them that , were like that, but there are people who look different and think different from that group. and it is important to bring in those voices as well. carol: part of what is interesting a

and if your member from my talkthis morning, your member john adams sang every christian group thought he was probably part of them, and the reason for that is because he was so friendly to a lot of groups in a very harsh time of interdenominational conflicts, especially between catholics and protestants. but when franklin had theopportunity to visit the continent of europe, he was very complimentary towards catholics and catholic churches. he never quite got over some of his deep bread anti-catholic --deep-bred, anti-catholic sentiments that he grew up with. but he was definitely a bridge builder that -- and that reflected the fact that he basically had a positive view of religion and churchgoing and that sort of thing, just as long as you didn'tuse it to beat people over the head with doctrine. >> and it is similar thing work for lincoln? >> i don't know as much about lincoln. maybe professor bird can say something about this. i think that lincoln definitely,especially as a leader, washington was like this too, of making sure to reach out to different, to leaders of differentdenomina

i noticed when i read david mcculloch's biography of john adams, that john adams, wherever he was, different church services, different to nominations, and i found that to be unusual compared to how we intend church today. it seems like we go to our denomination. you feel like visiting various mentioned, that was bridge building with our earlier founders. is that something that could help us with that today? right, in that you're the 1700s there is such intense conflict between, especially catholic and protestant but also baptists and congregationalists, arguing about the difference between presbyterian and andregationalists policy, that's like an issue that you shed blood over. and it speaks to a time when were number one come on let more theologically conversant than we are today. but they also take these things so seriously. and i think in retrospect he think, especially in our day and time, when you can't take christian commitment for granted in the culture, it doesn't seem like you want to be fighting about those kinds of issues anymore, but i think one of the real breakthroughs came wi

people like john adams use this text and many others. they say look again at the historical context. , what they were really doing was making general statements about respecting authority. submission did not mean unlimited submission to any king or authority. saying theywith were endorsing unlimited submission, there were too many biblical texts that showed people of god this obeying things, revolting against kings. anyone remember exodus and pharaoh? anyone remember darius and daniel? there were bad kings and the people of god did not just have to take it from any bad king. it could not be about unlimited submission to any bad king. let's look at paul's situation. paul specifically riding to the romans, he was dealing with christians who were taking a little too literally the idea that christ's's kingdom was not of this world. you still left to live in a different way. -- you still have to live in this world. but you live in a different way. they say take one specific section of the verse that people was to overlook, and that the ruler

is it john quincy adams who asked for a lighthouse in the sky? he wanted a national observatory and people went, the national -- people went, what? the federal government is not supposed to do anything like that. today, the federal government does things like that. just to reiterate that is why this is important, that's why it is important to study history, to understand why we got to this moment. it is not just about the greedy people who want power in government, although that is also a dimension of it. there's also a public expectation for what the federal government will provide and protect. that is a part of the story, too. that is why the narrative and individual voices that are brought out through this reader are so important. you cannot understand january 10, 2018, and less you understand the larger arc of history and how we got here. nothing is preordained. if you would like to see more power given back to the states, anyone here, watching at home, you have the power to organize and see that happen. you have the tools to do it. get off y

put on the bench by john adams. what john marshall wanted to do was undo the entire jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. this was politics. what he decided to do was -- it is that simple. marshall was afraid of democracy. he was very much antidemocratic. what he saw in jeffersonian is him was a push toward more democracy -- jeffersonianism was a push toward more democracy. -- for everyhe stage supreme court decision that we have had from there on out. he was being very disingenuous. for marshall, himself, he was playing politics more than anything else. he did not like the jeffersonians. other questions? >> come on down to the microphone. [inaudible] >> i have not. , in aily because of survey you focus on the general things and move from there. i have not. we have the textbook and that is about it. we tried to stay in that very general term in the survey course. questions? >> [inaudible] >> three. one has not been published. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> the mechanism was there to change it.

and people like john adams cousin argue to use this text and many others. let's about that. they say, look again at the historical context. peter and paul, what they were really doing was making general statements about respecting authority. submission didn't mean unlimited sub is mission to any king or any authority. the problem with saying that they were endorsing unlimited submission to any king there are too many texts that show people of god disobeying kings, revolting against kings. anybody remember exodus and f farr farrfa pharoah. they were bad kings. and the people of god did not have to just take it from any bad king. so it have been about unlimited submission to any king. let's look at paul's situation. paul specifically writing to the romans. he was dealing with christians who were just taking a little too literally the idea that christ's kingdom is not of this world. sometimes christians take that a little too literal. it doesn't mean this world is gone. it means you still have to live in the world, but live in a different way. so paul is saying the key to under

when they ran for reelection john adams in 1828 and benjamin harrison in george w. bush? only one of them won the second term and adams was crushed by jackson harrison lost to cleveland 286 : one -- electoral votes john kerry was not too far from winning that election some people think the reason bush one was that we were at war and americans were not willing to change courses that is interesting debate but those who lose the popular vote have a second time the second term so history shows two ways to dismiss everything you hear about trump look at the history. that is what history tells us that my judgment spells trouble for the president. at this point relative to all of his peers those are two ominous signs he has beaten the odds his whole life to say you beat 16 people in 2016 that is the dynamic when you're running as an incumbent is completely different than running for the first time because now he has a record and more data to make a judgment so that is completely different. he thinks it will be a cakewalk in 2016 but history suggests otherwise. those are the hist

john adams actually when he encountered payne and had a conversation about this, about drawing on the old testament in "common sense," payne just kind of brushed it aside and said i got that from milton. this is an argument against how the bible was influential in various ways regardless of whether or not the people quoting it actually believed that the bible was the revealed word of god in a specific way. this is a quote from gordon wood, one of the most eminent american religious -- not religious historians but american historians specifically in the revolutionary era. he says "it was the clergy who made the revolution meaningful for most people. for every gentleman who read a scholarly pamphlet and delved in for an eczexplanation of events there were dozens of ordinary people who read the bible and looked to their ministers for an interpretation of what the revolution meant." so the bible was part of the language. it was part of the symbolism, part of the narratives anyone knew. if anyone owned a book, this is the case for the 19th century as well, in their families, if they only o

these include people like benjamin rush, even john adams in later years. defend this is to jefferson's view of creating jeffersonblicanism starts taking on this task of how do you trade a new morality for a new nation or what should and on the third way he is being attacked for his own religious beliefs. during various campaigns jefferson has roundly criticized being anti-christian and anti-church. some new england towns are telling people that if jefferson wednesday the election they need to hide their bibles. this also becomes a political issue. so jefferson begins to think about the moral basis and corresponds with a small group of friend. this leads to a series of letters he writes to his friends, as well as earlier projects in which he is trying to get to the essence of the teachings of jesus, which he finds to be the most moral of any teaching. and this could be a basis. other enlightened men -- looking at what was written and trying to discern through this what can andeasoned and identified what is possibly superstition added to the teaching. bibles

he then was chief justice, put in power -- or put on the bench, i should say, by john adams, the outgoing president. so what john marshall wanted to do was undo the entire jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. this was politics. so what he decided to do was use the bench to do it. it's that simple. now, marshall was afraid of democracy. he was very much anti-democratic as well, and i think what he saw in jeffersonianism was this push towards more democracy, and he didn't like that. but, of course, marshall set the precedent that everyone followed , whether it was marbury v. madison in 1803 or mcculloch v. maryland, that set the stage for every supreme court decision that we've had from there on out. and he was being very disingenuous, but i think for marshall himself, he was playing politics more than anything else, and he really didn't like the jeffersonians, and he worked against them in any way he could. other questions? don't be shy. come on down to the microphone so we can get you on tv. >> [inaudible] mr. mcclanahan: i have not, primarily because in a survey course, you know,

if you were here for my talk this morning, you remember john adams saying that every christian group thought he was part of them and the reason for that is because he was so friendly to a lot of groups in a very harsh time of interdenominational conflict. especially between catholics and protestan protestants. but when franklin had the opportunity to visit the continent of europe, he was very complimentary towards kcatholic and catholic churches. never quite got over some of his deep anti-catholic sentiments he grew up with. so other times would make some nasty statements about catholics. he was definitely a bridge builder between a lot of different kinds of denominations and religions. and i think that reflected the fact that he basically had a positive view of religion and church going and that sort of thing just as long as you didn't use it to beat people over the head with doctrine. >> and did you -- did a similar thing work for lincoln? >> right. i don't know as much about lincoln. maybe professor byrd can say something about this. i think that lincoln definitely has, especially

and that's what he dealt with. >> yeah, i notice when i read david mccul la biography of john adams, he was attending different churches and denominations. and i find that unusual how we attend church tonight. seems like we go to our denomination. do you feel that visiting various churches, we mentioned that was bridge building with our earlier founders, is that something that could help us with that today? >> well, i think that that, you are right, in the 1700s, there is such intense conflict between, especially catholic and protestant, but also between baptists and congressionalists, and arguing about had the difference between press buy tearian and congressionalist, church policy, that's like issue you shed blood over, right. and it speaks to a time when people were, number one, a lot more theologically conversant than we are today, but they also took these things, you know, so seriously. and i think in retrospect, especially in our day and time when you can't take christian commitment for granted in the culture. so it doesn't seem like you want to be fighting about those type of

john quincy adams was the first secretary to occupy that space. sewardt was william right after the civil war. it was determined it was too small. they needed a bigger building. that building was demolished and the building put in its place is old executive office building, but in 1875 it was the new executive office building. it remained there until it was determined once again that it was too small, mostly because of world war two and we realized we needed not only embassies but we needed more protection for american citizens and so it was determined that the foggy bottom location was going to be the now permanent home of the department of state. >> no sooner did they move into foggy bottom -- >> it was not their original home either, the building was built for the war department in 1940 and one of the cool things about the diplomacy center, it is physically attached to that old exterior of the 1940 building. >> the old war building. >> the old war building. the war department became the department of defense, so the pentagon was built and in 19

regarding his chameleonlike religion, john adams once remarked that "the catholics thought him almost a catholic". the church of england almost claimed him as one of them. the presbytery of thought of him as half presbyterian and their friends believed him a what quaker which means a quaker that is not so well behaved. the key to understanding franklin's ambivalent faith is that contrast between the skepticism of his adult life and the indelible imprint of his childhood puritanism. the intense piety and faith of his parents acted as a tether, restraining franklin skepticism. as a teenager, he abandoned his parents certain beliefs. that same traditional faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretches moral and doctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of the youth will sojourn, he went to london, after returning to philadelphia in 1726, he resolved to conform more closely to his parents ethical codes. he steered away from extreme deism. could he crafted christianity centered on virtue rather than traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his parents at the same ti

john quincy adams was the first secretary to occupy that. the last was william seward, right after the civil war. it was determined that it was too small and they needed a much bigger building. that holding was demolished. the building put in its place was the current -- the old executive office building. the state remained there for a very long time until it was determined once again it was too small, mostly because of world we ii, and we realized needed not only an disease, we needed consulates, more protection for american citizens. it was determined the foggy bottom location was going to be the permanent home of the department of state. >> no sooner did they move into foggy bottom -- [laughter] theirl, it wasn't original home either, it was built for the war department. one of the cool things about the diplomacy center, when visitors go in, it is physically attached to the old war building. you can see the cornerstone with franklin roosevelt's name on it in 1940, and then the war something became different. in 1947 is when the department

regarding his chameleon like religion, john adams once remarked that the catholics thought him almost a catholic, the church of england claimed him as one of them, the presbyterians thought him half a the friends, and believed tempo wet quaker. that is a quaker that is not so well behaved. understanding his ambivalent faith is the contrast between the skepticism of his adult life and the imprint of his childhood. piety and faith of ,is parents acted as a tether restraining his skepticism. as a teenager, he abandoned the puritan beliefs. that same traditional faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral and doctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a youthful soldier .nd he made to london when he returned to philadelphia in 1726, he resolved to conform more closely to his parents' ethical code. he steered away from extreme deism. could he craft a christianity rather thanvirtue traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his parents at the same time? more importantly, could he convince the evangelical figures in his life, most importantly his sister and

sedition acts in 1798 which attempted to criminalize seditious libels utteredded about president john adams, and that was followed by mob assaults on political speakers in the streets of new york and baltimore in 1804, in 1810, in 1811 and 1815. in 1835 alone there were 147 political riots in the united states leading to the deaths of 63 people. a riot, in fact, inialton, illinois, in 1 is 837 -- 1837 ended in the death of the abolitionist editor elijah lovejoy and prompted the first great political speech of the up and coming illinois lawyer, abraham lincoln. .. not the action of a mob or the sanction of a magistrate. and yet nearly 250 years after james madison hailed the first amendment as the triumph of reason and humanity we once more find argument after argument being deployed and especially in university environments to overthrow that triumph and silence free speech. but this overthrow comes not in the old guise of brute tyrannical force but in the new clothing of cultural sensitivity. it involves an argument against free speech which arrives in two stages. that first of all culture

regarding his chameleon-like religion, john adams once remarked, the catholics thought him almost a catholic. the xhuchurch of england claime him as one of them. the presbyterians saw him as half a presbyterian and others as a wet quaker, which basically means a quaker not so well-behaved. the key to understanding frank pl franklin's ambivilent faith. the intense piety and faith of his parents acted as a tether. he abandoned his parents puritan beliefs as a teenager. that kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral and doctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a youthful sojourn he made to london, when he returned to philadelphia in 1726, he resolved to conform more closely to his parents ethical code. he steered away from extreme deism. could he craft a christianity centered on virtue rather than traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his parents at the same time. more importantly, could he convince the evangelical figures in his life, most importantly, his sister, jane mecom, and the revivalist, george witfield, that all was well with his soul. he would ha

regarding franklin's chameleon-like religion, john adams once remarked, quote, the catholics thought him almost a catholic. the church of england claimed him as one of them. the presbyterians thought him half a presbyterian and the friends believed him a wet quaker, which basically means a quake who are is not so well-behaved. the key i think to understanding franklin's ambivalent faith is the create between the skepticism of his adult life and the indelible imprint of his childhood puritanism. the intense piety and faith of his parents acted as a tether. restraining franklin's skepticism. as a teenager, it's true he abandoned his parents' puritan beliefs, but that same traditional faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral indoctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a trip he made to london. when he returned to philadelphia in 1776, he resolved to kmorm closely to his parents' ethical cold and steered away from extreme diesm. could he create a christianity centered on virtue rather than tradition traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his par

john adams explained it. his words were more than an impression. asy are perptly true as long we are operating under this constitution. having d knowing -- read many times the the brill of rights helped generate these bill of rights. but he said our constitution was made only for ar moral and religious people. it it wholly inadequate to the government of any other. you want to know where the answer is? if people are going to be safe . america, we have a choice teaching tart anew, morality, teaching that there is right or wrong, that not everything is relative. and even if those who don't believe there is a god, don't that want to hear about it, it's ok to talk about god. you don't have to believer it. look at jefferson's words. he made clear. it amazes me how he could put the biggest grievance against king george in allowing slavery. he could see the problems created for america by iffer loffering the man-to-man. but he talked about the best hope being the teaching of the -- the teachings of jesus. the best hope for america. but if we're going to b

during the last months of the adams administration initially he turned to john jay to be the next chief justice and in fact he was confirmed then adam sent a letter and he said no think you're not interested because when i was on the court it didn't do anything worth doing so marshall comes 1801 determined to have the core estimates right will place particularly in the light of the transition from the federalist under the adams administration to those under jefferson. progressively beginning with marbury he carved out a place to say the suffering court matters it will be the expositor of what the constitution means and mcculloch v. maryland was one of those critical steps to secure the article three as a meaningful role in government. >>host: so in addition to chief justice appointee also relative of the first president to the adams appointee there were three jefferson appointees johnson and livingston and thomas todd to participate in this particular case and to madison appointee so what did that mean for those ideological discussions the court is having? >> one of the special things t