i think that patrick henry is rand paul. i think truly the tea party would love patrick henry. he, in opening days of the first continental congress he made this speech arguing for proportional representation in the congress which on which he was defeated saying, we're not just virginians or new yorkers, we're all-americans. and that gives an impression of henry as a continental-minded politician but what he was mainly concerned about was protecting the interests of the most populist colony in america, theon virginia. all of his career, his primary devotion was to defending the interests, first of his colony and then of his sovereign commonwealth of virginia. so i think he and rand paul would get along pretty well. i really do think of all the 18th century politicians the one consistently through his career who is most consistently supporting of tea party ideals is patrick henry. >> what distinguishes temper mentally, dickinson, henry dickinson the compromiser, at least a person who is willing to set aside idealogical purity in the service of legitimacy and henry, i guess you c

they're learning about patrick henry. whoop-de-whoop. okay, cool, you've got to learn about that, but can you actually learn how to deal with a person and look them in the eye face-to-face? 'cause you even got adults who are like, "yeah, chat. "yeah, girl, when i see you, "yo, on the real... [typing noise] i catch you at the club, girl." "okay, i'll see you then." [laughter] and then when they get to meet each other, they can't even look at each other in the eye. "so how--how are you?" "fine." then when they get home, "i had a great time." [laughter] this is a serious, serious issue. it's like, you know, prince says: you get on top of technology; you don't let technology get on top of you. you be on top of the computer. you get on the computer. don't let the computer get on you, because you can actually lose it and fall into big brotherism. and that's where we're at. you've got companies out there who are basically heading to the streets of bel air based on the expense of the hood or the community, which is thrust upon as being this big

people including washington and jefferson and all but a few real hotheads like samuel adams or patrick henry was that it would be worked out, but instead of being in a subordinate status, the two jurisdictions would be virtually co-equal but sharing the same monarch. and then, of course, it evolved, and relations broke down. but the, you know, that was the aspiration. then once independence was achieved. it was quite another matter to set up a system that worked. the original articles of confederation were not successful, and at the same time that a committee led by thomas jefferson was instructedded by the continental congress to prepare a declaration of independence and franklin was instructed to try and round up some allies in europe for the revolutionary war that was about to begin or had, in fact, begun, the, there was also a call for a satisfactory set up of confederation between the different colonies. no such thing happened, and what did happen was that washington and franklin convened the constitutional convention in 1787 which began as a matter of resolving a boundary dispute betwe

we can find george washington, thomas jefferson, james madison, george mason, john marshall and patrick henry? we are not going to find them. now on some theoretical level, they, are there. that is human beings with the capacity for leadership, are there, but the situation doesn't permit the group to rise to the surface. and so the question is why did the situation accessed in 1776? now there is an answer to this after arnold, which is that great leadership only emerges during times of great crisis and this makes sense the pressure the crisis creates. yet we can all think of examples where there is a great crisis and there is no leadership like now. [laughter] in the coming of world war i and europe. so, was a special you can't say there was something special in the water back there then. you can't say god look down upon the american colonies and bless them. i mean, supernatural explanations are not admitted even if he wore an angel local you are not allowed to use those in a historical conversation. i don't know whether i have a good answer to this. some of it is in the book and an implicit

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,