>> that's a look at some of the author programs booktv will be covering this upcoming week. many of these events are open to the public. look for them to air in the near future on booktv on c-span2. >> pulitzer prize-winning historian edward larson this next. examines the political career of george washington. the program was recorded at the national book festival.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. my name is adam kushner and i'm the editor of the "washington post" sunday outlook section which is our weekly section for analysis and essays and commentary and arguments and narrative storytelling and investigative journalism, and most happily for the state nonfiction book coverage. the "washington post" is a charter sponsor of the national book festival which is now in its 15th year. it's amazing and i'm extremely excited to introduce today eric larson. i can't believe i fumbled that. excuse me, edward larson. edward is the endowed chair of

law at pepperdine and a full university professor there which means he is a martyr. the professor has nine books and he won the pulitzer prize for his book summer of the gods which is about the scopes trial and our endless numbered ending still disputed debate in america about science and mutual and policy. i also noticed any seamlessly endless list of publications is written for the washington outpost section, this section is a weapon so that's one we have decided to fix. his latest book is "the return of george washington" and what's great about it is it takes the figure we know very well for his role in fighting the british and for being the first president, and looks at a lesser-known part of his life, which is his retirement between those events. after the war the nation faced a crisis under the articles of confederation, and in need of the constitution many of the

fractious parties couldn't come together, didn't trust one another and needed somebody to whom they could look as a convening power. this book is a great column about the great and reminds us of the washington contributions were not merely fighting the british or beginning of the nation but he was instrumental all the way through. and to talk about the i want to welcome please edward larson. [applause] >> well, thank you all. it is such an incredible delight to be back at this particular book festival. it's such wonderful speakers. it's been a treat for me already. i just came up from one with marianne robinson, and what a delight that was. what a wonderful speaker, what a wonderful crowd and what great question but it sort of got me out. one of the things she was asked

at the and because she works out of the iowa, not a midwestern by birth but she works out of the iowa book festival, and she was asked, she writes often about midwesterners and she was asked what makes midwesterners distinctive and unique. and what is the character she sees the edges as well, the lack of pretentiousness. and i'm from the midwest, grew up there and i said yes, that's true, just like me at a realized i may no longer be a midwestern. i just lost my own characteristic of lack of pretentiousness because you're not supposed to pride itself about. sort of like the people who won the humility toward but every time you write about it they took it away. then before that walter isaacson, what a treat that was. what a wonderful speaker. is even a better speaker and it seems before. we all know he's a great writer. is a wonderful conversationalist. before the launch of his new

book about humboldt and that was there interesting event. she was telling me, telling us how whatever tricks, was little bit of when a mine, too, that she liked, she had to go wherever humboldt went so she got to go to some pretty exciting places. and she showed a lot of pictures to one -- what a wonderful treat it is to be. i thought, not going to repeat in general but i thought i would read just a brief passage from the preface of my book at that use that as a launching planet -- pad without reading.

george washington was a great political after he had ever seen your and he could command by gesture, by a motion, by a look. and one of his most heinous such acts occurred at the new berg conspiracy. than uber conspiracy don't know is when, though many of you probably do, was when the troops were going to revolt at some of them were pushing him to become king. this was before, after it was clear the british, after yorktown, after a split the british were going to give up but before they formally, treaty was signed so the bridge was to occupy in new york, charleston and savannah, otherwise a

pullback and washington's main army was of the new berg in new york waiting to go. because the british had effectively stop the war, states stop in congress any money so there was no money to pay the troops and they were getting rebellious and ready to overthrow. that was one of the earlier stories i tell in this but because sandwiching debris from yorktown to him becoming president. into washington puts down the revolt by making an appearance at a meeting of the officers where they are plotting a revolt, and one of his great motions he makes his speech and it was very convincing because washington we know it's not a very good public speaker because he didn't have teeth and yet these false teeth and he sort of mumbled. but he was a very effective actor. he had worked in one bit of acting in the middle. he finished the speech and essentially pulled out a letter and then he pretended like he couldn't read it, or maybe you

could read very well. so pulled out his classes which i'm guessing because i've to do it to reduce. he pulled out his classes and looked out at his name and he said, i've not only grown gray in your service but i've also gone nearly blinded. nobody had ever seen them, none of his men, whose officers have not seen with classes before. according to the legend at least, this humanized him. and the troops began to cry and it felt like he was really for them, and that more than anything, according to legend of new berg, diffuse the coup d'état by the troops. and made for washington do what was characteristic of washington, not become king, resign. that billy to resign power is what made him so beloved and set the tone for american history. think of all the revolution that ended with the later becoming a

dictator of some sort, whether it be cromwell or napoleon later, think of them all around the world today and what makes america different. part of it is the willingness to go back to private life and not hold onto power. and it's amazing how we as a people can live on the fumes as it were of our founding fathers, live on, live on great man, great people who set the tone that has continued to lead. i think that's one of the reasons in africa today by south africa is different because mandela said it felt like washington said that the. it wasn't just washington, it was a team of people. it was surely a band of brothers. that's washington's raise. but he pulled out his classes and said i've gone blind in service. i felt in doing this i got only gone blind in the service of history because i've been reading to be archival notes but

the preface begins on a chilly spring morning in april 2014 as i sat on mount vernon broad front plaza watching the sun rise slowly over the potomac river. the window of george washington upstairs bedroom was over my right shoulder. the west facing door on his first floor office stood directly behind me. washington would've seen much the same view 225 years earlier, knowing it might be a long time before he observed it again. the american people are called in to the presidency and he was preparing to leave pashtun leaders loved plantation on april 16, 1789. due to private preservation efforts, this is the over the potomac from the one of washington's most loved and built his frame survive virtually unchanged in the midst of northern virginia's urban sprawl.

as an inaugural fellow at the fred smith national library for the study of george washington with a residency on the grounds of mount vernon, i was able to enjoy this and other scenes of washington's plantation many times over the course of the year. the view became my favorite, especially at sunrise in the spring flowering trees and soft green leaves give off a warm glow in the early morning light. it was obvious by washington was reluctant to leave mount vernon for public service in a job he neither sought nor wanted. by 1789, six years since the united states secured its independence, washington had come to believe that the country faced as great a threat from internal forces of disunion by the mid '70s '80s as it had some extra ones of tyranny in the mid-1770s when he accepted leadership of the patriot army at the outset of the revolutionary war. now his country again called on

the surface, this time as the elected leader of the world first extended republic. countless books tell a story of washington's commander-in-chief of the continental army during the american revolution and of as many the history of his role as first president. books about washington could fill a library. they fill a bookcase in mind. few of them focus on the six years between his wartime and presidential service which is the subject of my last book. even the finest fighters to washington -- between his military service a presidential term mostly presenting his life as a virginia planter. when biographers reach the continental, the constitutional convention of which washington presided a typically presented as a stiff side of figure the money contributed his prestige and dignity of the proceedings.

the standard narrative has him retiring to mount vernon through the ratification debate in the first federal election until called to the presidency. with this book i tell the story of washington's resignation as commander-in-chief to inauguration of president not mean to diminish the importance of his domestic life. i stress his critical role as a public figure and political leader during those crucial years between the effective and the revolutio revolution were it the start of the federal government in 1789. i promise that's all i'm going to read. that's from the preface, not called an introduction, it's called the preface and those two types of opening parts of books should be distinguished. just out of curiosity how many of you here when you get a book do you read the preface? and how many of you, keep her hands up. how many of you read the

introduction? how many don't read the introduction? and you don't read the preface? how many don't read the preface? just a fair warning. you never should skip an introduction. an introduction is an integral part of the book. the book doesn't make sense without reading the introduction. i wrote introduction to the scopes trial, and sets the stage for the whole book, including actually includes the dramatic interrogation by clarence darrow at the trial. in contrast you can skip the preference, nothing wrong with reading the preface but you don't need to. a preface by definition is not integral to the book. what it does is it usually tells you something about the book and/or about the author. it often includes acknowledgments as well and you

can certainly skip acknowledgments if you want. though an author should never skip acknowledgments. a reader can skip acknowledgments. so i read from the preface, not from the introduction. and so the question is briefly, what is this preface? why did i read -- what does it tell about me as an offer and about the book? i thought i would use that as a way to introduce what i done to you before taking questions. briefly what does this say about me as an author? one thing it says is that i, i like to be on site. that was not what i heard from home bold, the person who wrote the humble testimony, that she liked to go all the places on site. i do as well. and that i'd like to use archives. c., i work in quotes abroad. i try to get a feel for the person through archives, and to working on site.

place is the important to me. when i wrote the book you refer to on the scopes trial which is my third book but my first really big book that got a lot of attention, i had caught up to dayton, tennessee, literally dozens of times. if any of you have ever, has anybody been to dayton tennessee? eyewitness i put on top of your visitation list but it was a place where the scopes trial took place. and i thought to know that trial i needed to know the place. unfortunately for me as a historian, not fortunate for the people in dayton it hasn't changed much since 1925. it's pretty much encrusted in five. so i could walk the area. i could be in the courtroom that ryan was a. i could hear the train go by. i could go up to the swimming hole where scopes met with william jennings bryan son was

one of the joint prosecutors. i could walk to where the big upstairs warehouse room where about 200 media were all situated. i could go to the home where they stayed or the boarding house where scopes lives. and by that i could get a few more for what, and i could go in the summer when it was hot, one of the memorable things about the trial that it was very, very hot and it still didn't have a lot of air-conditioning when i was there. in front of the drugstore was the old thermometer, the same thermometer that was there in 1925 was to register and the temperature and i could see it well over 100 some days just like the experience. that helped me get a feel for the place, but i did learn that going over a dozen times to dayton, tennessee, to change my subjects. so my next book was on the history of science, the

galapagos islands and after that early sites in antarctica. psychotically dozens of times to the galapagos islands. i'm not going to write about dayton, tennessee, can get i'm going to go someplace nice to go suck a deliver although scientists and then it got to go down for three months thank you all, the national science foundation, to antarctica and go were all the early explorers with. some people prefer dayton. i preferred antarctica and the galapagos islands. that made this a perfect book for me because mount vernon is a tremendous source and job it right new you. that's what i'm saying a lot about it. mount vernon captures washington's assembly jefferson so outside charlottesville captures thomas jefferson to mount vernon was a product of george washington. we inherited it from his brother it was a modest building, if you been down to george mason south.

it looked a lot like george mason's house. one story, a second story that sort of addict like, and he blew up the sides, the top, he married will switch lots of money so we want all the farms around so it became the great plantations that it became. he transformed and build the mill for grinding grain. he changes it from tobacco to grain. and all those things tell a story about washington, his resourcefulness, is willing to change them if wanting to break from the control of the british early, the tobacco trade controlled by the british, the grain trade he was free to trade on his own and he didn' did nott to be under the control of the british even in the 1750s. you can get a feel for those aspects of this very complicated

person. is also a wonderful archive they built that the fred w. smith library. the archives of his writings and his papers but they also have always preserved his farm ledgers and his notebooks. washington assets it was not a great public speaker. if you would have had false teeth as they were great back then, he had one of his own teeth and you can see his false teeth. that's another thing you can see. mount vernon has preserved all, it never went into public inspect it was never dispersed like geoffrey sisk collection from his home. so it contains some of the original that he died into the pictures he saw, and i think it's about 17 pairs of his false teeth and you can see it get one to the of his own and he sort of, they built these false teeth and they would rest on this one more he had a sort of an anchor that you could tell it wouldn't anchor very well. so he could really speak

publicly, but he could write. he was actually a very eloquent writer in his own fashion, and he wrote hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of letters. many of them about political things but also about his farming and his private life. with the archives there you can dig deep into the person. and from the notebook you can follow what he was doing every day and who was visiting him at mount vernon, and those people visiting him were very, very telling, let me, i get to that. now, that's one thing it shows. the other thing i do want to say in preface, that was brought up by the person who introduced me, what i did with this book is what i like to do with my writing is how i pick a book is i tried to pick a book.com and this was an odd since i wrote about george washington so let me preparative, i tried to pick a book, i try to pick a topic that people think they know a lot about but that received

wisdom is offkilter. somewhat. the scopes trial is a perfect example of the. the scopes government everybody knows about the scopes trial because they have seen spencer tracy and, you know, -- inherit the wind this up really the story of the scopes trial as the office will quickly see. it was about mccarthyism. they were just using the trial as a vehicle to tell a story about, to try to bring down mccarthyism. it's very different, and so i was the first historian to write a book about the scopes trial no historian has ever written. everyone had heard about it but people didn't know what happened and nobody ever brought historical techniques to study what happened and, therefore, i was able to write a very new account that surprised people, and even the pulitzer committee

surprise been enough to knock me off my feet and keeping an award for the book. that's what i tried to do with many of my books. with the galapagos book everybody thinks about darwin. i wrote about other than darwin and it helped make the start of darwin much more significant. and an article looking at the early signs under and not being distracted by a race to a poll e which was was fundamental to what was happening in pre-world war i period in antarctica whether it was a center for science. in the 1800 election book which brought me to this book before, the magnificent catastrophe, no one had ever tried to write the story of the 1800 election. that's adams versus jefferson come as a blow by blow political campaign in the narrative of whites making of a president in 1960 and that's what i saw to

did as opposed to put in a broad historical perspective with other books and. i look for gaps in the record of the people like to use it later to i guess what this stage, david mccallum, can take a topic that everybody knows and just to present in woody before and everybody can love it, and i love it. but 90 to the vantage of the book that is a place to my specialty legal history, constitutional history and history of science which is what my ph.d is in, and hopefully something that too many people have not traded on before. so i had that one advantage. the question is how can you do that about george washington? more books haven't written about george washington than any american who has ever lived. i have often said that was just general and one time i was introduced a few months ago, and the person who's introducing me had that extra research on google as it there has been over 10,000 books written with george

washington in the title. now that even exceeded what i saw in the wake of number of books. the surprising thing about this book is people don't focus on this period. as i had mentioned. why did he think of picking up that? i've been a history teacher for years. i thought introduction american history at the university of georgia for 20 years. everybody who's been history teacher one of the same story. when using a standard textbook, when you cover american history, you just get to stop at the support and you don't -- you spend a couple days on the revolution or and washington is all over the place. then you have a couple days on the utter collapse of the confederation. why the confederation did not work, the inability to control traits, the inability to raise any funds, the inability, well,

the articles of confederation created a league of friendship among 13 sovereign states. and each of those states during, after the threat, the external threat of the british work on the each went their own way, trying to make life better for the people at the expense of who? welcome any darwinist will tell you compete against your brothers and sisters can you compete against your own species. you don't compete against -- lines compete against linux and that's how the fittest works. every state was competing against every state. new york was to do whatever it could to better itself by ringing connecticut and new jersey, basically putting up tariffs so they could basically export their taxes to new jersey and connecticut. they still want to do that today. that's part of the problem of europe.

europe is still acting that way and hungry wants to play and greece wants to play with the refugees versus germany and they're all competing against each other for the own short-term gain. that was happening in america and nobody would make any money that the central government couldn't raise funds and the states would send them any money of real interest. they were competing against each other and the place was falling apart. we tell the story to historians but we do nothing about washington. i think partly because of the cincinnati myth, washington chose to create of stepping away from power and so we have to repeat that sort of washington stepping away from now and so we often saw him in mount vernon tending his farm. then suddenly the constitution convention happened in washington is a better, the ratification, and then we spent several days talking about the first federal administration. washington administration made into adams, and washing it is

all over the place again as president. so what happens to them in this middle period of? think of who washington was. washington ended the revolution as the most famous and beloved person in the americas, perhaps in the world. certainly world's famous all over your. and revered as this amazing leader who had led a revolution against the british come stomp out in the world, and gain independence which had never happened before for a colonial people in the name of enlightenment values of the liberty, freedom, republican rule rather than a monarchy. these were the ideas that were shaking europe and americas at the time, and washington personified them. into the personified them and he wasn't modest about that. he did not come from the

midwest. his early accounts even as a boy he says what do i want what he would analyze himself as all enlightened figures would, as franklin, jefferson and adams would. adams fashion washington always came to the same conclusion. he did not care about money although he became very wealthy. he did not care about power although he became very powerful. what he said what i want is to be famous. now that's more can they call up more of a legacy. but he cared most about his reputation as a republican leader, as a founder of the first extended republic that could all harken back to ancient greece for any sort of precedent. would he really, given his status, be willing to just come i would always think of those teaching this, just sit in mount vernon for his entire legacy was in doubt?

every american knew at that time, every leading american i don't know what every american but you can read franklin, adams, jefferson, all these people agreed that what made america different was the frontier. that we were a new people and people were entrapped in the old mold. in england you had to be whatever your ancestors were. you didn't have any choice because the world was full. in america you could come over and be like a ben franklin and escape from servitude to your brother in boston and go to philadelphia and become a millionaire, a printer, scientist and change the world. and they knew the key to that was the frontier. that the frontier was always pushing west. one of the reasons they were against the britain was britain had taken away the frontier after the french antiwar. they built visible and said you can't go beyond the appellation because they want to keep us a subject people and america was

filling up in washington and jefferson, they all thought we need t the frontier. during this period of the confederation, of course the states refocused where they were on the east coast. they were ignorant the front you. they couldn't technically, georgia claims all the way to the mississippi. mississippi, connecticut even had claims to the mississippi. that's a strange one. but nobody was defending. the central government such as it was, that was a phrase washington would use in newsletters, the central government, such as it is, he would put it, or if they can call that a government and he would put it in quotes, or in closed in comments. he would be sneering of this thing. this was when is supposedly just a farmer and ignored what was happening in government. he was deeply involved. but the frontier was being lost and he himself had invested.

he had major holdings in the ohio valley and on the front you. they were all being lost because the central government such as it was couldn't maintain an army, could depend the frontier end of the way that pennsylvania or george was going to defend the frontier. the british had not left the fort in the frontier like in detroit and they were arming the indians ostensibly for first which they were trade with the british but, of course, you can use those same guns against settlers. the native americans had pushed back in, pushed way back into taking back most of george for example, and for pushing back into the heiress of western virginia, western pennsylvania. washington's own agent had been captured by the native americans during this period, roasted alive, scalp, roasted alive and been killed.

washington himself during this period, during this period we're talking about here after the revolution and before he became president had gone to visit his frontier in a trip of a lifetime. he loved camping out, sleeping under the stars, getting soaked in rain. remember, he had not been born with money. he was the second and third son of the second wife. first sign of a second wife of a moderately wealthy person and he wasn't going to inheri hurt anyg and he thought he had a job for a living so we learned to be a surveyor. he surveyed the country and he went back to look at his holdings and he could not get to his holdings because he had been born when he got across the native americans were waiting for the record to capture him and holding for ransom or worse. so we couldn't even get to his holdings. one of holdings he could get to, squatters have moved in and it wouldn't pay him and he wouldn't

leave. there was no government that could protect his property or protect his investments in the front you. and if that's where the future was, what sort of future do we have if we don't have a central government that can open the west? he developed a plan and be called progressive seeking or he would have a government, he devised this address closing years of the revolution when he began planning the future, the future that supposedly he was just going to retire. he produced a circular letter in the document on the future of the establishment when he developed a plan of progressive seeking where you could open the frontier, ohio country, illinois, indiana, open the frontier and make it into states. all that was being lost without a central government. there was no effective control over interstate commerce. so we couldn't get his own goods to market across state lines.

if you carefully read his letters and if you read who was visiting mount vernon you will see that mount vernon was a virtual crossroads of every budding and nationals in the country, that he was commuting with the john james purnell funds and john hancock's anamorphosis of pennsylvania, and the paintings in the south carolina get all these people were visiting him, spending time in mount vernon, planning for a nation, planning for a unified country, and washington, when you live in the south, where

ever you are trying to travel using that to go to atlanta airport all the time especially if you're flying on delta. during this period mount vernon was the atlanta airport of the nationalist movement. in the months leading up to the constitutional convention, we often hear that james madison was the architect of the constitution and written the ideas. why was he doing it? not at home, in mount vernon. he would spend months at a time in the timing up to the cost of tuition living in mount vernon. you can see the room where he was standing talking with washington, plotting out what this new government had to have. you can see washington writing letters to john jay after the constitutional convention was beginning to take shape, to john jacob to henry knox who was the head of the military forces for

what was the continental congress, confederation congress into james madison asking him if we go to philadelphia, what sort of government can we create? what needs to be in this government? you can look back and the circular to the state governors in a flash as a general saying we need, so it has to more power, it has to control state commerce. it has to have a military force but it has two progressively opened the frontier. we need to open the west. we have to have a central government that can defend us against european powers, that consolidates what is necessary for a nation and to make this an effective national market economy. these are words you associate with hamilton and he gets a rock music opera about him. they were coming from washington

or washington was hold a partner to them. washington realized that this is another thing that is characteristic of this period, is washington was a great listener. that may come in part because it was me particularly good orator, but he was a great listener. you can see this when he was a general before every battle he would pull together all these officers and he would listen to all of them about how the battle should take place, what should we do, how should we handle crossing the delaware, or how should we handle your town, or how should we handle brandywine? and then he would collectively draw those ideas together, compromise, work out, and then from that a plan would develop. this is we know how he was as president. he invented the cabinet. the cabinet is nowhere in the

constitution, but the idea of calling his leaders together. and remember doors cars could win up to talk about lincoln having his team of rivals in his cabinet. talk about a team of rivals. he would listen to them all, listen to all the ideas, they could write memos and he would from those work out an overall plan. they all recognized the great wisdom. if he wasn't the brightest or most technically researched person, if he wasn't like a policy wonk like madison, if he wasn't a raging, brilliant parser like hamilton, he was a very wise man who had definite clue goals. and we can see these all belong,

to create a more perfect union, to turn a leak of friendship into an effective country that could be respected abroad, create prosperity at home, because prosperity was being lost because of the competition and the lack of a national market economy and competition between the states, and expand westward. those were his three great goals for the country, respect abroad, prosperity at home and expansion westward. those what anyone knew what he stood for. those were his known platforms when he was elected president but that is what is believed to this period. so he would listen to others. so the pimp days would come up and the morsels would come down and he would be writing to john jay. john jay was a very close confident. madison would be there so much of the time. he was be writing continuously to benjamin franklin who would then be over in france, drawing on ideas. wendy kopp the letters back to

mount vernon, he created a synthesis, a summary of the literacy had received from all these different people into a single written summary which he then took to the constitutional convention. at the remarkable thing is the constitutional is almost like a summer. it doesn't look like what madison originally wanted because madison was not a compromiser. madison would storm out, would be furious during the constitutional convention because he wouldn't get his way on something like guarantee for lower federal courts, or one particular of choosing the president to the president would be chosen by congress. washington instead would listen to all these ideas. he would hear what was coming from the small stage. he would hear what was coming

from the big states come the so-called big states, and he would be willing, as long as his fundamental goals are reached, he was willing to compromise on needs to get an effective results. you can see that in so much of what he did in philadelphia. if you look at the record of philadelphia, washington is almost invisible at the philadelphia convention because we have is madison's notes, and madison's notes contain what was said officially. washington was the presiding officer, just as today with the house of representatives, the speaker can't speak during the debates in the house of representatives. john boehner can't speak when he is a there. does that mean that he is not running what's happening in the house of representatives? that the speaker is not running? may run what happens in different manners. they decide who is called on.

they are meeting with people outside of the main sessions, working out the compromises. and if you followed the constitutional convention closely you can see washington working very close with benjamin franklin playing that role. bad medicine would have all these ideas. people who read the constitution convention closely will often say how madison and the original plan, the virginia plan. and then he gets weaned on all the details. there is some truth to that, washington wasn't. washington would sit there and work with the people and, with say the great compromise that the small states, the small states each kit comes every state get to members of senate. the virginia plan has everything proportional. so few states, the house of representatives proportional and

they elected the senate. then they elect the president. that gets pushed back at the convention because the big states control the house of representatives but the small states all get equal representation in the senate and the president is big by the weird electoral college mechanism was used to a compromise to get around the problem of slavery and to give more weight to the small states. that's what it's come up with the dictates want a direct election of the president. that was what the pennsylvania was pushing for. they were pushing for direct election for president but that leaves the small states out and it harms the southern states because only votes count and have the people are slaves who can't vote. but if you use electoral college suddenly the south gets a lot more votes because the slaves count at least three this independent. they wanted one to one, but also the small states get to fashion

they get to the electoral votes for each of those senators. you can see washington's hand and every bit of it. they tend to be more of it was, who could think of weird things like the electoral college. or ben franklin who was behind the big states ball state, ms. and headed off to sherman to get the credit because they thought of better coming from a small state than his state. these were the guys who could think of the mechanisms, but you can look back at the record. when they were announced these people always met with washington beforehand, and would have, the person who offered a compromise was always with washington the night before in washington would always call him a first. first. so he was in on it did he invent everything? i take the view of washington in the constitution is, if madison was the architect of the constitution, and i won't take that away from him, george

washington was the general contractor. any of you who have ever built the house put an addition on the house know it looks a lot more like what the general contractor thought of then what the architect originally designed. that's the role i.t. to tease out during this exciting period when this man, along with others, definitely along with others, didn't do it alone. along with others created what we now know is a more perfect union, the store i get to tell. i have little time for questions of anyone have questions or if not i will just blather on and tell more stories. so please. >> you said washington had a desire to be famous. i know he is not one of the kardashians, but like what motivation did he have come under in? >> when he was young he would

write in his private notebooks and letters that what he really thought was thing. lid on it would be to leave a legacy, and actually during the confederation period is a circular letter to the states which is when the outline we needed a stronger union which he wrote in 1782 and sent them out in 783, most in 783 was called washington's legacy. and what he did is he wanted, well, lots of great men remind us can footprints on the scent of time. he wanted to leave the. that was characteristic. the enlightenment followed the reformation and followed the middle ages when people were god's agent whatever glorifying god, and the one thing about enlightenment is we believe people can make a difference. and washington deeply believed in the sense of the role of

humans. that humans can make a difference. and he believed in and enlightenment values of individual liberty, of representative rule and not having monarchs ruled. remember, he volunteered, volunteered. he made clear that he would be very pleased if the first and second continental congress chose it as the leader of the troops. remember he came up in his military uniform which barely fit came from virginia to show the he would be, again, not saying something but this performance that he would be willing to lead the troops, that he would go up to boston and lead the troops. he was fighting for a cause he believed in, but he was a visible part of it. he wanted to make a difference for the good. for joy for all of us he

believed in as we would call them back in republican virtues, republican values of liberty, of economic freedom, of private property, deeply believed in the valleys of private property and not having monarchical rule, and by advancing those causes he would be remembered and he cared greatly that he would be remembered. so that would be the sense that he wanted, not a kardashians sort of fame at a fame of making a difference of transforming, being a model. you can read his first inaugural address and the one he didn't use it you can read some of his private letters. he viewed america almost like john winter, as a city on a hill, as a model to show that republican rule can work, and that he would be the model for europe and it would change the world. inc. is a deep sense of that as

he came increasingly, to personify or connect himself with the united states, is characteristic of washington and then in washington as the one who can transform things. >> washington in his will provided for the freedom of his slaves. during this conversation, during the making of the republic, putting together the constitution, what was it that discussion about in those deliberations in the constitutional deliberations? >> that's a great question. i spent considerable time dealing with that in my book. watching 18 -- washington was a defender of slavery. he was part of a compromise that brought out the three-fifths compromise, and the fugitive slave law. in part he thought that was necessary to maintain the union and to bring the south end,

though many analysts would not agree, that he didn't need to make as many compromises as possible. washington came from a different era. washington grew up in a period when everybody had slaves. everybody had slaves. every country in the world, slaves in europe. there have always been slaves. they were slaves in every state. every member come every person who signed the declaration of independence except john adams had owned slaves at least one time. he could not imagine the world without slaves. during the revolution many people are pulling on him. there was a movement against slavery. people like some of his aides like henry lawrence of south carolina, or most critically lafayette of france, or hamilton of new york were saying no, slavery has to end and you should be a leader of it. he didn't go that far.

he kept his own slaves. of course many of his slaves were owned by his wife but he always, this is not the trend of the future. ben franklin had switched to the owned slaves when he was younger. he became a leading abolitionist, ben franklin. washington can change that much but on his deathbed he had written to wills. we don't know what was in one. he asked that both wills be brought to him. he looked at them both. he tore up one and asked that it be burned to educate the other one. this is my will, and that's the one that contains the freeing of the slaves. washington was a man of action, not of works. he must have believed, because this was, this act would send that message to the future. i don't think you want to be on the wrong side of history. he wanted to send a message and

that's how we did it come through his action. unfortunate i don't have anymore time. thank you so much for coming. it's been a delight to be here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv, television for serious readers. you can watch any program you see your online at booktv.org. here's a look at some of the current best selling nonfiction books according to the harvard bookstore in cambridge, massachusetts.