symbol of the prison in paris, sent the key to george washington and it now hangs in mount vernon. we thought the french revolution was a carbon copy of our own. when it spiralled out to tyranny, we just assumed well, the french don't have the stuff, the virtue, that makes a revolution successful. and from then on, all through the latin american revolutions, we have the first state to recognize them. now, there is one revolution -- this is true throughout the 19th century. every 1848, the greek rebellion, 1820. the french bourgeois monarchy, and they were the first state in the world normally to recognize the new regimes. which all failed, of course. there's one revolution we don't recognize and of course the obvious one is the haitian. and that was not that haitian republic was not recognized until lincoln's.

this was a rebellion of slaves who slaughtered the white masters. it was impossible for a southern dominated one to recognize that. >> but john adams did send a console. >> yeah, but we didn't diplomatically recognize it. the federalists were very keen on having relations with the haitian government. again, the federalists have come up in the eyes of scholars over the last 20 years, through much of our history, through the 20th century. it's the jeffersonian who dominated scholarly attitudes. they were the party of the democrats and they were the party of the small farmers and so on. and the federalists were a bunch of aristocrats. now recently because of the development of anti-slave feeling, and women's movement, people like hamilton and many of the federalists are much more liberal on these issues than the

southern dominated jeffersonian republicans. so they have recovered some of the press that they lost through the first half of the 20th century. >> the rural vote has come in. i found a letter that hamilton wrote. the council that adams sent to haiti, edwin stephens, who was a friend of hamilton's. and stephens wrote hamilton and said, do you have any thoughts about a constitution for haiti? it's very interesting what hamilton did. he said only a military government is possible. but he did try to have some balancing of powers in it. he said, you know, there should be judges elected for life and you should have a council of generals to propose taxes. >> right. >> so he wasn't -- i don't think you'd call that a hopeful, particularly. but he's trying to -- he makes some suggestions.

>> well, even jefferson when he looked at the latin american revolutions, he said, well, they're probably not going to work very well. they'll probably -- the people will wade through military despottisms, but as they want to become republicans i wish them well. that was the kind of -- it's a kind of patronizing pessimism we had towards people. which became more pessimistic as time went on, because the revolutions failed. hungari hungarian, austrian, hungarian all failed. what expresses american chutzpa, if you will, secretary of state, the austrian prime minister complains to him for american instigation and support of the revolutions taking place in the austrian and hungarian empires.

and normally in the evasive words says exact contrary. he says we the united states take nothing less than full responsibility for all of the rebeli rebellions that are taking place in europe. he goes on, in this kind of pride in instigating rebellion. then ends his message to the austrian hungarian minister in washington, he says, besides compared to the great extend of the united states, the austrian hungarian empire is but a patch on the earth's surface. this kind of spread eagle bombast was very typical of american diplomatic language. we were just considered by many people, of being a really wild, scary kind of country. a dangerous country in the 19th century. >> and webster was a good diplomat, when he wasn't holding

forth. >> he's a conservative man. a good wig. but there's the kind of attitude we had. we were really bumpshouse. i mean, president grant. the french finally overthrow napoleon iii and the president congratulates them on adopting american principles. what would the french foreign office think of that? we don't know. they have become americanized. now, the big turning point as you know occurs in 1917 which i think is very illustrative of our attitude. in the beginning, you know, in the spring the czar is forced out of -- forced to abdicate. and seven days later in may we recognize the new republic. the moderate government.

and first nation in the world to recognize the new russian republic. and wilson is ecstatic. he had a new fit partner for his league and so on. and the representative -- our minister in moscow writes back, russia will come out with correct american principles is what he is saying. a few months later, six months later the bolsheviks take over. what happens? we had the last major state in the world to recognize the soviet union. i think ireland was the last. 16 years, four american presidents. the last state to recognize. now what happened? we had been recognizing these rebellions. i think it's because the soviets were not -- were not a species of the revolutionary genius americans. they were a whole new genus altogether.

all these other republican revolutions, we have one that isn't like us. it's a whole new message contrary to our own. with the same kind of universal aspirations of our own. i think the cold war begins in 1917. interrupted briefly with the war against a more sinister enemy, nazi germany, but quickly, quickly resumed after the war. and the fear of communism was a real fear, that they were threatening the meaning of the united states. and its role in history. >> who owns the principle of revolution? >> exactly. where's the future? i mean, there's a new biography of lincolns stefans. we come back and he says there's where the future is. a lot of intellectuals did buy into that and you have to take

that seriously. when kennedy in his inaugural address said we'll pay any price, bear any burden in defense of liberty, that's a cold war speech that was based on the fear that communism was spreading and we had to stop it. contain its. as george said. >> i want to get to questions. i'm sure we have a lot. but before we do that. my last question, you have spent a lot of time in this period and with its great men and with its obscure men and women. who would you want to spend an evening with if you could? >> well, i think -- i mean, i admire george washington greatly. because i think he stood head and shoulders above the others. we tend to lump them all together which is unfortunate because, you know, presidents day -- all the presidents, they didn't think so. they thought washington was way

ahead of them -- the rest of them. but the man you'd want to spend the evening with is benjamin franklin because he would have kept you laughing, he had a million stories. washington was not a great dinner partner. >> okay. we're going to be taking questions an -- and if you'd like to have a question, if you want to ask a question, we have two microphones. one there and one is being set up over there. before you ask the question, please state your name and please just ask one question. and no speeches with rising inflections as questions either. and we have two staff members who can help you. so let's start with the mic over here and we'll alternate back and forth. >> hi, alan. you said that there's

disinterest within the american population, but you don't really say where they thought that virtue was supposed to come from. so i'm wondering if you'd say a little bit more about that. what do they think the source of virtue was that would sustain the republic. and would you say about what you yourself might be the source of virtue in 21st century america that would sustain our public. >> well, the virtue is the classical term for disinterestedness was another s sin aanymore they used and it was of course what the romans and greeks thought was the ideal character to have to sustain a republic. because if authoritarian governments can suppress, and if everyone runs off and gets the self-interest, only the monarchy

could do that. they felt from their experience in 1775 -- '74, '75, '76 the courts were closed in most of the colonies and yet people weren't running amok. of course, there were popular ways of keeping -- there was a lot of oppression brought to bear on tories an loyalists. but they started off very, very idealistically i guess inclined and found they were disillusioned by what happened. the elites were. i think that's where the crisis comes in the 1780s. not as virtuous as we thought we were. how do we -- how do we solve the problem of holding a republic together when the populous is not virtuous? this is where the structure of

government comes in. that's why madison was so obsessed with building a structure that would account for -- it would keep us a republic without having a virtuous populous. he was still counting on a virtuous leadership, but i think he hoped that this structure by itself would deal with a self-interested, fact shouse people. and in some -- we had a civil war after all. but we have muddled through and we're still muddling through. it's very difficult to get anything done, it was built into the structure of the system. power is dangerous, and that was the fear they had. that was madison's fear certainly. and it's created a problem for us. if we had a parliamentary system, john boehner would be the prime minister. think of it in those terms.

>> i'm -- hi. i would like to know who was allowed to vote? was it the land owners or was it the elite? who was elected to be voters? >> well, it changed as time went on, but at the out set it was property owners in most states. white males. 21 and older who had some property. now, in some states the property qualifications were very low. in pennsylvania, for example, it was quite radical. vermont too. but you have to keep that in perspective. we had the largest electorate of any state in the world and we did even in the colonial period. two out of three white males could vote in most colonies. now, compare that to england which itself was considered a democratic state by european standards. one out of six males could vote in england. so by any standards whatsoever

in the 18th century we had the largest most democratic in the world. woman of course did not vote yet. that's a 20th century accomplishment and certainly black slaves did not vote. but you have to get it into perspective. in the context of the time, we had the largest electorate in the world. in the 18th century. >> there was black people that owned property, but they were not allowed to vote? >> yes. in northern states, yes. they started -- they were voting in new york and pennsylvania. at the outset, yes. if you were a free black and you had property you could vote. and women -- in new jersey for about nine years, women who had property could shoet. that was taken away and there was not a single protest from any woman. >> ray tillman. canadians today are taught that the u.s. revolution came about

because we didn't want to pay our taxes which of course the brits love because they claim that the french and indian war debts. but the canadians believe the motivation of revolting was largely economic. we were taught it was liberty and freedom and so on. quantitatively on the aggregate motivation say in the 1760s and '70s, what was -- what were the american motives, 90% one or 10% for the other or 50-50? what would you guess? >> i think that's an impossible question to answer. obviously, economic issues were important. people were frightened about what -- if they could tax us what they could do. i think it was more a fear of power. i'll give you one example. the tea party, you know, the massachusetts radicals throw 10,000 pounds -- value. that's millions of dollars by

our standards of tea into the boston harbor. and the country is appalled by this. virginia, without virginia there's not a revolution. it's the richest state. virginians are appalled by this tea party and if the brits had acted moderately which is asking a lot because they had been appeasing the people every moment, they kept repealing and backing away and now enough is enough, they said. destroy -- destroying property that's outrageous and they come in with the coercive acts. they close the port of boston, they change the massachusetts charter. well the virginians say if they can do that to massachusetts, they can do to that to us. is that economic? is that a fear of just power of sovereignty? it's a complicated issue. i don't think you can measure it well, that giey're going to lose

money. i think it was a fear of an alien force. 3,000 miles away could do to them. i think it's a fear of power. >> would our representation in the british parliament have alleviated that? >> some people proposed that, i think the americans -- they figured they would have been manipulated. that was called the scottish solution because the scots had been given 100 members in 1707. they had already about 560, 580 members in the house of commons. it is bigger than our house today. we would have been delude. but i think the canadian point, you have to understand the canadians are a bunch of loyalists. they are loyalists that went up there. think about this. we have -- if you want to know the difference between canada and the united states, what's our trilogy? life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. what's the canadian trilogy? peace, order and good government. there's the difference between the two countries. that comes out of the north

america act of 1867. it's a two different cultures. they really are still very much affected by their loyalist beginnings. >> thank you. >> you talked a little bit earlier about in -- >> what's your name, please? >> i'm nathan from horace mans school. you talked about in the 1780s, madison is worried about tyranny of the majority. the state legislatures are running amok. i was wondering what you thought about the relation on the uniquely american concept of judicial review on this concept and especially today we had citizens united recently. we have the healthcare challenge coming up. >> right. >> how you think that kind of strand has intertwined since the american revolution? >> well, the judicial review develops very slowly and against much opposition. the development of the courts i

would say along with the creation of the constitution was one of the principle federalist you will. but it is a curb on democracy. no way you can justify nine individuals deciding issues and say, well, that's democratic. you have to face the facts that it is a way of curbing and softening the effects of democracy. often for good causes. minority rights, individual liberties, so on. but in no way is it a democratic institution. now, there were people who began arguing that they are a kind of representative of the people and people said, well, if that's true, then we should elect them. that of course has happened at the states. about 39 states elected their judges. now, that's not happened at the federal level. it would be very difficult to --

you know how difficult it is to amend the constitution. i haven't heard anybody suggesting that. i have heard i think gingrich has suggested doing away with the ninth circuit. which [ laughter ] which he said would be on the face of it unconstitutional but after all, he cites jefferson's party doing away with the 16 judges in 1801. so there's a precedent for that. but the courts really are a curb on democracy, something that we've come to accept. and i think it's quite extraordinary that we're willing to accept the degree to which the courts, particularly the supreme court, affects our lives. i mean, when you think about 2000, the election, that was remarkable, the acceptance of that in many countries that would have led to riots in streets and gunfire and killings and we see what's happening in the middle east. we didn't have that. and that, i think, is part of

our respect for the court, which has to be handled -- the court's quite aware of this -- they have to handle things very carefully. they don't want to get out ahead of public opinion. but it was developed very slowly judicial review did not take off right away. it was fought tooth and nail for decades, particularly by the jeffersonians, particularly jefferson himself. madison came i think, to appreciate the court better than his colleague, jefferson. >> jefferson said if john marshall, whom he hated. >> yes. >> if john marshall asked if the sun was shining, he'd say, i don't know, sir, i can't tell. because he figured, whatever he said, he'd get marberry madison. >> such a shrewd -- one of great minds. without great education. i mean, he didn't have a lot of college education. he had a great mind, however. >> sir? >> alvin, before the question, the federalist had a comment on judicial review.

the idea of reviewing by the courts let the constitutionality of state laws, which was not passed. my question has to do with john adams and the election and his term after george washington. he went home. and the question is how important that going home alone with his family, after his family, in the wagon, sneaking out of washington, as it were, how important that was in establishing a firm anti-men or cal in the united states. >> the idea of one party su planting another was an extraordinary moment in the history of western politics. and adams' willingness to surrender and the federalists willing to surrender power to this new party. and they didn't think of these parties as we think of them. i mean, we think -- they need the party accepted the legitimacy of the other. the federalists never thought they were a party, really.

were a legitimate government besieged by french-loving possible traitors. it was not politics as usual, and neither of them thought that parties should be permanent. even the republicans, jeffersonian, as soon as the threat is gone, our republican party can go out of business. they did not believe in parties. so that was an important moment, i think that transition. the federalists thought that, well, they'll call us back as soon as they see how wild the jeffersonians are. they will call us back in and we'll be in authority before long. it never happened. federalists never posed an electoral threat again. by 1820, not even putting up a candidate. >> we have time for one more question. >> which is you.

>> jake rose, york prep. >> what do you think the found ers would think about occupy wall street and occupy oakland, seattle. this is a serious question. >> yeah, sure. >> well, i think it's akin to the kinds of questions i often get. what do the founders think of something we're doing. i think that's extraordinary. i don't know of any other culture in the world would ever ask that, where that kind of question would be asked and i think if has something to do with our connection of them. who knows what they would think. they were used to riots. they were used to people spilling into the streets. madison was not -- he was alarmed by shea's rebellion but it wasn't shea's rebellion that alarmed him. he was worried about what the shea -- they were put down quickly by military force. he was worried about when they turned and began electing people to the massachusetts house who were going to then promote legally what they were unable to

do by rioting. and of course, that's one thing you might say about, you know, the occupying -- the next step is to engage in electoral politics. you call attention to something but then the solution in the democracy is to organize and win elections. and i think that's -- of course madison was frightened by this. he thought that's why he was designed the constitution to somehow prevent the states from -- from doing harmful things. but nonetheless, that's the way we deal with our ultimately, we are not going to go the way of the middle east rioters. we have to have trust in our electoral politics. i think that's -- i think we'll muddle through all of this turmoil. it's not -- it's not -- it's not as bad if you get any perspective. one thing history does give you is a sense of perspective. this is not the most serious

moment in our history. it may seem so, but i don't -- i guess you'd have to say most serious moment was at the beginning and then in the civil war. and since then we've had some serious moments. and i don't think this is the worst. maybe it's bad. we'll see. we don't know the future. that's one thing that we just don't know of. >> thank you, gordon wood. thank you. >> dale gregory has an announcement. before you leave, dale gregory has an announcement. >> for those who don't know me, i'm dale gregory, vice president for public programs. two very quick announcements. our museum store is this direction on the 77th street side. you can purchase your books there. the book signing is taking place at the table directly out the back doors. and if you'd like participate in a virtuous act tonight or soon, that combines private interests and public good, you can take your seat in history one of

these beautiful seats are available for your name, your name, a friend's name, to honor and support wonderful programs like these. thank you again, so much. >> thank you. you're watching american history tv, 48 hours of people and events that help document the american story. all weekend every weekend on c-span3. >> in a city whose public is dominated by statesmen and generals on horse back this bronze rendition of mathematician and scientist albert einstein stands out, perhaps because there's little about the monumental about this

washington monument. even if it stands 12 feet tall and weighs four tons. here robert burks distinctive style, some crick labeled him bubble gum sculpture gives this. the famous scientist holds in his left hand a document listing some of his most significant theories. the same bench has quotes, einstein's unwavering belief in human tolerance, equality before the war, duty of any truth seeker to reveal his findings no matter where they lead. the circular floor of the memorial features an extra no, ma'am cal map featuring the universe as it and on the date of its dedication in april 1979, which also coincided with einstein's 100th birthday. thirty years later visitors of all ages are drawn to the iconic figure of the grounds of the national academy of science.

children especially enjoy climbing into the lap of the scientific genius with the smile of a grandfather. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week. and every weekend american history tv, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites and join in the conversation on these social media sites. this week on the civil war, a panel discussion on the career of historian and author james mcpherson. speakers include friends, colleagues and noted students of the civil war historian. this two-hour event took place in chicago at the american historical association's annual meeting. >> i'm honored to chair this