Father of Our Country

Dennis Prager here. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire 3 hours of my radio show commercial-free every single day, become a member of Prager Utopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives as well as the daily show prep. Subscribe at pragertopia.com.

Alrighty everybody, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show. About twice a year I embarrass this man across the Atlantic by praising him so highly that it takes him about half a year to recuperate.

From the laugh, I guess you recuperate faster than I, than I'm assuming.

He is Paul Johnson, one of the absolute eminent thinkers and historians living on this planet at this time. And I, I don't want to gush beyond that lest I overwhelm all of us, but it is truly— I think everybody knows my voice, or my listeners do— an honor for me to always have you on. And you've now written yet another wonderful book, George Washington: The Founding Father. And I always love it when you write about American topics because you bring to it the outsider's clarity and yet a deep love and admiration for the American experiment. Is that a fair way of explaining you and America?

Well, yes, I think it is. You see, my publishers in New York said to me, we discover young people today don't know enough about George Washington, and we think the reason is that the books about Washington are so long, many of them in multivolume shape. Do you think you could do George Washington for us in 40,000 words? Uh, so I agreed to do it and I did it, and this is the book.

I, I might add, forgive me for this because this, this is one of my, uh, standing on a, uh, on a chair and just screaming my, my guts out, but I believe that that is a major problem. Length of books has been a major problem in alienating people from required information for some time now. And you're right, there is a 7-volume, I believe it is, and it's a magisterial work by Flexner, 7 volumes on George Washington. But outside of a handful of academics, I don't know who will read that. And we need those books, but we need somebody to make him accessible in, as you put it, 40,000 words, which is how many pages? What is that?

Well, it's 120 pages.

Yeah, that's great. That's what—

that should almost be required. Now, first of all, I'll ask you about that length.

Was it hard to do in 120 pages?

Well, I've done a number of such books. I've done Napoleon at the same length, and I've done a little book on the Renaissance, and I find it can be done. And, uh, I've, I've got quite skillful at it. I mean, I've written a number of books of over 1,000 pages, right? And they are very hard work. But some of these short books are great fun to write because, uh, the, the, the shortage of space you're given forces you to think very sharply.

That's right, exactly right. I so believe in that. Now, why did you take on the task of George Washington? It wasn't merely to be of service to the young American or other who doesn't know about him. Do you—

Well, admiration, really. You see, I think America has been a very lucky country, both in the country that God gave them and the men God gave them when they were founded, but above all, I think they were lucky in Washington. And I don't think there can have been many men in world history who both proved themselves to be a first-class general and then a first-class statesman. And curiously enough, when he had rendered all his services as a general, and proposed to return to his estates, his old enemy George III said to the president of the Royal Academy, who was an American, "What do you think General Washington will do now?" And the president of the Academy said, "He will, sir, he will return to his estates." And George III said, if he does that, he will be the greatest man alive. Because the equivalent in English history, Oliver Cromwell, had gone on to become a kind of military dictator. Uh, George Washington was too humble and too constitutional-minded to do that. He returned to his estates and waited to be summoned by Congress.

Why is he—

why are we so lucky to have had him? Is that the primary reason?

Because, well, of that I I think is the fact that he was a general who then went on to be a first-class constitutional leader, president, is the first double reason. But the second reason, I think, was that he was also typical of the best kind of American in making the fullest possible use of his opportunities. Inherited quite large estates, and he received many more by virtue of his wife and through his own endeavors. But he went on to develop them, and this is a side of Washington which I think is not sufficiently known. He was one of the greatest farmers America has ever had, and by the end of his life was one of the richest men in the country. But he'd done this by hard work in developing his estates using the very latest methods and instruments of agricultural science.

What do we know about him personally? What, what sort of—

well, we know a great deal in one sense, that he left more papers than anyone else of his time, and they're all there in the National Archives and in the library.

More papers in, in what?

Personal papers, from diaries from the age of 14, and he kept it— every letter he sent or received. So I mean, in, in that sense, he's very well documented. But in another sense, he's a very elusive man. He didn't easily unbend. Uh, he's a difficult man to work out the psychology he possessed and so forth, and he baffled a lot of his contemporaries.

Well, how did he baffle them? In what way did he baffle them? Because of what?

Well, they couldn't quite make him out. some of them, those closest to him, particularly those who fought with him in the war, thought he was a very great man. They were very clear on that, that he was a good man and a great man and a very intelligent man. Others, such as his vice president John Adams, underrated him. Adams thought he was a very foolish fellow who'd been extremely lucky and, uh, had managed to survive more by bluff, uh, than by, uh, great intelligence or ability. And he tended to ridicule him and so forth.

Sounds like—

I suppose others did that. But, um, the truth of the matter is, um, he was a man of very great ability.

Was he a man of great intellect?

I wouldn't say intellect in the sense that he was not an intellectual. He wasn't interested in ideas. He was interested in practicalities. But he had a library of 750 books, which was quite a lot for those days, and I think he'd read most of them. He'd certainly consulted all of them.

Was he a religious man?

Not particularly. I mean, he was a religious man for social reasons. He attended his church and he sat on the local governing board and so on, but he was not a man who automatically went to church every Sunday. He did as a rule, but by no means automatically.

Was he a believer?

I don't think, uh, that his, uh, nature was a very spiritual one. If anything, uh, he was a very conscientious Freemason. He, uh, Masonry was an important part of his life, as it was for many of the leaders, interestingly. Uh, indeed, yes, yes, yes. But I would say that he was typical of his time in that the late 18th century was a very secular age. It wasn't a spiritual age.

And yet he invoked God in his inaugural address.

And yes, he invoked God in both senses. He invoked God for rhetorical reasons and also for cursing reasons. Uh, he, uh, he would say things like, um, to his cabinet when they made life difficult for him, 'By God, sirs, I will retire to my estates if you're not careful.' Oh, and then that, uh, that somehow ticked off the, uh, the more religious.

It was felt that he'd used God's name in vain.

Yes.

Yeah.

Was he a believing Christian? Would you say that?

Oh, I'm sure he was, uh, and he was a believing Christian. He believed in God and in Christ, but he also believed that religion was an extremely important force in life. It was a form of social control. It made people better than they would be otherwise, and therefore more easily governed and better citizens. He took what you might call a pragmatic view of religion.

I'm speaking to Paul Johnson, and everything he writes is self-recommending. I mean, if he wrote a history of rhododendrons, I would have him on. But this is about, of course, the father of our country, George Washington, the founding father. It's just 120 pages, distilled wisdom. We will return, and if you'd like to speak to Paul Johnson, here's a rare opportunity: 1-800-PRAGER-776, The Dennis Prager Show. All righty, y'all, you're listening to The Dennis Prager Show. My guest is the eminent, if not preeminent, historian, writer, thinker of our time, Paul Johnson. And his latest book is George Washington. It's 120 pages. It's a series called Eminent Lives. It's an important series and it's a very important book. And if you, like me, don't have the time to read, uh, many books that are very long, this is perfect as an introduction or a summary of George Washington's life. 1-800-PRAGER-776 if you'd like to ask some questions. What is, uh, what is your take on George Washington and the issue of slavery?

Uh, well, George Washington, like many Virginian gentleman had a lot of slaves, but he also disapproved of slavery, and the last years of his life were spent in devising means whereby he could free his slaves. Of course, other people did this, or wanted to do, like Jefferson planned to release his slaves, but his debts were so great that he couldn't do it, and when he died, when Jefferson died, all the slaves were sold down the river and their families split up. Now Washington didn't have debts, or very few, because he was very prudent about money. So under his will, the slaves were eventually freed, and that was almost unique at the time, I think. So that's my take on his view of slavery. He thought that slavery was inefficient and wicked.

And wicked.

And wicked, yes.

Did Jefferson think it was wicked?

Uh, he said so, yes, he certainly said so, but he, um, he got himself into such financial difficulties that he was never able to do anything about it, unfortunately.

This is just a bit on a tangent, but I had reported recently of a school, uh, understandably in Berkeley, California, and I'm sure you know of its reputation, that had now voted to change its name from Jefferson High School to, to another name because Jefferson owned slaves.

Why would you respond to those, to the people who—

Well, I think that's unhistorical because in Jefferson's day, someone from his, uh, social and geographical background would have owned slaves, uh, and, uh, it's to Jefferson's credit that he wanted to end the institution. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to do it in his case, because he spent too much money on books and on architecture. But I don't think it's right to hand that against him, and I think Jefferson had many other great qualities which played a very, very important part in the history of America, in the founding and the history of America. And there wouldn't— without Jefferson, without people like Washington, there wouldn't be a Berkeley University today.

Right, that's, that's correct, but they don't want to acknowledge that.

1-800-PRAGER-776.

And let's go to, uh, Irvine, California. Whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops, whoops.

Irvine, California. And Joe, hello Joe, you're on with Paul Johnson and Dennis Prager.

Hi Dennis, hi Mr. Johnson. Uh, Mr. Johnson, I heard an anecdote that during the Continental Congress, uh, Washington would show up every day wearing his general's uniform, and then when he was appointed president or leader, he was, 'Oh, you mean me?' And he was kind of campaigning through his uniform.

Any truth to that?

Oh boy, I see the problem here.

Sean, we have to put up—

or rather, wearing his uniform. He wasn't then a general, but he was entitled to do that, and because he had rendered great services already in the field And what is more, he wanted to make the point that if necessary, the 13 states had to go to war against Britain in uniform to prove it. So it wasn't anything frivolous and it wasn't egotistical. It was a practical— he was a practical man and this was a practical gesture.

This may be sacrilegious to some, but as— but in your description, I was wondering if an analogy in any way to Ronald Reagan would be appropriate?

Uh, well, he had certain things in common with Reagan. Uh, George Washington had 3 or 4 very simple, clear ideas about his duty, uh, and he pushed them for all they were worth. I think Mr. Reagan was a similar character. He also had 3 or 4 fundamental ideas about life and politics and pushed them for all they were worth. And of course, that often makes a very successful politician.

That, and when you, when you spoke of John Adams' dismissal of him, it was— it reminded me immediately of many of those who dismissed Ronald Reagan as— and that's what brought that to mind.

Yes, because Ronald Reagan was not an intellectual, nor was George Washington, right? But then, in my experience, going back over 50 years and covering a lot of countries, intellectuals do not make good successful politicians, right?

Or leaders.

Yeah, yes, yes. I mean, because people might say, well, of course not politicians because they pander, but I mean, they're just not great leaders.

They're not usually good.

Also, also religiously, it sounds similar. They're both God-centered believing Christians but not terribly overtly religious.

Yes, that's true, but they both, I think, believed that Christianity was absolutely essential essential, uh, for the American nation.

Yes.

And that it made a much better nation in consequence.

That, that's exactly right. Now, did people in Washington's time know they were with greatness?

Sorry, did they, did they know that they were in the presence of greatness? Oh, I think there's absolutely no doubt about that. Washington traveled over most of what was then the United States, and everywhere he was greeted He was greeted, uh, both as the hero of the Revolutionary War but also as the President of the United States, uh, and as a great man. And I think nobody who was ever in his presence, uh, left it without feeling he'd been with a great man who was also a simple man.

What was his family life like? In other words, vis-à-vis his parents and his wife?

Well, he had no children, right?

That's why I said it that way.

His mother was very important, much more so than his father. His wife was very important. He had no children, but he had a lot of children who were closely related to him. And so, and he used to have them at Mount Vernon. And they were very delighted to go because Mount Vernon was a magical place then, as indeed it still is today. And so he was always surrounded by young people and they loved him because he was kind to them, he enjoyed their company, he liked them, he took them out riding with him. Or on the river, uh, and, uh, he was a paterfamilias even though he had no children of his own.

Would he be surprised at how great America became?

No, because he— that's what he thought America had. Now, he lived, uh, half a century before the phrase Manifest Destiny was coined, but in a sense he was a precursor of that. The real reason Why he broke with Britain and thought it was essential that America should take the sword against Britain was because Britain, in his view, was going to thwart this Manifest Destiny by forbidding the American states to expand beyond the Alleghenies to go into the Mississippi Valley and the Great Plains.

We continue in a moment. Paul Johnson.

Paul Johnson, the book George Washington. I'm Dennis Prager. George Washington is the subject and my guest is Paul Johnson. One of the great thinkers and historians of our time has just written a 120-page book, and I love those books because it means that every word matters. George Washington, the Founding Father, and it is a wonderful way to introduce yourself or to get the insights of a great thinker about George Washington. It'll be up at the DennisPrager.com website. The phone number to speak to Paul Johnson, who is in London, is 1-8-PRAGER-776. 1-8-PRAGER-776. When Washington took over as general, did he believe he'd win?

I think he did, because what he thought was that he had only to keep keep the army in being and the government in being long enough for the British to lose heart. He felt that time was on his side, so he didn't mind too much if he met with physical reverses, lost battles or skirmishes, or had to retreat. So long as he could keep the army together and keep the congressional government protected and in being, he knew knew that the 13 states would win in the end. So I think he was a very cautious optimist.

Now, you were saying— because this, this subject has always fascinated me— what exactly were Americans rebelling against?

They thought they were conservatives who were resisting innovation, and this was particularly what George Washington himself thought. He believed, as did most Americans, that they had had a form of self-government right from the beginning in the early 17th century. In other words, they'd had it for the best part of 2 centuries and that they were entitled to go on governing themselves and raising taxes as they thought fit. They thought that the British government was the aggressor, that was the force which was trying to upset things, to take, bring about a revolution to limit their liberties and remove their rights. So they were the they, as it were, the constitutional force. They were the conservative force, and the British were the usurpers and the aggressors. That gave them a great sense of moral self-righteousness, which was extremely important in holding them together and making them fight.

And what did the British believe?

Was it moral self-righteousness, or simply, this is our imperial domain and we're not going to let—

Well, the British were divided. George III and his ministers felt that they had an absolute right, uh, over their colonial subjects. The word subject is very important. They felt they had absolute rights, but there were a great many other English politicians such as Edmund Burke who thought that was quite wrong, and their sympathies were fundamentally, uh, with the colonists, with the rebels as they were called, because they saw the— they admitted most of the American case. So the British were divided from the beginning, and they became more divided the longer the war lasted. And George Washington was proved right that in the end the British would lose heart, and of course they did.

We'll continue on that in a moment.

I, I have all—

there's something I've always wondered about, and I have no idea if we know the answer to this. Why don't all Americans talk like you do?

Why don't all Americans talk like I do? Because Americans tended to talk like English people did in the early '70s.

That's right, exactly.

Why did it change?

Why did it change?

And, and the— there again, both as they were more conservative in the war, um, so they're more conservative in the way they pronounce the English language. That's my theory anyway.

So you mean, you mean we— you mean Americans deliberately changed their accent?

No, I'm saying that Americans, uh, had the original American accent was the English.

Yes, exactly.

Early 17th century, and they kept it because they were so conservative. It was the English who changed.

Oh, you mean I speak like your ancestors?

More quickly in terms of changing our accent. The Americans stuck to the original ones.

I've never heard that That is fascinating to be true. So you believe that I speak more like a 17th century Englishman than you do?

Yes, exactly.

Wow, that's absolute revelation.

Most Americans—

yes, no, obviously yes. That is so interesting. We'll be back in a moment. I, I asked the right man.

We're going to take your calls.

Hey, it's a rare opportunity to speak to such a thinker.

Secondly, it's about George Washington. Whatever is on your mind on that subject, 1-800-PRAGER-776. I cannot commend the book too highly. Paul Johnson's George Washington: The Founding Father, a 120-page understanding of the man. We'll be back in a moment on The Dennis Prager Show.

Hi everybody, Dennis Dennis Prager here. We've been getting terrific feedback concerning these periodic hours that I devote to history because you know my belief: if you know history, you can begin to understand the present. Or to put it in the negative, if you don't know history, you can't understand the present. And I'll be a little aggressive here: I don't understand not wanting to know history. I don't, I don't get it. I understand where people like me are not thrilled with mathematics, for example, although I did have a professor of mathematics from Berkeley on the show because I want to fall in love with math too. Why not? If it's out there, I'd like to love it. But history should be self-recommending. This is what happened, and especially though not only American history. We are Americans. What happened? How did we get formed? It would seem to me to be a burning question. I certainly have it. And so I am delighted to welcome today Professor John Ferling. He's a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. And his book— and what we try to do is feature brand new books on history. There are magnificent books written 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. Show, but I'm trying to give the brand new authors, or the brand new books I should say, their time in the sun. He has written this book, Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. Two of the founders of this country hated each other. It's as simple as that. It's not only that, but that is the case, not only personally, but philosophically, and that's what this book is about. And it is of course up at DennisPrager.com, Jefferson and Hamilton. So Professor John Ferling, welcome to The Dennis Prager Show.

Well, thank you for having me.

It's a delight, sir. Just a word, I, you know what I love? I love when universities that we're not all familiar with produce works like your, your book and so on. I have found in the course of my broadcast career that unlike when I was at college, where you had a handful of colleges that you expected to— or universities that you expected to produce, uh, the scholars of the country— today that is no longer the case. So I'm not surprised that someone of your caliber is at a university we're not all familiar with, University of West Georgia. If you like to comment on that, that's fine, and if not, we'll just go to the Well, no, I think that's true.

I think it's been a matter of the job market over the last 40 years or so has been such that people have wound up at schools, smaller schools all around the country, and those who wanted to be productive were able to be productive in the schools oftentimes. Did what they could to facilitate their productivity. So I think all around the country you find people producing, obviously at Harvard and Yale, but you find good scholars, good historians, good political scientists and whatever at state colleges and small private schools all around the country. It is a different world today.

Yeah, it is, and that's a healthy— that's a much healthier thing. Yeah, I mean, I have big problems with universities on other issues, but the level of scholarship that we have today is very high, and it doesn't matter where they are. That— and you're a living example of that. How many years were you at the University of West Virginia?

At West Georgia?

I'm sorry. Well, yeah, well, you know what? You know what kills me? Because I am sure a lot of people do that, and I hate making the same mistake everybody does.

Well, that's right. I attended West Virginia.

Oh, that must drive you drive you nuts.

I'm sorry, I root for the Mountaineers in football, but I taught at, uh, at the University of West Georgia for 33 years.

Wow.

Where is it located?

It's out in the western exurbs of Atlanta in a town named Carrollton. It was founded, uh, when, uh, the last surviving, uh, signer of the Declaration of Independence was Charles Carroll of Carrollton. And they established the county in the late 1820s and named the county for him and the town for—

Okay, I got you.

Yeah.

All right, so was I correct in saying to begin with that Jefferson and Hamilton despised each other both personally and philosophically?

I think you were pretty much right on target. They had a bitter relationship. Both of them claimed, uh, that, uh, they, they were only rivals politically, but I think it went deeper than that. I think you were right on target.

Now, in a nutshell, and then we'll certainly obviously make that bigger than a nutshell because that's what your book is about, what did they represent each? What did each represent philosophically?

Well, uh, Jefferson Was in favor of a small, unobtrusive government. He wanted to maintain the agrarian nature of the economy. I think he had visions of it taking 200 or 300 years to advance from the Appalachians to the Pacific Ocean, and that during all of that time 95% of the people would remain farmers. And Hamilton favored a much stronger government, a government that could foster development of— I hate to say industrialization because that wasn't really a term that they used, but would make the country more productive. And more than anything, Hamilton was pushing to make the United States strong enough that it not only could stand on its own two feet against the predatory powers in Europe, but that it would be— it would have the power to continue to expand and drive some of the smaller powers like Spain out of the periphery of the United States.

Do my listeners and me a favor, because I think that most Americans don't realize how important Hamilton was to the founding of the nation. And maybe because he was— well, A, do you think I'm right? And B, if I'm right, why do you think that's happened?

That people don't understand?

Yes, how important Hamilton was to the founding.

Uh, well, I, I think we tend to probably focus on presidents, and he was, he was never a president. He was a member of a cabinet. He was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury. Uh, his life was cut short, uh, in that duel with Aaron Burr in, uh, 1804. '04. He was only in his mid-40s when he died in that duel. And so I think all of those things have conspired to kind of obliterate his image. And it really wasn't until almost 100 years, probably about 75 years after his death in the late 19th century, as the country really began to urbanize and industrialized, that his reputation began to be rehabilitated. He was almost forgotten until then. And I think, too, one other factor was that the political party of which he was a part, the Federalist Party, collapsed not long after his death. And so he didn't have a— there wasn't a political party there to beat the drums for Hamilton.

All right, so tell us then, in a nutshell, what did he do that is so monumental?

Well, I think there were a number of things, no one thing. He served in the Continental Army for about 7 years during the Revolutionary War. He was a valorous soldier who came into combat on a number of occasions. He was a delegate from New York to the Constitutional Convention, didn't play a particularly big role at the Constitutional Convention, but he did play an extremely important role in the ratification of the Constitution. He wrote the lion's share of the essays in the Federalist Papers, and it turned out that New York was an absolutely key state in securing the ratification of the Constitution, and no one played a bigger role in New York than Hamilton. But the biggest thing I think that Hamilton did was he was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, and he served in that position from 1789 to 1795. And the country had— had—

hold on, I want you to tell us about that when we get back, because that's— I want people to understand how big Hamilton was. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged the Nation. And was— one thing I'm going to ask the professor is, was their debate relevant to our debates today in the way we can construct them as conservative and liberal? The book Jefferson and Hamilton, up at DennisPrager.com. Hello, my friends. This is a periodic journey to history, a history hour on the Dennis Prager Show, where I feature recently published books, brand new books on some aspect of history. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged the Nation They were huge rivals on both a personal and philosophical level. Professor of history at the University of West Georgia, John Ferling, has written the book, and again, it is called Jefferson and Hamilton, and it is up at DennisPrager.com. And the last thing that I had asked the professor was Hamilton's contribution, because Hamilton is, I think, the least sung founder that we have, the most unsung, if you will. And, uh, you were mentioning that he was a delegate of New York State, which was critical to the Constitutional Convention. He wrote the lion's share of the essays in the Federalist Papers. I mean, even if he had only done that, he would be huge. But even bigger than all of that is as Secretary of Treasury under George Washington.

And go Yeah, that was the key position in Washington's cabinet. At least that was how contemporaries saw it, because the economy had absolutely collapsed during the Revolutionary War. We were essentially a bankrupt nation. We were deeply in debt. We had borrowed a considerable amount of money, especially from France, a little bit from Spain and, and Holland during the the Revolutionary War. That had to be paid back. Citizens were owed money from bonds and securities that they had purchased during the war to finance the war, and there had to be some way to resolve that issue. So everybody recognized that the Treasury Department was going to be the key position in Washington's cabinet and in fact it was given almost 10 times as many employees as the State Department had initially. And Hamilton was named Secretary of the Treasury. He had been an aide-de-camp to Washington during the Revolutionary War. They were close. Washington recognized Hamilton's brilliance. And Hamilton proposed a series of programs designed to extricate the country from its economic woes. And those programs were passed by Congress. And essentially, in a nutshell, to summarize it in about 15 seconds, his program, his basic program was called a funding program, which created a new debt by selling securities to the public to raise money and to pay off the old debt. And it worked.

And where was the government going to get the money to pay back those securities?

Well, but people were buying the securities, and the government then would just keep selling securities. And, and as the economy would begin to flourish, their money would be coming in, and the government passed and what was called an impost, which was a revenue tariff on goods that were coming into the country. That was the primary money-raising program, but there were land sales and things of that sort as well. So that generated the money to pay off—

by the way, in light of that, would you say that the average American knew that Hamilton had saved the country economically?

I think some people did. I'm not sure the average person did.

Well, the average person may not have followed. Yeah, but, but people—

yes, well-informed people.

Okay. In light of that, was there talk of Hamilton ever running for president?

Not really. I think the—

was that because he was born outside of the United States?

No, no, that Because actually somebody wrote me an email about that yesterday and asked, asked that question. And in fact, the founding generation excluded themselves from that, that restriction because they were all born outside the United States, because the U.S. didn't exist until 1776. So they were all born in the British colonies or somewhere else. No, I think it was It's just that there was an assumption that John Adams was the heir apparent. He was well established. He had played a great role in the Revolutionary War, very sacrificial role in Congress and abroad for many years. And so the feeling was that if Washington ever stepped down, Adams would be next in line.

Okay. So there was an heir apparent. Fair enough. All right, before we get to Jefferson— after all, the book is Jefferson and Hamilton— I don't think most people know that. I think a lot of people remember from high school history that Hamilton and Burr had a duel, right? What was the duel over?

Well, I think the simple good thing is that Hamilton was quoted in a New York newspaper of having made some vicious private— or comments about Burr's private life. He made them at a dinner party in Albany early in 1804, got into the newspapers, Burr found out about it, Burr asked Hamilton to apologize, and Hamilton refused, and so the skids were greased for, for a duel. But the longer story is that they, they had been political rivals for about 20 years, and Hamilton had worked successfully to prevent Burr from becoming vice president back in the 1790s, then worked to prevent Burr from becoming president in 1800, and then worked successfully to keep Burr from being elected governor of New York in 1804. So there was a deadly political rivalry between the two, though I think at bottom Burr could accept the political rivalry, but what he could not accept, what he thought was out of bounds, was for someone like Hamilton or anybody to question his private private life. And he was a very liberated individual. He was a widower. He was sexually liberated, had wild parties at his home, mixed-race parties and whatever. And I think he felt that that was his business and it was off-limits for anyone to question that. And that's what he wanted, an apology. From Hamilton, for he believed that Hamilton had raised some of those questions in his comments about his private life.

Did Hamilton think he would prevail in a duel?

Well, that's a, that's a good question.

All right, answer it when we come back. Hold on, because I want to tell everybody again, the book is Jefferson and Hamilton. Obviously, we're going to get to Jefferson momentarily. The subtitle, though, tells you what it's about: The Rivalry That Forged the Nation. And that is largely true, just their rivalry alone, philosophical and personal matters. We will return. The book is up at DennisPrager.com. I'm Dennis Prager. I'm speaking with Professor John Ferling, the author. Dennis Prager here, and it's a History Hour, bringing to you periodically some new important work of history. Jefferson and Hamilton is the book, The Rivalry That Forged a Nation, and that's true. That rivalry is a powerful one in American history. Two powerful men, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. We've been talking about Hamilton and I'm going to get to Jefferson and obviously the nature of their dispute before we run out of time. It's amazing how quickly these hours go. John Ferling is a professor emeritus of history, University of West Georgia. And I just really, out of human curiosity, I wanted to understand the duel issue. So he did not apologize to Aaron Burr, who, by the way, my my producer, who is an aficionado of American history, described as essentially a pig. He thought— he thinks he's one of the most corrupt of the American politicians of the time. So I'm not putting you on the spot to say yay or nay, but I just wanted to add that for my listeners' edification. But in any event, he— so he doesn't apologize for things he says about Burr. That is, Hamilton doesn't. And so they go to a duel. And I asked you, did Hamilton think he would win?

Well, it's, it's not clear really what Hamilton was, was thinking. The one thing that I can say with assurance is, is I don't think Burr ever thought that Hamilton would come to the dueling ground. Hamilton had been been involved in, in one capacity or another in, in about 10 previous duels, and in all of them he managed to wiggle out of the, the duels, uh, or get them resolved somehow or other without going to, to the field of honor, as, as they called it. And in fact, he had come very close to fighting a duel with James Monroe, uh, back in the late 1790s, and Burr had Monroe's second, and Hamilton backed out in that case. And in fact, before Hamilton backed out, Burr told Monroe, Hamilton will never fight you, he'll back out on it. So I think when Burr issued the challenge to Hamilton, he never thought that the duel would take place. He may have been the most surprised person of all that Hamilton did show up and they did fight the the duel. Hamilton wrote a letter on— it was the last letter that he wrote, and, or one of the last, just a day or two before the duel. And he said in the letter, which was unpublished, that he was going to throw away his first shot. And so it became a matter of debate subsequently whether he did throw away that that first shot, uh, or not, or whether, whether this letter was simply a contrivance to, uh, give him greater respectability in the event that he, he was killed in the duel. So no one really knows exactly what was on Hamilton's mind when he went to Weehawken for that duel.

Okay, I, I, I feel bad because I want to get back to the rivalry here, but I just have one more question on this. How did Burr react to killing a man?

Well, he doesn't seem to be particularly remorseful about it. Not, not at all. Wow. Wasn't, wasn't haunted by it, at least openly he wasn't. Uh, so it seems to be pretty cold-hearted, and I think it was was an indication of the deep, deep feelings that he harbored against Hamilton.

It must be, I'll say. Did the country think we lost a good man pointlessly?

Well, I think a great many people did, and even more, I think people were shocked and outraged engaged about, about the dueling. Dueling had, had really become popular, particularly among officers in the Continental Army during the war. So dueling had been going on in this country for about 30 or 35 years, and it continued after this, but this was a major step toward eliminating dueling.

I would, I would think so. Okay, hold on a moment there. John Ferling, professor of history, University of West Georgia. The book Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. And we go to Jefferson when we come back. I could spend the whole time on Hamilton, I admit it, but we have to find out where did Jefferson and Hamilton really differ. Hi everybody, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show. You know of my love of history because I believe that if you don't know what happened, you don't know what's going on. It's as simple as that. I, I, in fact, I don't understand why everybody isn't excited by history. This is what happened before us. It's awesome. I mean, think about it. There's nothing as exciting and I like a whole host of subjects, but there's nothing as exciting. So periodically, it's unpredictable, but periodically I'll have what we call a history hour on the show featuring a brand new book of history, because I want to, I want to help in my little way or big way or probably middle way people who are writing good works of history at, in our time. And I really love of, uh, the newest biographies that come out of the presidents, because obviously presidents are— there's an intrinsic interest in the president of the United States, especially if you're American. But also, my belief is the best way to learn history is through biography, because it's very hard to grasp a big, broad, general macro history, as good as they are and as important as they are. So there's a brand new biography out of the 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, and it is by a terrific biographer, Fred Kaplan, who's also a distinguished professor emeritus of English at Queens College in New York City. And he has now written this biography of John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, and it is simply subtitled American Visionary. Why Mr. Kaplan thinks that John Quincy Adams is visionary is one of the many questions I have. So first of all, Fred Kaplan, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.

I'm delighted to be with you.

It's my delight. So I am going to start with a micro aspect. You know, the man was president, and you think my first question would be about his presidency, but I want, I want you to relate to my listeners and to me what he endured with the loss of his children?

Ah, yes, that is a story that resonates for all of us because we all experience loss in our lives. John Quincy Adams and his wife Louisa had 4 children, and of the four of them. Three died during their lifetimes. Deeply, deeply painful to both of them.

He—

they had a little daughter, a girl, who died at the age of one. He was at the time a minister to the court of St. Petersburg, a senior American diplomat representing the United States abroad. And the little girl died after one year, and they were both both heartbroken. They was their youngest. They already had 3 children, and of the 3 children, uh, the 3 sons, they all came to adulthood, but 2 of the 3 died, and they died in ways that struck deep, deep pain into parents' hearts. Uh, one of the sons committed suicide.

At what, at what age?

He was approximately 25, uh, and, uh, he had some years periods of great unhappiness and depression and seemed not to be able to control his life. There were great expectations for him. He felt terribly depressed because he couldn't fulfill them. Father and son had both a good relationship and a bad relationship. A good one in that they both loved and admired one another. A bad one in the sense that John Quincy had a pedagogic streak and was always eager to teach people. And sometimes it's not very easy to teach one of your own children, and that became a source of tension to him, to both of them, and especially to the boy who committed suicide, jumped from a steamer steaming from Newport, Rhode Island down to New York City where he was on his way.

And how did, how did another son die?

The other son, uh, was, uh, afflicted by what was a long-standing condition in the Addams family, and also a long-standing affliction, I should say, in the Addams family, and that was alcoholism. He died from an alcohol-related illness.

How old was he?

He was in his early 30s. And he left two children. The oldest son, George Washington Adams, who committed suicide, was unmarried and left no children. So John Quincy Adams and Louisa had two grandchildren and a daughter-in-law who was a widow. They supported all three of them and helped raise the grandchildren. The youngest son, fortunately, coped with the world very effectively, including coping with his father and mother, and rose to some distinction. Charles Francis Adams became Abraham Lincoln— President Abraham Lincoln's ambassador to the Court of St. James to England, and had a distinguished career of his own in law, politics, and government.

I just wanted people to know this because I do a lot of work on the subject of happiness, and I do an hour each week on it. I've written a book on it, a lecture on it, and I— one of the themes that I point out to people is to understand how ubiquitous suffering is. And, you know, you think a man became President of the United States, you can't get a higher position than that really in the world, and look at what he has had to suffer. Look at what he went through. So let me ask you this, because you obviously— this is— you did such copious research on this man's life, John Quincy Adams. How did his faith play a role in his coping, if at all? Because I know he was a religious man.

It played a very strong role indeed, a very strong role. John Quincy Adams was immersed in the of Christian tradition. His practice was to read the Bible in the King James Version. He also read it in other versions and languages, a chapter every day, and then start again. But he was, he was not a theological Christian. By that I mean he was not interested in theological disputation. He looked to religion for comfort in suffering and for ethical guidance. He thought that Christianity offered more consolation and guidance of an ethical sort than any of the other religions he studied, because indeed he was born into a Congregationalist Protestant Christian world, he, he was almost non-denominational. Yes, he was a loyal member of his family's Congregational Church in Quincy, Massachusetts, but he went to churches of every denomination. When he lived in Washington, he went to Episcopalian services—his wife was an Episcopalian—he went to Presbyterian services, and he went to Unitarian Unitarian services. And in a sense, he liked his religion to be old-fashioned in the Protestant sense, with a little bit of a Calvinistic twist to it. But nevertheless, he enjoyed Unitarian sermons. He went on Sunday to two sermons every day, one in the morning and one in the late afternoon. He wrote in his diary about— he gave a synopsis of the sermon, and he gave responses to it. And his main interest was in the ethical concept. Well, I relate to the—

I really, I totally relate to him and to the founders. That's exactly what they wanted. You write here his, uh, you quote him, 'There was no Christian church with which I could not join in social worship.' Exactly.

Fellowship was crucial. And yeah, exactly what I think. And disputation, theological disputation, right?

Was not— yeah, I, I, look, I, I love the Founders, and I would— I'll include him even though he comes later. Okay, so now tell us, because, because there are so many highlights to this man's life, or some lowlights, obviously, as for all of us. But I don't think most Americans today realize what a— probably the most disputed election, and that may even include, uh, Bush-Gore, uh, in American history. So tell us about the election of 1824.

Well, John Quincy Adams was only the second president—

actually, hold on, tell us that, tell us that when we come back. I, I want people to hear it in total. It's a fascinating story, and, and it's a fascinating book. The best way to learn history is, when it's possible, is in my opinion through biography. So there's a brand new, a brand new biography that has just come out, John Quincy Adams. And he's obviously not the first president you think of when you think of presidents. That's part of the reason I love reading about the, if you will, the second-tier president, although we'll find out what tier our Professor Kaplan thinks he should be on. The book is John Quincy Adams. It is up at DennisPrager.com, and we continue on History Hour when we come back. Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here, and I welcome you back or to the show. Now, this is a History Hour. Periodically I feature a brand new work of history because I love history, because it's the only way to understand— it really is the only way to understand why we are what we are, where we came from. I don't mean biologically, that really doesn't interest me. I'm not a blood fan, but I'm a history fan. I'm a values fan. And there's brand new work out, a history of the 6th President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, and the author is Fred Kaplan, who's a distinguished professor emeritus of English at Queens College and has really been a biographer his whole life. And we talked about the loss of 3 of his 4 children. I mean, think about what the pain he and his wife Louisa had gone through I began in the micro and now we're going into the macro. He also was part of the most disputed election, arguably, perhaps— I guess Bush-Gore might be up there with that— in American history. So this is 1824, he's running against Andrew Jackson and others.

So tell us what happened. Uh, John Quincy Adams was only the second president in American history to be elected not by the popular vote, and not by the Electoral College, but by the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson was the first. No president since 1824 has been elected by the House of Representatives. He did not receive the majority. He did not even receive the most Electoral College votes or popular votes of any of the candidates. Andrew Jackson Jefferson did. Oh, the race would have been a lot closer if the Constitution hadn't provided the southern states, or the slave-owning states, with extra votes because of the 3/5 rule. But nevertheless, it was something new for the country. Even though Jefferson had been elected by the House of Representatives, the circumstances were really quite different, and it was sort of a freak key thing. Here it was, you know, the real thing. And of course Jackson's supporters were utterly furious, particularly because John Quincy Adams received a majority of votes in the House of Representatives when Henry Clay, terrific American patriot and political leader who had been a candidate but was not eligible for the runoff, turned his electoral votes over to John Quincy Adams. So Adams was elected president in circumstances in which a lot of people thought it was illegitimate, it was unwarranted, even though it was perfectly constitutional and they had no grounds for complaint in any legal or constitutional way. They in fact felt gypped. And they determined right from the start that they were not going to give John Quincy Adams any victory. Any accomplishments in office.

So, alright, just to clarify for me, I don't quite understand. He ran for president against Andrew Jackson. Who won the electoral vote?

Nobody won enough electoral votes to be elected. You must get a majority of the electoral votes to be elected.

That's because there was more than a two-man race?

Oh yes, there were four candidates, including Henry Clay. There were 4 candidates.

So Jackson came in first and Quincy Adams came in second. That's correct. And then— oh, so it was a runoff vote, but not in popular vote. It was a runoff in the House.

Oh, in the House of Representatives. I see.

That's what the Constitution provides. So why are the Jackson people angry as opposed to just distraught.

Well, they were angry because of the prize that they thought they deserved.

All right, so, well, that's true for anybody who wins the electoral vote and loses the Electoral College.

Well, I, I'm almost at a loss for words because you're, you're, you're, you're getting me to say something that of of course, we're all so familiar with, and that is when you think you deserve something and you don't get it, you can act in ways that are irrational and counterproductive.

Yes, all right, exactly, I understand that. Okay, very good. All right. So, very good. All right, now let's— all right, so that's how he wins the election, and the opposition spends his 4 years trying to undo everything he does.

That's true, and not pass any of his programs. It's in addition complicated by the fact that representatives in the House and the Senate from the South essentially control Congress, and they're also uneasy with John Quincy Adams getting elected because they believe he is anti-slavery, even though he has not come out explicitly in public and said, "I oppose slavery." him for emancipation or abolition. He has not come out publicly yet. He did so later in his career and say that. But they had, quite correctly, the sense that he didn't approve of slavery and thought that it should be gradually eliminated, as soon as possible, but gradually over time eliminated. And since the Southern culture and mentality and political leadership really dominated Washington, as it essentially did from George Washington up until the 16th president, up until Lincoln. It was a very Southern-inflected federal government. And for that reason, too, they were very cautious about John Quincy Adams.

So, what was Andrew Jackson's views on slavery? Andrew Jackson was pro-slavery. Right, so— He was a slave owner. Exactly. Exactly. So why would Henry Clay undermine Jackson's chances of being elected by running?

Well, Henry Clay hated Andrew Jackson, both personally and politically. They both were from the South.

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that American politicians hated each other even in the beginning? This is not new? Yes.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. It's a killer. The latest book of history to be featured is this. Fred Kaplan, professor at CUNY, City University of New York, and he has written John Quincy Adams: American Visionary. He specializes in biography and the story of the man and the times. Every, every epic in America is fascinating, and this obviously is one of them, and the contentiousness of the time So now I'm going back and forth with his life, with you, with your— so let me go to you now. I have never written a biography. I'm writing my autobiography and I'm really liking the guy I'm writing about. I have to say, I'm really getting to like him. You're writing a biography, you wrote a biography. I mean, it's immense. It's a 600-page biography of Quincy Adams. Adams. Happily, you write interestingly, so it's not an issue, but, but it's obviously copious research. Did you get to like him? How does a biographer relate to his subject?

In every, in every case, for me, I have begun with curiosity about my subject and with, uh, the potential for my awareness that there was a potential for my really respecting and admiring the subject. And my vision of my role as a biographer is to give the person all in all, but to be as humanely and as empathetically sympathetic to try to see the world to some extent from the point of view of my subject, to have faith in the principle that all human beings share their humanness for better and for worse, and that when we get to know one another in the fullest way possible, We can, without evasion of weaknesses and flaws, we can gain respect for one another. Well, in the case of every one of my subjects, from Carlyle to Dickens to Henry James to Lincoln to John Quincy Adams, I have indeed developed deep, deep commitment to these people.

Do you feel that you know him?

I feel, I feel that I know him. Wow. To the degree that you can know any other human being.

No, that's, that's huge. That's, and that's huge.

And some people are harder to know than others. Some people have deep areas of reserve that is very deeply to crack.

If you, if you could speak to him, well, and you could ask him a question, what would you ask him?

You know, if I could see him and ask him a question, I would say John Quincy Adams, you accomplished so much in your lifetime, and in writing, reading and writing about you, I have a sense, of course, that so much of your life had unhappy moments, times, years, situations, bitterness and disappointment. What carried you through all that? And what generated your ability to keep going despite all the things that were dragging you backwards? Personal depression, which is what I asked you.

I, I asked you that question about him.

Yes, and it's a difficult question. Yeah, because he suffered so much, but he has an answer to it. He does have an answer to it, and this is the, the advice gave to his sons and everybody else when it was appropriate to give advice, and sometimes perhaps when it wasn't appropriate. And that was— and that was immersion in work. Wow.

All right, we'll be back in a moment. How interesting. John Quincy Adams, the book up at DennisPrager.com. Fred Kaplan, the professor, the writer. You are listening to A History Hour. And we continue in a moment on The Dennis Prager Show. Dennis Prager here. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire 3 hours of my radio show commercial-free every single day, become a member of Prager Utopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives as well as the daily show prep. Subscribe at pragertopia.com.