Dan Snow's History Hit - The Road to American Politics

Episode Date: July 18, 2020

10 years after the expulsion of the British, leading US figures including Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson came together to draw up plans for governing the world's newest country. But what should the role of a President be and how should American politics function? I was thrilled to be joined by Joanne B. Freeman, a professor of History and American studies at Yale University, to discuss this turning point of American politics. Subscribe to History Hit and you'll get access to hundreds of history documentaries, as well as every single episode of this podcast from the beginning (400 extra episodes). We're running live podcasts on Zoom, we've got weekly quizzes where you can win prizes, and exclusive subscriber only articles. It's the ultimate history package. Just go to historyhit.tv to subscribe. Use code 'pod1' at checkout for your first month free and the following month for just £/€/$1.

Hi everyone, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. I've got one of my favourite US historians back on the podcast, she's Joanne Freeman. She was the host of the brilliant Backstory historical podcast in the US. She is a phenomenal historian, she's a professor at Yale, she's worked with Lin Manuel Miranda on the Hamilton story, she's one of the great experts of 18th century US history and indeed 19th century as well. Last time she was on the podcast she was talking about her book Violence in Congress, how duelling, physical confrontation became normal in the years leading up to the Civil War and anticipated the gigantic violence that tore the Republic apart in the 1860s. This was actually one of my History Hit Lives, which I do on the Timeline channel on

YouTube, but it was such a good one, such a fascinating one. I decided to bring it over for the real history fans, the true connoisseurs over on History Hit Podcast. So this is why it sounds like a live conversation with people butting in. You can always check out those History Hit Lives on Friday afternoons at 4pm UK time, 11am Eastern or 8am Pacific time. If you want to watch one of the hundreds of historical documentaries or listen to the back catalogue, including Joanne's last appearance on the podcast, you've got to go to History Hit TV.

It's my new digital history channel. If you subscribe using the code POD1, P-O-D-1, you get a month for free, and then you get one month for just one pound, euro, dollar. It's a pretty sweet deal. Thousands and thousands of people subscribing. It's really, really exciting. I can't tell you how, in this environment where other media companies are laying off workers, we are in profit. We are commissioning new material. We're hiring new people. It's really

such an exciting time. And thank you for all your support. In the meantime, everyone, enjoy Joanne Freeman. So what's the world look like after the defeat of the British colonial overlords? And what does the Young American Republic do with itself? What the war did, and it's really logical that the war did it, was bring people together, the colonists together, with the monumental effort before them of winning this war. Once that was done, there was really nothing to hold these colonies together. And basically, the 1780s is a story of the states turning their backs on each other, everyone going home. And the 1780s is a decade of people states turning their backs on each other, everyone going home. And the 1780s is a decade of people discovering why that didn't work so well. And that ultimately brings you to

the Constitution. Interesting. So it wasn't a certain thing that all of these states, which were independent, I guess they would consider themselves sovereign. It wasn't a done deal, they were going to come together in a kind of federal structure. No, it was certainly not a done deal. I mean, you know, when you look back before the revolution, the handful of times when the colonies came together for any reason were times when they felt threatened. And as soon as the threat evaporated, they went back to their business. So no, there was no assumption. I mean, during the revolution, the United States created the Articles of Confederation. That was a very decentralized government where the states are sort of like delegates, you know, a union of friends, but it wasn't anything remotely like the

Constitution that comes along. And I think probably that felt like to people at the time, it would have been plenty. Was it ever realistic? I mean, is there a whole track of history that could have gone on, which was with all these 13 colonies developing like Europe into a kind of competitive system of independent states? Well, based on what actually happened, the answer to that would be no, because states begin to have problems trading with each other, engaging in commerce with each other. And the way you get to the Constitutional Convention is first two states meet to talk about commerce, and then three, and then five, you know, so basically, the states are coming together in larger and larger groups year by year, trying to coordinate things. In the meantime, there's all of this other stuff happening. There's,

you know, parts of states trying to break away from states to create new states, there's people revolting against paying taxes of various sorts. There's all kind of a furor going on. And one of the things that people who want a new constitution are discovering is that there's kind of no way to put it down because of this weak central government. So all of those things are happening at the same time. And I think because you have a real force of people who I think joined together in thinking this during the revolution, when they saw what a weak continental Congress couldn't do in running a war. Those people are really out front in the late 1780s, really pushing to strengthen the government. And they have all kinds of ways to

substantiate that and justify that. And they are the people who push towards the convention. Wow, this is all sounding quite contemporary now, Joanne, whether it's us in Europe talking about Brexit and where power should lie within Europe, or maybe a little close to home for you as well, working out what the point of the federal government is in a period of crisis. Anyway, who are some of the leading figures that are making that case that you've talked about for stronger central government? Well, one of the people who was first to do that, and particularly loud in doing that was Alexander Hamilton. And part of the reason I think that he can take this stance so readily is because he's not from one of the 13 colonies.

He comes from the Caribbean. He's not tied to any one state. So I think he has an easier time saying, well, we need, you know, logistically speaking, we need a stronger central government. And he doesn't feel like New York is going to be somehow threatened by doing this. But he's out there front and center, making this case that for any number of reasons, the government has to be stronger to be able to govern in any way. James Madison joins him in making those kinds of arguments. George Washington agreed. Washington and Hamilton were writing letters about this before the Constitutional Convention. One of the interesting things about the Constitutional Convention is what you end up with is a room full of delegates, some of whom are really, really powerful advocates for strengthening the government, some of whom aren't sure about that.

But the people who really don't trust strengthening the government don't come to the convention. So that's a problem, right? That puts them at a disadvantage. Got to be in the room. So of course, these states have just fought a long and tough war against an oppressive, distant central power. So you can see how within those individual states, there would be quite a strong argument against kind of jumping back into a big kind of transnational union. Well, right. You know, I think the Articles of Confederation get kind of a bum rap because they're perfectly logical for the moment that they were in, precisely for that reason, right? These colonies and now states break away. They, in their mind, it's tyranny and, you

know, lack of control. We couldn't control our destiny, political destiny. So they're distrustful of executive power. And it makes perfect sense that the first thing they try to do is create a government that does not have that kind of strong central executive power at its center. It's only in living under that government for a while that some minds change and people move, or at least some people move in a different direction. So now in the late 1780s, what are the inspirations, what are the examples that these people, these thinkers are drawing upon to try and create a new kind of government? Well, the most interesting example of that to me is James Madison. So Madison prepares for the federal convention or constitutional convention, which are the same thing, prepares by studying past republics. He just sits down and this is so enlightenment-esque,

right? It's like, I shall study all republics over time and I shall determine universal patterns of republics. And then we could create one here that will take advantage of all the good things that avoid all the bad things. And that's what he sets out to do. And it's this document where he just sets out the pros and cons, republic after republic after republic. He goes all the way back to Greece and Rome and arrives at the convention with, in his mind, a sense of what does and doesn't work in a republic. Now, what he would have known from looking at all those examples and what a lot of other people would have assumed as well, you know, it's a world of monarchies and they're trying to create something different. And republics, historically speaking, never survive. Right. Historically speaking, they collapse. Why? Well, because sometimes because a demagogue, you know, comes into power based on the very democratic essence of a republic,

and then that destroys it. Sometimes they collapse in on themselves and anarchy, you know. So history taught this generation that republics are really fragile things. So that was part of what they were trying to work against when they came together in the federal convention. Literally, what is a federal convention? They all come together physically in one place. And is there an understanding that by the time we leave this place, we're going to have ourselves, we're going to work something out? Or is this part of just an ongoing process? So delegates were named for this convention to address problems in the government. Now, the key thing to understand is that convention did not come together with their mission being, let's create a new government. Their mission was

to revise what was already there. In the room were a lot of people who thought that what was already there was, you know, beyond hope. So what you end up with is those people pulling at loopholes in some of the instructions that states gave the delegates to enable themselves to justify having bigger changes and really basically having a new system. So they end up creating a new government. But of course, you know, you already suggested, you know, is it inevitable or not? There was nothing inevitable about that document, right? The states could have said, you went beyond your mission. We don't want to read this. You know, the Congress could have said, what were you doing? You know, go back and do what we told you to do. There are any number of ways in which that constitution could

have been rejected as not allowed because it broke the mission, the understanding of what they were supposed to be doing. So, you know, one of the fascinating things about history generally, but for me particularly about studying the founding, everyone thinks about the founding and everything that happened in it as inevitable, right? Well, of course, you know, of course, we won the war, you know, of course, there's a constitution, of course, the constitution worked, of course, Washington became president. And there are no of courses in that ever, but particularly in the founding, you have to toss out the of courses, because no one knew if anything would work at a given moment. And it's easy to forget that when you're talking about founding documents you know and sort of major structural

decisions. And with the stuff I've read around it including the wonderful books you've written is that there was an awareness that they were doing something pretty unique at the time I mean had any society ever really gone through this process of trying to sit down bring empirical evidence in debate and thrash out how to build an entirely new government from scratch? Hamilton basically says that in the first paragraph of the first Federalist essay. And part of what he is saying and part of what others recognized was that not only were they trying to do something that wasn't a monarchy, but almost more important than that, how they did it mattered a lot. So it was a process. They allowed states to name people. They brought people, as you said, into a room. They debated it. Then they let the states decide

again whether they wanted to ratify it or not. It was very deliberate, very planned. Hamilton says in that first paragraph, basically, we're deciding for all time whether you can do that, whether you can bring a bunch of people in a room and have them debate and compromise and create a system of government, or whether we're forever destined to have our governments a product of accident or force. you listening? Go find the first paragraph of the first Federalist essay online everywhere, because you'll get a sense of the significance of what that moment felt like to them. Was there a partisan divide in that convention? Or is there a sense of a kind of a free assembly of individuals or with different points of view? Or did it get quite tribal? I wouldn't say it got tribal. I would say that it was not unified. You know, there were people there who were not comfortable strengthening the government to that degree, were not comfortable moving that far away

from the Articles of Confederation. Poor Hamilton, you know, New York brings in three delegates to be at this convention. Hamilton is like, Mr., like, strengthen the government, new constitution. And the other two delegates are distrustful of the entire thing. And since each state gets one vote, he's outvoted. At one point, he stands up and gives a six-hour speech, you know, declaiming, and this is what I think must happen. But he knows very well that ultimately his vote doesn't matter. So no, there were divisions. But as I said, the most extreme, distrustful people,

the strongest opponents to this, weren't in that room. But speaking about in the room, because I'm also fascinated by deliberative bodies, because today we sadly have the impression of parliaments and Congress on both sides of the Atlantic that it's kind of whipped and it's all arranged before. And the debate doesn't change many people's point of view, these great speeches, but you kind of know how the final vote tally is going to go. point of view, these great speeches, but you kind of know how the final vote tally is going to go. What people changing their minds, what people listening, engaging, changing their minds, going out, you know what, fair enough, that three hour speech by Hamilton, that kind of won me over. I think more people were listening. But there's a reason for that, in part, you know, what we have now is a system of systems, and committees and all of these other ways and backroom areas where things get done. And then the floors of parliament or the Congress, the halls of legislature become places

where things done off the floor are put into practice, are ratified basically, are passed. In this time period, and particularly in the constitutional convention, there's no other structure. The understanding is whatever they do in that room is whatever they do in that room. And they understand that people back home in their home states are watching. Some of them have strong instructions from their home states, some don't. But pretty early on, once they've decided we are just going to toss the articles and do something new, they're all operating slightly against the folks back home. And so they have to listen to each other. And James Madison, who's sort of the king of process, right, he took these amazing notes on what happened throughout this entire debate over

the Constitution. And they're also, those of you watching and listening, they're out there online. He kept them because explicitly he wanted to preserve the process. He wanted to show people how you do this, since what America felt it was doing in part was something different. The how was very different. And so you can see when you read that actual debates going on and people arguing back and forth. So actual debate and compromise. I became very familiar with the Madison account because during the impeachment process, he wrote extensively about impeachment and the thinking behind it, didn't he? And Gouverneur Morris and all those guys talking about what they thought impeachment was. What are some of the big topics? I mean, we should probably talk about slavery, first of all. Was

that on the table? Was that being discussed? Or was that put to one side as they were talking about the institutions of government? That's a sort of yes and no answer. The one big question was representation, right? Because that was going to determine who had power and how much. And, you know, there were small states that wanted each state to have one vote. There were big states who wanted to get credit for being big states and have population matter in counting representation for Congress. So that was a real debate and it went back and forth. But obviously, one big question was, what do enslaved people count as? Do they count in that as part of the population? And then in that case, southern states have a lot more representatives because they have much larger populations than they might otherwise. So there are a few days where the actual practice of slavery is debated. But the fact of the matter is, I think everyone in that room assumed that that was going to break

it entirely if they took that seriously. And so the point was, what kind of compromise can we create on the process of slavery, the practice of slavery, that will enable this to pass? You know, the practice of slavery that will enable this to pass. You know, I mean, it's one of many, many, many, many moments in which slavery becomes the thing not to be discussed, right? A sort of political football that's punted because the people in the room are not the people who are most profoundly affected by it. So this is one of those moments when there's some debate. Again, if you look in Madison's notes, you can see some debate about, you know, it's inhumanity. But then what you end up seeing is what becomes known as the three fifths compromise. Right. It's a compromise on how enslaved people will count in figuring out numbers of representatives for each state.

And the idea is that three fifthths of an enslaved population will count. And so, you know, that essentially says that an enslaved person equals three-fifths of a person. It's an ugly compromise. And it shows you the degree to which slavery wasn't the thing really being discussed. It was representation. Another thing that they discussed that had vital importance, and it's not surprising to anyone watching modern politics, is executive power. They had broken away from a king. Someone with a lot of executive power is scary. How much executive power should there be and how should we organize it? And they talked about having a council of presidents, like several of them. That was dismissed because the idea was, well, if you have three presidents, one can do something wrong and hide behind the other two.

Whereas if you have one, he's responsible for what he's doing. But there was a lot of debate. And that's why actually impeachment was a big topic of discussion. Because the idea was, if we're going to give that much power to one person, we darn well better be able to remove that person if we need to. And that was the logic, was fear about a tyrannical executive arising out of this new constitution. Well, luckily that hasn't happened. So, Joanne, is Britain a big influence on this? I mean, is there a kind of starting point, Westminster, and they're just moving on? Or is it more abstract? Are they seizing ideas from political thinkers like Paine

or Locke? Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt, and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on Echoes of History, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed. We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows, where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only to survive, but to conquer. Whether you're preparing for Assassin's Creed Shadows or fascinated by history and great stories, listen to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hits. There are new episodes every week.

Oh no, I think England is a huge influence, but what's interesting about it is sometimes Americans are really conflicted about how to be influenced. So in other words, sometimes people look towards England and say, you know, well, that worked really well. And we know that. And that seems like a fine way to do things. So let's do it. There are always other people who stand up and say, are we really trying to be like them? Like, is that our mission? So for example, there's a debate in the very first Congress about when the president enters the room to get inaugurated and become president, should the senator stand or sit? And they have this huge debate because if they stand, are they treating him like a king? But if they sit, are they not giving him enough respect? And someone says, as someone always says, well, you know, I've been to parliament. And here's what happens when the king gives a speech and everyone in the room sort of nods. And then someone else says, so is that what we're supposed to do or what we're not supposed to do? Because we didn't like that example before. So definitely an influence, but it's a complicated influence. And then what

about the divisions that we see? Do you recognize these divisions start to emerge in this gathering? And do they sort of foreshadow the divisions that would eventually rip the Republic apart during the 1860s, during the Civil War? Do you find the southern slave-owning states are quite unified and against the northern states of New England and the Middle Colonies? I'm being such a historian. Yes and no. One of the things that surprised me, I guess, when I first began studying this period was I assumed that in the very beginning of the government, 1789, 1790,

the first couple of years, there would be at least a little time when everyone was like, this is exciting, we're in a national experiment, we're all in this together. You know, let's think about the nation over section or over whatever, over our home states. But the fact of the matter is really early on, I found a letter I remember might have been to James Madison. I can't remember now, but it's a letter from a southerner to another southerner. And what it basically says is, you know, we better get a lot of southern men in clerkships and minor positions in this new government because I'll be darned if I'm going to want to be ruled by a bunch of Yankees. And if they start out in the bottom posts, they'll rise up and basically have all of these positions in

government. So there's not a Northern versus Southern division in the way that happens later because of the issue of slavery leading up to the Civil War. But there definitely is not a sense that everyone has one unified and united interest. There's a sense that there are different people in different areas with different preferences and different hates and different systems. And somehow or other, those have to be, you know, debated and something has to come out of it. I mean, that's, you know, James Madison. So Federalist 1, I love because of that first paragraph. Federalist 10 by James Madison talks about this, in which he says, you know, in these essays, which are written to convince people to ratify the Constitution, he says, well, you know,

this nation is huge. And you might argue that that's a bad thing. And how will it ever survive? But you know what? That nation is huge. And that means there's lots of different interests. And that's great because they'll all bang against each other and then something will emerge out of that that's good. So that's their starting logic. Well, it's a handful of years later when you begin to see things that nowadays we might call a party. We're going to come on to politicians in a sec. I just want to ask a question. We've got Patois. Sunini says, you've mentioned call a party. We're going to come on to politicians in a sec. I just want to ask a question. We've got Patois. Sunini says, you've mentioned men a lot. What about the role of women at this point? Are there women of influence? Are they, they're obviously not in

the conventions. Are they working behind the scenes? Are they corresponding, spreading ideas? There are women working behind the scenes. And one of the interesting things about the 1780s and 1790s is that the revolution, the 1770s, women were very involved in the war effort. Their home normal practices were politicized, right, deciding what to buy, boycotting goods. That's taking part in the war effort. So women, for any number of reasons, got a sense during the revolution that they were part of the political process in a really direct way. And the 1780s and 1790s, part of what was being determined was that men did not feel entirely comfortable with that. So women are always behind the scenes working, particularly

elite women are engaging with people and are part of the pathways of power, but the politics of the street, it's always men and women who are there, but there's an ongoing nervousness and ultimately resistance to the idea of women having any kind of political influence at all. There's a great book by Rosemary Zagari called Revolutionary Backlash, and it talks about this very thing,

which is the revolution seemed to open a door for women and the next couple decades closed that door. Sounds very familiar in the French Revolution as well. Right, let's talk about these new crop politicians. So many of the people that took an active part in this convention then start to become the kind of senior politicians of this new government. Kind of relates to what I said before, one of the really interesting things about this is, so, okay, they've written a constitution. It's been ratified by all the states. Let's go. There's a lot of space as to creating whatever it is. You know, there's a lot of improvisation going on in this new government. And the people who we now sort of take for granted as symbols of authority, right? The power figures,

the Washingtons and Jeffersons and Hamiltons and John Adams of the world. It's not like they had all the answers. They didn't. And so what you see very early on is people sometimes actually just asking each other, what do you think about doing this? You think that would work? And sometimes really smacking up against each other because they, anything that happens in this period, they well understand, could have huge implications. It could taint or move the government in one direction or another in a way that might be irretrievable. That's a really interesting point. They did really feel that the gaze of history was on them. They knew how important this was, right? Everything they did must have been, even being a

politician is pretty stressful anyway, but these guys, they weren't just making decisions for their own period, but for the ages. They thought about posterity a lot. It's a thing to think about in the modern age when we don't tend to think about posterity. You can't look to the past and say those people were better than us. There's never a golden age of anything. There's always a different form of conflict going on. But the fact of the matter is, thinking about posterity was important. It mattered. And it did mean that even if they were serving their own interests or acting for themselves or just trying to slime their enemies, they were also aware of the fact that there would be a longstanding impact on what they were doing that had to be figured into the equation. They honestly assumed, and you can see this throughout all of their letters in the 1790s, that one stupid

choice could destroy the entire thing. And that's a lot of pressure. How do you divide up what kind of the character of the American state, what was written down, hammered out, is legal and constitutional, and what was down to the individuals at the beginning in this kind of incredibly intense crucible of ideas and practices? What are the things that fit in the latter category, whether it's the powers that accrued the presidency or filibuster and things like that? There are a lot of things that fall into that second category of things to be figured out. And George Washington had a lot of the figuring because he was this one isolated figure as the executive. I saw once at Mount Vernon, and I find this a really poignant kind of document,

Washington's copy of the Constitution. And it's clear that when he became president, he read through it very carefully. And in the margin, whenever there's a duty or a prohibition on the president, he writes. Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on Echoes of History,

we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed. We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows, where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only to survive, but to conquer. Whether you're preparing for Assassin's Creed Shadows or fascinated by history and great stories, listen to Echoes of History, a Ubisoft podcast brought to you by History Hits. There are new episodes every week. President. So he read through the Constitution and very carefully noted his job, like the things that were his job. So he was really thinking along these lines. But, you know, a great example of the thinking process and action. That wasn't a lot of thought.

The Constitution says that the president should get advice and consent of the Senate on foreign affairs and on treaties. So Washington has some kind of an Indian treaty. He walks over to the Senate, goes into the room with the treaty, says, I need your advice and consent. It's read aloud. And we have the diary of one of the senators. Senator says, well, it was read aloud, but there were like a lot of carriages on the street and we really couldn't hear what it said. And so we asked them to read it again and then they read it again. And then I stood up and said, you know, I think we'd like to think about it. Like, I don't think we want to give you advice and consent right now. I think we want to talk about it. And apparently

Washington threw a temper tantrum and said, well, this defeats the whole purpose of my coming here, stormed out of the room. And from then on, presidents did not go to the Senate for that kind of advice and consent. So that's happening on a lot of levels a lot of the time. And so as George III said, when Washington relinquished power after being president, he said he's the greatest man of all time. Because, I mean, who walks away from a supreme power like that? Is the U.S. in debt to Washington for the fact he didn't throw more tantrums and seize more executive power to himself? Or did he do it too much? Or did he throw too many tantrums? Is that an example of him being a poor president?

He did throw some tantrums and we have some of them on paper and they're really interesting to study. Cabinet meeting. There's a great cabinet meeting tantrum too that Thomas Jefferson took notes on. So he did. I don't think that made him a bad president because I think he was really, really very deliberately thinking about the powers a president should have. And he wasn't a president trying to get as much power as he could get. And he was someone who, you know, he had Hamilton as the Secretary of the Treasury, Jefferson as Secretary of State. Initially, it was not known how much they disagreed with each other. That happens over time.

But even when it's clear that they're opposed to each other and their ideas, Washington wants to hear from both of them and then make a decision. So he's trying really hard to walk a line of what he considers to be enough power to matter, but not so much that he's moving in the direction of a king. It's a difficult path. And so I think we're indebted to Washington for not being someone who clearly was after power. You know, part of that is also he's worried about his reputation. And as president, his whole reputation is on the line. So like Hamilton worked alongside Washington during the revolution.

And Hamilton knew if you wanted Washington to do something, you play the honor card, right? You play the reputation card. I don't know what people are going to think if you do this. Washington was very susceptible to that. But that means that he's being careful in his actions and behavior. So that adds to his responsibility. That doesn't sound like such a bad thing. Maybe we should all be more careful about our reputation. So that might encourage good behaviour. What about party? Because you hear a lot

that the founding fathers, when they gathered together for this convention, they never realised the extent to which party would, which they were trying to escape from the sort of partisanship of British politics would come to, well, in fact, if that's the right verb, US politics as well. So how does that start to slip in? Well, you know, the idea that there would be two or three parties that would be nationwide seemed impossible at an early point, you know, before the government takes off, because the states had a hard time holding together in any way. There are dozens and dozens of interests and cliques and power maneuvers. The idea that all of the states somehow would all agree on one thing together did not seem to be in the repertoire of what was going to be happening in this country. What happens over the course of the 1790s is you have one person, Hamilton, and people who agree

with him who have one very strong vision of what the republic should be, and then another group of people, and Madison and Jefferson belong to that fold of people, who have a very different vision, and they begin fighting against each other in a very public way, because in a republic, the public, public opinion is really what governs. And you end up with a division forming, not in a way that felt to them like, ah, now we have a party system, right? They didn't assume that. They thought, uh-oh, something's gone wrong. We now have groups of men joining together to satisfy their own interests. This is bad. So we need to defeat this happening and go back to what we had before we had these two groups banging against each other.

So, you know, throughout the 1790s, Federalists and Republicans are smacking away at each other. It looks to us with our modern gaze like a party system. But when Jefferson becomes president, gaze like a party system. But when Jefferson becomes president, takes office in 1801, he says basically, okay, now that's done. We're all Federalists. We're all Republicans. Let's get back to work. So what we now take for granted about our system was not taken for granted at the time. And over the course of the first half of the 19th century really is when a party system really emerges. Is there anything else that the founders were surprised by, was unintentional, was like, hey, wow, we did not think this would happen? Interestingly, the first thing that pops into my mind is something that we might not think would happen, but that they thought could happen. We assume in a presidential election, there's an

election someone's picked the end, or at least we used to assume that. They assumed that, again, so many states, so many views, so many different kinds of parties and organizations and ways of banging up against each other, they figured that probably elections would get thrown into the House to be decided, not like once a century, but that that might need to happen. What happens in the election of 1800, when you have these two parties, Federalists and Republicans, really divided on what the nation ought to be, you end up with a tied election, the election of 1800. And it gets thrown into the House, but it seems as though it's not going to be able to be decided. They're voted on and voted on and voted on. In some states, people are arming themselves in case the government needs to be

seized for their side. It's a really ugly moment. That was not expected. And so after that election, they actually amend the constitution so that you can't have the kind of tie, the president and vice president of the same party tied. They amend the constitution so that can't happen again. But I think they were surprised all the time. I mean, you know, look at that, you mentioned the French Revolution. I think they assumed that foreign nations would have influence over this little infant republic. But the unfolding of the French Revolution suddenly taught them that, wow, are we vulnerable? Like that revolution could sweep over here and either take us over and put us in a state of anarchy or keep the spirit of liberty

alive, whatever you thought. I don't think that they fully appreciated the degree to which a foreign country could affect national politics until that happened in the mid and late 1790s. And then someone invented the internet. Okay, so let's come just quickly on that note. It's impossible to talk about this without thinking about the present day. The thing is, you think of the American Constitution, it's all written down, it's as an instruction manual. But actually, modern American politics would almost be unrecognizable, would it, to that founding generation? Well, you know, I always joke with people when they ask me, you know, what would the founders think about what's going on now? And the first thing I always say is, they would say, what is that machine in the sky? Why is there a box

talking in your house? I mean, technology all by itself would sort of blow their minds. But as far as the government is concerned, on the one hand, they might be surprised that the Constitution lasted as long as it did. Hamilton, for one, didn't think it would last. He thought it was a good first stab. He didn't think it was a strong enough government being produced by it. And he says repeatedly during his career after the convention, like when this collapses, I'll step forward and I'll help with whatever happens next. So that might surprise them. I think they would appreciate the fact that the basic system of government outlined in the Constitution is still there. Constitution is still there. I think they would also be stunned to see the ways in which it had been built on and changed and moved around and altered so that things were happening that they never could have imagined. I mean, they could not have imagined that the president, the national

executive that they created could be as powerful as a president is in the 21st or even 20th century. So the process, you know, when I teach about the period, one of the things that I always stress is process because, and that's kind of where we started. That's what they thought they were doing that was particularly distinctive. It was that they were putting a process in motion that could always be turned to during moments of crisis that would exist and would be there as a structure, a kind of pact that people could stand around, agree upon, and that would really be a working system of government. The process mattered a lot. That was their main legacy, I think. And so that's what they would be most interested now in seeing would be,

how is that process working? How is it not working? And what does that mean? We'll have a separate show about that. Joanne Freeman, thank you very much for coming on the podcast. You've written a series of wonderful books, but the one most recently was about violence in the buildup to the US Civil War. What's it called? It's called The Field of Blood, Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War. What's it called? It's called The Field of Blood, Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War. Everyone check out The Field of Blood and we've got more good books coming up soon. Joanne, thank you. You're a brilliant broadcaster as well as teacher and writer. Great to have you on show.

of our country is part of the history of our country forever. I hope you enjoyed the podcast. Just before you go, a bit of a favour to ask. I totally understand if you don't want to become a subscriber

or pay me any cash money. Makes sense. But if you could just do me a favour, it's for free. Go to iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. If you give it a five-star rating and give it an absolutely glowing review,

purge yourself, give it a glowing review, I'd really appreciate that. It's tough weather, the law of the jungle out there, and I need all the fire support I can get. So that will boost it up the charts. It's so tiresome, but if you could do it, I'd be very, very grateful.

Thank you. you