 Well, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jack Raycove. I'm an emeritus professor of history and political science at Stanford University, and I'm here to introduce a conversation that will run as long as an hour with my colleague, John Rigosta, who's a historian stationed in Monticello, Jefferson's home. The subject of our conversation is John's new book, which I'm putting up here, for the people for the country, Patrick Henry's Final Political Battle. It pivots mostly on really the last year or two of Henry's life, with the kind of dramatic conclusion being his reaction to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and the dramatic political conflict that broke out in the United States in 1798 and 1799. There's a kind of final dramatic scene in which George Washington writes Henry to try to read and list him in a struggle to save the Republic from the vicious factionalism that had been raging throughout the 70s and 90s, but particularly during the President John Adams Administration. That's also an introduction. I think John wants to say a quick hello himself, and then we'll go to, we'll cut to the chase. Well, thank you, Jack. Yeah, and I really appreciate your being here today. Appreciate the National Archives. It is, you mentioned Washington writing Henry that's actually how I got started on this project. I came across that letter doing some other research. And it was just, I knew nothing about it I had a PhD in American history, but here's George Washington in 1799, begging Patrick Henry to come out of retirement to save the nation. And that's what launched this book. So let me start by asking, you know, as I was reading your book it reminded me of actually I think the first book I read for a colleague after I finished graduate school was Pauline Mayer's second book, The Old Revolutionaries. Pauline was an old good friend of mine, going back to my graduate school days. And Pauline took characters like, you know, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Charles Carroll, you know, one or two others figured her story. I had a Kirby Ringer book that Patrick Henry would fall within that category. When she said Old Revolutionary, she meant, you know, members of the Revolutionary generation who would play prominent roles but somehow did not have quite the same a clock, quite the same stature as, you know, the so-called Big Six. And when scholars talk about Big Six we mean, you know, Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Hamilton. They dominate. Then you have a number of other people like, you know, John Dickinson is one, John Jay would be another, and you know, you know, other names familiar to scholars. Henry, of course, is a famous name. But in terms of in terms of how he's portrayed, you know, he hasn't quite cracked the top level. And so I wonder, you know, John, just in terms of your interest and fascination with Henry, I mean, what makes him so attractive a figure to you? What drove you to write this book and to, you know, become an effect of Henry Scholar? Well, Jack, it's fascinating because I just finished an article, which is going to come out next year about Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson's relationship. And I was talking about Henry as a forgotten founder and one of the editors, one of the readers said, Well, there's all of these fellows, John Jay Dickinson, they're awful, you know, why is Henry any different from these other second tier kind of people. And one aspect, this sort of gets really to the appendix of the book or the epilogue of the book. Unlike some of these others, there was a real campaign by the Jeffersonians to keep Henry's reputation down and to destroy Henry's reputation because of Jefferson's dislike of Henry. And because of what's at the center of this book, when Henry comes out against the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and the, what I view as a radical states rights doctrine, I think Madison and Jefferson came to see it as a radical states rights and he becomes an anathema. And so the epilogue ends with, you know, Edward Pollard, the famous lost cause, unrepentant Confederate, trashing Patrick Henry. So, he is on this sort of second tier he's not one of the big six as you say but I think he's more important than perhaps some of the others. Another aspect you mentioned everyone's heard of Patrick Henry. I'm not sure everyone's heard of John Dickinson or John Jay. Everyone's heard of Patrick Henry. The only thing they know about Patrick Henry, seven words, give me liberty or give me death. And not only do I think that's inadequate I think it really misrepresents Henry and it's been taken on by the tea party and by some of the, you know, three percenters and so on, and really misrepresents Henry's history. You know, I'm well known as a Madisonian. And I just said I had actually thought I said about as much as I had to say about Madison a few years ago and discovered that's wrong. I'm still coming up with new ways to think about it. You know, I'm drawing Madison because I because I think he's he's he's a very he's I think the most sophisticated political theorist of the revolutionary generation. You know, as my mentor Bernard Bailey would say bar none. But you know what, you know, one of the things you develop in your book is to kind of is to try to contrast the public Henry, we recall as the fire brand to give me liberty, give me death guy versus Henry as a kind of political philosopher. I won't say, you know, I stumbled over that but it would be interesting to hear me that to hear you characterize how you think of Henry as a political philosopher what you mean by using that term how you would flesh it out. What are the core tenants. I mean, I could talk forever about Madison's political philosophy but I'm not sure. I mean, first pass I'm not sure what I say about beyond being an anti federalist in 1788. So how you know what you talk when you call Henry political philosopher what do you mean by that. Well, by the way I want to come back to Madison because I think there's something new here about Madison. Henry is dismissed by Jefferson as he's just a Jefferson doesn't use the term demagogue but he's just a speech of fire all he is an order and he's really good at that Jefferson concedes. I think that Henry, his political philosophy which is really significant is very much a localism, but not a parochialism it's a localism is the people need to govern themselves and if the people decide to do this. So, the one example I would take from the book that he, he does several times, you had mentioned he was the great anti federalist, he led the opposition to ratification of the Constitution. And when he realizes the Constitution is going to be ratified. He says on a couple of occasions, you know, if that's what the people want, I lost. I'm going to continue to seek change, but I will do it in a constitutional way. So he has a very visceral commitment to the power of the people to to govern. And we have to, we have to abide by that now I think there is a localism he's accused of by a lot of people I shouldn't say accused he's characterized as being very localist very Virginia. And I think that's true to an extent but he, he certainly appreciates that the people ratified the Constitution, and that we have a union. I can come back and say, if there are a lot of ways to characterize Jefferson as a political philosopher, I mean, in my book revolutionaries I argued that his notions of equality beyond beyond the preamble of the declaration are actually fairly sophisticated and complicated. But, you know, as, as, as you were just saying about Henry, a lot of commentators have said that Jefferson as a democratic theorist also believed in the idea of war republics. I mean, he did. I mean, in fact, it's one that got Richard Matthews, you know, wrote wrote that book about Jefferson was says in some ways, that was the core tenant does the core tenant of Jefferson's ideal political philosophy to kind of reconstruct Republican government from the community up maybe thinking the Anglo Saxon hundreds or whatever. But if I said that that that would make you know that would make Henry and Jefferson seem fairly close ideologically no. Absolutely. I, and I think, you know, Peter Odufus mentioned that as well and his four Virginians book that Jeffrey as much as they hated each other for personal reasons. Jefferson and Henry are actually much closer I think politically. Now he's not a Madison. And he's probably not even a Jefferson I should have said that you know that Madison certainly is a great theorist. He's a great thinker. Jefferson is a thinker as well he tends to react more than a Madison does he tends to emote more than a Madison does. And I don't want to suggest that Henry is equivalent to a Madison but I do think he's been shortchanged it. And I think your point about Jefferson and Henry sharing very much this view of the local right to govern is very much true. How do you, it might be good for our audience if we spent a few minutes blocking out Henry's career I mean there is the pre 1776 period. And then he goes back to Virginia and though, you know, it seems to me that if you look at state politics during the Revolution proper meeting from the mid 1770s to the mid 1780s, there are three preeminent figures and state politics. I'd say in Massachusetts, John Hancock in New York, George Clinton, and Virginia, Patrick Henry, both during his three terms is three years as governor until he was term limited out. And then of course, you know, off and on, you know, in the 1780s, but maybe, you know, it might be useful if we give our listeners, you know, a bit more, you know, since we don't want to just Henry just be the firebrand. I mean, how you see the arc of Henry's political career unfolding. No, it's a good point because it's so easy to miss. And it's perhaps the first clue that Henry may be more significant politically than he's been given credit. He is the first governor of Virginia of the independent state of Virginia. He's governor for three years. There's talk about giving him a fourth year, even though the Constitution of Virginia says three years and, and he actually says no no that doesn't that's not right. And then comes the leading legislature so much so that when Washington and Madison are concerned about Henry's influence as an anti-federal. You know, Washington I believe writes a letter he says Henry merely needs to say let it be. And it is so he is dominant in the Virginia legislature. When John Randolph of Roanoke says that if Henry had been elected. If Henry lived in 1799 Jefferson would not have been president. There was also an electoral college vote that swung on five votes and Randolph says Henry was good for five times five votes any day of the week in the Virginia legislature. So he's dominant in the Virginia legislature. And then he's elected again for two terms in the 1780s. He's elected again in the 1790s as governor. And at that point he's retired and he says no no no I'm, you know, he turns it down he's already been elected but he turns down. He's elected again as governor. He becomes the leading anti-federalist in 1788 at the Virginia ratification convention. But then he retires in 1790 and between the ratification and retiring, he leads Virginia's opposition to Alexander Hamilton's financial program. Virginia does protest and say Hamilton's gone too far. The assumption of state debts is unconstitutional he leads that, but then he steps back. This is one of the reasons why he's not so well known he was offered Secretary of State he's offered Supreme Court justice he's offered Ambassador France, he's offered Senator he's offered ambassadors at Spain. He says no. I don't know exactly why he's saying no. He has 17 children, and he's trying to, he's busy and when he dies, there's a two year old, he's trying to make sure that all of his sons have plantations so he's trying to earn money. He had opposed the government so he does say, look, it's your government, you ratified the Constitution, you all run it. But he is the most popular politician in Virginia from 1775 to 1799 are Washington. Right. Okay, so let me just push on this a little bit further. So how do you, how would you account for his popularity? It's a tough question to ask and it's not like it's not like asking about a contemporary politician today, you know how we source this and think about this I think might be more challenging but if you make this claim what do you know what's what's the what's the what's the foundation of which it rests. I think he's much more an every man than either Washington or Jefferson or Madison that that people liked him. I mean he started out you mentioned his career during the Revolution I mean he started out running a store, and he kept failing running the store because people would come in and he'd start talking to them and you know he'd give them stuff on credit and then he'd never collect. He tried to run a plantation and that failed, you know, and so I think he has this. And Jefferson, who's very much as you mentioned earlier a Democrat and believes in in politically the quality, but everybody understands sort of Jefferson's up there, Washington's up there. I remember Gouverneur Moore is giving Washington a hug, you know, and everybody's thinking that's crazy. Henry's the guy who he's your next door neighbor and people seem to get that that he seems to speak for them. We don't have surveys and we don't have polling places. But he's extraordinary popular and as Washington and Madison say he absolutely dominated the Virginia legislature. Right. What do you think are the best accounts of Henry's oratorical skills I mean everyone says they were formidable. Madison's a Virginia convention. And then he give the raffication convention that Henry, on the one hand he's down to figure the other hand he seems to irritate a lot of the other anti federals because he won't keep to assist him. I mean George Mason, you know, who was, I guess was pretty much as a leading ally at the convention wanted to go through the Constitution kind of point by point and Henry is just once he's on a rhetorical role. There's, you know, there's there's there's no stopping him. He goes up ahead of steam and he goes, we ought to understand 18th century oratory is different from modern. We would view it if we heard Patrick Henry completely overdone completely overdramatic. Undoubtedly, that's all true. But it is astounding everyone who had heard him. People like Jefferson who is not a Henry fan says he seems to me to speak as Homer wrote. It's extraordinary. Edmund Randolph says at one point he someone asked him about Patrick Henry's oratory, and he picks up a piece of charcoal from a fireplace and he says, I might as well draw the lightning in the sky with this charcoal, as try to describe Henry's oratory. You know, so he said, but it's clearly melodramatic you know give me liberty or give me death and he takes a letter opener and plunges it into you know his chest. Boy, I don't want to make too many modern comparisons but I just had a terrible modern comparison and come flash into my mind. But people felt like, yeah, he's speaking for me when he says, you know, we've got to have liberty we've got to support we've got to do something about freedom. Sometimes that oratory is not pretty. I mean you mentioned the ratification conventions he gets into slavery at the ratification convention and fairly ugly. But people hear him. I think this actually ties in with the militia issue. And thus, if I remember correctly, I've done a lot of work on the second amendment. But let me look at, here's a here's a thought that just popped in my head. You know, it's, it's a term that I think we overuse into some kind of use in our modern political analysis but using it somewhat neutrally do you think it'd be fair to say Henry was our first populist politician as an engineer. I mean, I don't, you know, I don't, I mean, I think a populism is a specific political movement that how do you compare that to contemporary events that I have problems with those kinds of analogies, but in a more general sense, you know populist, you know, aligning with popular. Right. No, I, I, I've been criticized for for describing him as a populist. And as you say, it's we have to be careful because modern modern connotation a little bit different, but he very much sees himself. And Jefferson criticizes him for this, you know, he likes going out hunting with the guys and he likes going and drinking and, and the answer is yeah he did. And people saw him actually Jefferson criticizes John Marshall for the same thing that he saw Marshall was a little bit plebeian in his case. And I do think he's a populist in the broad sense of he felt, and he saw his role as trying to reflect for the people, what they needed to do and there's some ways that's that, you know, an example that just jumped to mine. He's very much involved as a leader in the Virginia legislature with what to do about the Native American issue because they're, you know, there's friends what to do. Well he, and they're struggling with what to do about Tories from the American Revolution. And he has this very inclusive sense of no look we're all we're all here together we're all working together. So he actually proposes at one point it's not adopted. He says if a Native American marries somebody of European descent, the state I'd give them $50, because we want to encourage people to be part of the community. And when the question after the revolution becomes should the Tories be allowed back into the country and people were afraid no shouldn't let it they're dangerous they opposed us in the revolution. And Henry gives the speech he says, you know, we and I, I can't remember the exact terms but we conquered the lion why should we be concerned about his welts, the British life. You know, everybody should be here. Everybody should be part of the country. We're an expanding country. So yeah he has this very broad sense of the people and people's right to participate. Good. Okay, so I think it's a good time. We're about 20 minutes into our, you know, into our 45 minute to an hour discussion or it's probably a good time to shift gears so, you know, in terms of the dramatic structure of your public, it kind of culminates in the, you know, dramatic sense in the, I suppose in the Washington Henry interchange and Henry's last speech and so on but I think the, you know, the pivot really is thinking about 7098. And part of the pivot is the severity of the international crisis the United States faces during the so called quasi war period against France on the one hand, and then of course another part of the pivots on what the Republican leaders meeting Jefferson and John Madison, are doing in particular the Virginia Kentucky resolutions but then broader questions of their political strategy looking ahead to 1800 and since I'm not sure I agree with everything you say here which is fine. But I think why don't we, why don't we start by reframing or framing the issues of 70, let's say the so 7098 1800 period as you see them and then we can go ahead and talk in more detail about you know the critical aspects of it. Right. Well, and I think you're right 1798 is critical. You were aware that there's tension in Europe the wars are going on in Europe and United States is trying to stay out of them. And people are vaguely aware that we had this thing called the alien and sedition act. But one of the things that surprised me in doing this research is, like most people I heard the aliens addition act but the conventional wisdom was 14 people have been prosecuted. You know that's bad but 14 people. More recent research people like Wendell Bird and others have shown there were scores of people prosecuted, and it's specifically targeted at Democratic Republican newspaper editors. So that's why Jefferson talks about a rain of witches. It's not 14 prosecutions it's over 100 people are indicted. And they're targeting. They're trying to silence political opposition. So that was sort of my first realization and revelation is that the crisis of 1798 for Jefferson and Madison was much more real than than perhaps we've given a credit I think they're desperate. I think they see their supporters going to jail and being prosecuted. And they're wondering how can we have a fair election. If our newspaper editors are thrown in jail. So, so that's sort of the first. Okay, so let me just, I want you to subject so you're working. I mean, desperate is the term you use. So you're working definition of desperation here means that they are concerned that the political process will not work. That if you if you don't have very modern implication if you don't have a free press. If you don't have people's ability to get to criticize the government. How can you have a fair election. So, let me just say for for all the listeners out there. So John is referring to a primarily, but not solely to a wonderful book by Wendell Byrd, which I which I review the American Historical Review and my copy is back here over, over my shoulder. She's a very powerful book. It's fair in some ways. It's a very schematic book in terms of how it's designed. There's a kind of there's a kind of template for, you know, for how he treats things. But one of the telling things about it is that in addition to describing how all the, all these individual prosecutions originated to particular calculations that went into them. Byrd provides these very telling stories about what happened to the individual printers and their families. And you know, these are guys, these guys were dependent on their livings and the way the Federalists went after them, really kind of, you know, literally devastated and destroyed some families. I mean, really drove them to the brink of impoverishment. It's not just the guys are going to jail, but you know, families are literally being driven into poverty. You know, it's so just, I mean, you know, pushing a desperation that this is a way of kind of developing what you know what that meant operationally and consequently. Right. And that's why people have heard Jefferson's perhaps they've heard Jefferson's reign of witches quote, you know that quote pops up all the time. I don't think I'd fully appreciated that it was a reign of witches if you were a Democratic Republican if you were a newspaper editor as you say these people's lives are being destroyed. So shouldn't this make you a Jeffersonian and a Madisonian like me or what? Well, you know, the interesting thing is I've told a number of people this book took a lot longer to write than I would have liked in multiple respects. That's true most books. That's true most books. Had I finished it five years earlier. Jefferson and Madison would have come out much worse I really developed a much greater appreciation for the reign of witches. And then I'll get to the third because I think there's I think it happens in three stages. You know the middle then is their reaction, which is the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in which Jefferson's actually using the term nullification. I think that the in individual states should be allowed to nullify the federal government's laws. We have a compact among independent sovereign states, Madison's Virginia resolutions are of course much more mild or tempered more tempered, but that's what brings Washington out saying we have a crisis we're about to have a civil war because if we're going to have state against state, if the laws are going to be different state by state. And then the third piece which gets us back to Madison. I said I wanted to come back to Madison some point. I also believe and I think this is relatively new that there is a very conscious retrenchment on the part of Jefferson and Madison that they realized that they had been hyper partisan and they'd gone too far. So when Madison 10 day within 10 days of the Virginia resolutions being adopted. He wrote them. And then Jefferson within 10 days saying you know maybe we went too far. And if the Virginia resolutions went too far, the Kentucky resolutions which are much more aggressive. You know, talking about nullification laws are no void of no force and effect, federal laws are no void. So I think that Madison and Jefferson realize and I think this is a much better explanation for the election of 1800 and Jefferson's presidency. And then they do pull back and realize the hyper partisanship. No, Henry dies in 1799 Washington dies, but Jefferson and Madison are left in the presidency, and the vice and the Secretary of State. And I think they realize how fragile the nation really was. And that maybe things have gone too far. Yeah, do you want John and based on what you're saying that I have to give this every thinking myself I mean I my reading. Let me let's have a long exchange between us and then you know this can see how scholars disagree is my reading is Madison from the start is reacting against Jefferson and in a not a typical way you know after Jefferson died. And one of the lines to forget who was the recipient of this letter says that that would deal with Jefferson. One has to make a law and says in common with men of great genius. Okay, I'm blanking out the phrase but you know basically Jefferson, you know, Jefferson was close to something the street getter, you can't have been pulses speaker and Madison, you know repeated occasion says, you know you're really going too far here and you know, oh, it's a message for expressing and strong and round terms, the impressions of the moment. Right. I'm 76 years old. Okay, who's a grip up. But so I so my reading of this was always that, you know, Madison, I always took Madison's position in 1798 to be the, the Republicans have run out of effective political options. They don't have the presidency, they don't have either House of Congress, they don't have the judiciary. Their only recourse is to the states and they want to say that the states must have some residual authority as political actors based on being the original parties to play some residual role in, at least in voicing political dissent, Jefferson by flirting with nullification goes, you know, not just a bridge too far but you know, you know, several bridges too far, but Madison really calls it back on this. Right. And I, but I think that, and you're right, getting into why I should never, you know, get into this with a Madisonian because when Jefferson sees Madison's draft of the Virginia resolutions, he tries to insert the phrase null void of no force and effect, which was the language from the Kentucky resolution federal law and to those listening I should, I'm speaking in short hand. And what they're saying is the state is saying that the federal law is null void of no force and effect. And Jefferson tries to insert that into the Virginia. And neither of them is in the Virginia legislature they're working through surrogates. So Madison's drafted it. Madison finds out that they're trying to insert that language and he hasn't pulled back out. He says no that goes too far. He's talking about states plural right to intervene. Jefferson's talking about a state has the ability to intervene. So yeah, I think Madison is pulling back on Jefferson from the start as he does so often in his career. He's very often saying, you know, Tom, maybe you got too far here. But even with that that that letter from December of 1799, where, even though the null null avoid no force and effect, which has already been removed. Madison says, you know, we may have gone too far in the act of protesting the federal government's usurpation of our rights, the First Amendment right to free press. We might be accused of usurping federal authority, and I'm paraphrasing the course of federal authority by the states. So you're absolutely correct. I mean, Madison was certainly trying to keep Jefferson within limits from the start. But I think he even pulled back a little bit from his own language and said, we really need to be cautious here. And then this comes up through the nullification crisis. As you all know, Jefferson dies in 1826 in 1828 and into the 1830s, the nullification crisis, the South Carolina nullifiers, the fire breeders are all quoting Jefferson and Madison's Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. And Madison is trying to say over and over again, that's not what we meant. That's not what we meant. We didn't say that. Actually, Mr. Madison, Jefferson did say that. And, you know, Madison is trying to, I think, recharacterize some of Jefferson's language from 98. But I think Jefferson pulls back as well as I think Jefferson's inaugural address. Again, everybody's familiar with the line, we are all federalists, we are all Republicans. I went back and reread that address. I think it's much richer and it's evidence of Jefferson really realizing this hyper partisanship almost drove the country over the edge. He says at one point, I understand why the federalists were concerned that France might invade. That's an extraordinary, 1798 Jefferson does not say that. John, now our viewers as well as your co-locator here want to know, okay, now how we can plug your buddy Patrick Henry back into this story. Well, what's interesting is Henry, what we've not talked about you mentioned it is sort of the pivot in the book is Henry's final political speech. March 4, 1799 Charlotte courthouse. It's a relatively well recorded Henry speech. Because, you know, what was the occasion. He's running for legislature Washington says please come back into politics run for Congress. We need you in Congress to stop this hyper partisanship to respond to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. And Henry is ill. He, we know he's going to die in four months. He's probably feeling the some of these symptoms. And he says I can't do that but I will go to Richmond, because Virginia is the problem. I will, I will deal with Virginia legislature. So he's running for Virginia House of Delegates. And he comes on March 4, Charlotte courthouse and people got the reports are there thousands of people because everybody knows this is going to be they know the guy's getting old. They know he's been ill. This is going to be Patrick Henry's final public public speech, perhaps students from, you know, from colleges 20 miles away are walking to, you know, the tavern to hear Patrick Henry speak that morning. Well, he gets up and he gives this. It's pure Henry, you know that the what's happened is planted thorns upon my pillow. He uses this language that people understand. And, you know, my favorite for the oratory and then we'll come back to some substance. You know, at one point he says if Virginia keeps going down this route, it's going to face George Washington, leading a federal army into Virginia to put down Virginia, and who would dare lift an arm against the man who led them in battle. Well, there's a drunk there because it's an 18th century election people have been drinking. And we actually know the guy's name. You know, I would, you know, I Henry turns on him and just towers on you dare not do it. In such a parasital attempt the steel would drop from your nervous arm. This is just Henry this is beautiful. But where he ends the speech. And I think this is the critical point and it's I tell people I didn't realize when I was writing this book I was writing about modern events about contemporary events. You know he says look, I opposed the Constitution, I told you not to ratify I warned you the government was going to become too powerful. But we, I didn't, but we, the people accepted it. And if you oppose this, if you oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts, you go to the ballot box, and he warns, and again I'm paraphrasing but he very expressly says if we cannot live within the Constitution that we accepted, I didn't accept it I dissented. But we accepted it will have a monarchy, because that's the only choice if we can't live within the government that we've created and deal with it in a constitutional way, his phrase. We're going to have a monarchy. So I think Jefferson, and Jefferson, we haven't talked about why they personally dislike each other Jefferson hates Henry. He can't admit that Henry's right, but the Aurora, for example, immediately the Jeffersonian newspaper in Philadelphia the Democratic Republican newspaper and not just any newspaper. No, this is the leading this is the Jeffersonian voice in the press viciously attacks Henry. He's senile he's jealous of Jefferson. It's because they realized he has he has said look Jefferson and Madison went too far. We can't do this we have to that the nullification is not consistent with the Constitution. And we have to act in a constitutional way. Yeah, as you and I know, certainly everybody elicits program watching this program knows, you know, the, you know, the great takeaway from 1801 is the peaceful transfer of power. And I never thought, you know, I'm not, you know, I am at a relatively senior age. I never thought of my lifetime I'd live in a moment when the idea that the people transfer power itself as an American custom practice tradition value would be called into question. So it goes to I think what you know what you know what my well be here I kind of last, you know, you know, major major topic is, you know, how do we think. You know, every Washington don't, you know, don't survive to see the election of 1800, but the legacy of the events of 7098 is to make sense of what happened in 1801. Are you applied to a just one thing I'm not sure that had had every been alive. You know, at every, you know, had, you know, been in better health or why are you applying there might have been a different outcome in 1801 or. Absolutely. You do. Absolutely. What's your basis. And it's ironic because it's because of his death that we get the Jefferson wins and we get a Jeffersonian Republic and as I said, I think Jefferson and Madison really pull back they realize they had gone too far. But what's the basis for that. John Randolph of Roanoke, who people may be familiar with he's he is a Jeffersonian he's important legislature. And his political campaign starts that day, March 4 1799 at Charlotte courthouse. He's running for Congress. And it's his first campaign and he stands up to, by the way, he's one of the sources for the speech. He writes down contemporaneously Henry's comments and Randolph says, if Henry had won Jefferson would have lost what's happening and this will sound fascinating to people modern. They're manipulating the electoral college. I don't think you're about this extensively. So yeah, yeah. Yeah, because nobody, I mean, you know, the electoral college nobody really understood what it was or how it was going to work and, and people were realizing by the end of the 1790s that it's open to manipulation in the sense that you could do a winner take all. And Madison says that's not what we meant that's not what we meant. We thought that there was going to be election of electors by districts. And just like Virginia's congressional deck, you know delegation might have 12 Federalists and eight Republicans or the other way around, you know, you have a split vote. The states realized we can increase our influence by having a winner take all system. And so, it's not quite that simple but go ahead. And you're right. I mean, there's a lot of complexity but Virginia had been using a district system basically in 1796 and 1788 and 1792 1796 and other states Massachusetts, for example, is switching to a winner take all system. And so, yeah, so Virginia in that fall after Henry dies the election marches his speech the election is at the end of March I think the beginning of April. He dies in June. The legislature meets in October. And they adopt a winner take all system, but it's close. It's by about five votes and that's why Randall says if Henry had been there because everybody but it's five votes in the legislature. Right. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and everybody understood we're adopting winner take all to make Jefferson president. I mean, everybody understood that Jefferson was going to be the leading candidate in Virginia. And if Virginia had not done that. And if Henry now, who knows we're crystal balling things. My advisor would admonish me to, you know, not not crystal ball too much. Because there are a couple things that would have to happen Virginia would have to continue to have the district system. And does Henry influence the vote in Virginia in Kentucky in North Carolina he's enormously popular in North Carolina and Kentucky. And we also only need five votes in the electoral college so it's five votes both in the Virginia legislature, and then we forget Jefferson did not win by a landslide. In the 1800 he went by a landslide in 1804. But it would only have taken five votes in the 1800 election. And we don't. I'm going to check a couple comments here because it's something I've written about I've written a lot on the Electoral Council. Let me just tell our listeners so in 1796 I think the Virginians lost one district based on Richmond and John Marshall's influence. I think he from South Carolina writes Madison and says maybe you guys ought to shift the rules so that that produced the result in the Virginia legislature which I forgot but you're right. So it's a five vote victory to go for a winter take all statewide vote, which is now of course the norm with exceptions of Maine to Nebraska in American politics but at that point the Massachusetts legislature sees what's happening. And what they do is that Massachusetts had a district system and there were a few districts that probably would have gone for Jefferson. I think up on the North Shore. You know, we have one example in the Berkshire and the Berkshire so Massachusetts goes. They don't go to statewide election they say the legislature will appoint the electors. Pennsylvania is close to sitting the election out. And then in the end they strike a deal where I think the Republicans get to get a one vote majority although and then New York is the most interesting case because in New York. Thanks to Aaron Burr, the Republicans captured the state legislature this point in Hamilton writes Governor John John Jay was the governor says I want you to call the legislature back into. It's a good idea to call the legislature back into a special session, because in New York, the legislature would appoint the electors. Hamilton wants to call the federalist legislature into a lame duck session, so they can create a district system and harvest a few votes, and there are a couple of the very there's a big dispute in Maryland on this. So just, you know, just to kind of come back to you and I think also because our, you know, our listeners should find this interesting. So the net result is that people are embarrassed about having to do this there's a big debate in Maryland, which also is the right thing. They said well we're just going to do this one time then we'll go back to the prior rule I mean the key thing to know it's relevant to where we are today because we're not only sure what red stage legislators might do. In some cases, but I think the flip side of this this way of problems with the argument is that if you look at the Congressional well a because it gets tied in with it. How important was the was the three fifths clause, in terms of giving Jefferson his victory, but I said well, you can't just say the three fifths clause when all the other rules are changing. Right, so it's not that there's one norm for choosing presidential electors there are a bunch of nor bunch of rules. But the second thing is if you look at the congressional elections, the Republicans do so well. Right, you know, so it seems to me the congressional elections are the best index to what quote unquote the American people as a people want it. Yeah, no, Jack absolutely right. I mean, I think there's a couple things here we, the people should understand that they're they're manipulating the electoral college at that time and they're trying to figure it out. Right. Do we know that if Henry had lived Jefferson was no, because you say they, they do have a blowout in the congressional elections in Virginia. However, keep in mind in the previous congressional elections john Marshall had won because Henry supported him. And Jefferson's outrage he said how did those people ever get elected to come. John Marshall because Patrick Henry supports him gets elected to Congress becomes Secretary of State for a moment and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I was wondering whether Jefferson when he's criticizing Marshall for the next 27 years. Remember, it's Patrick Henry's fault. The guy got elected. So no we don't, we, you can't prove it but what made me comfortable, I say in the book my view is Jefferson would have lost what made me comfortable with that was john Randolph, who, you know, when he comes out and says oh yeah, Jefferson would have lost if Henry had lived. And there are other people as well but Randolph is the best known. So we have a question from one viewer who said which I think this is, you can answer this one in the short sentence. First question did Henry have presidential aspirations. No, isn't a simple answer, which is another difference we're talking about Henry and Jefferson, you know, Henry really. I don't want to be, I don't want to be too glorifying Henry but he does step back. I mean he's accused that people say well you came out against Jefferson you and Washington came out against Jefferson, because you're jealous. You're jealous that he's going to be president. And, you know, Henry had turned down Secretary of State he had turned down Supreme Court justice he turned down Senator he turned down ambassador. He does not save his papers, the way Jefferson and Washington and Adams are all very much, you know, making sure Jefferson cares a lot about what you and I think about him. Madison cares a lot about what you and I are going to think about him 200 years later. They're preserving their papers Washington is preserving your papers. Henry doesn't preserve his paper. Yeah, and Henry been an extensive correspondent. In my sense is there aren't many papers but they're also the recipients right letters they receive no. Yeah, you know and he does not correspond anything like Jefferson we have 19,000 Jefferson letters. You know, even if we had all the Henry letters it'd be a small fraction of that. But my point is to the question does Henry have no Henry is not. He really again it's that every man, especially by that point in his life he really is worried about his family. And he's trying to provide for these 17 children. I think, you know, again remarkable that time I think 16 or 15 or 16 of them outlive him. I mean, they had a high mortality rate. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Jefferson. I was a Jefferson Madison I think often. I mean I thought they complained that I mean Henry was highly influential but also lazy. Yes, you know that he didn't I mean Madison lives for a political life. Jefferson kind of waxes and wanes but I think after Martha dies and once he gets re-involved in politics he gets involved in 120% But Henry, you know, maybe maybe the point about having all these kids and say, you know, for, you know, for perfectly good reasons was his main destroyer. I mean George Mason was the same way. Yeah, he's busy. But no, I think Jefferson overdoes it with the laziness now undoubtedly and even Henry's family says look. He's not like Madison. You know, I mean Madison loves this stuff nothing better than Madison, you know, I've been in his library at Montpelier. You know, he wants to lock himself in the library for three weeks at a time and read every book and come up, you know, well what's the Greek translation of that. Yeah, you know, no Henry, Henry's very much interested in I'm going to go hunting I'm going to go fishing I got the kids I'm going to he apparently makes up songs he plays the violin he plays the plays the fiddle, and he plays the flute, and he would make up songs for his grandchildren, and then he would crumble them up and throw them in the fireplace and so he's not as fixated as either Madison or Jefferson, but he's not lazy he's accused of laziness by Jefferson, but that's just not really fair. Well, we're kind of we. I suppose we have other questions we we not not are pending if there are if there are any viewers out there want to, you know, process on any particular points not now is the moment to send something in using using the chat function. Let me just ask, maybe, maybe one last question I mean that does seem to me that you alluded this earlier. You know, the legacy, you know, the legacy of some tracing the legacy of 1798 is complicated. You know, I mean Jefferson, as many political acts are calculated for their short term effects. I think the history of, you know, the what's called the spirit of 1798 becomes in a sense an independent variable of its own I mean people. The future, after the future meeting post 1800 will look back to it and sees on it as a convenient symbol and carry it in directions or the depths that you know neither Madison or Jefferson would, you know, would have welcomed so I see that's that's one complicated aspect of the, you know, of the story that needs to be kept in mind. Well and I don't think you mentioned the spirit of 98 I think people are returning to it today some people. The three percenters and you know some of these more extreme conservative groups, the idea that states are independent the states are sovereign. The states can control the federal government by nullifying federal laws. I mean we, the stuff that was happening out west on the lands where you know people were taking over national parks. That was nullification they were saying, you know that we in Oregon can ignore federal law if we think it's unconstitutional or a violation. So as you say that spirit of 98, which is a reference to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 written by Jefferson and Madison took on a life of its own. After 1800 and continues today. I guess two thoughts one which we haven't talked about much is, it also becomes the embodiment of the protection of slavery. The spirit of 98 becomes the justification nullification states rights. I don't think in fairness to Jefferson and Madison that that's how they saw it slavery was just not the issue in 1798. Nobody thought slavery was going to be run away with they weren't worried about it being done away with. But as you mentioned, people sees upon that Virginia and Kentucky resolutions then and it becomes the great defense of slavery in the antebellum period, the fire eaters South Carolina Calhoun, they're all quoting Jefferson and Madison. The other thing that I think is interesting is that, as I said Madison I think is pulling back almost immediately and realizing this goes too far. And for the rest of his life and he lives 1836 June 28 1836. So, for the rest of his life he's saying that's not what we meant it's not nullification states can't do this you're going to destroy the Union. Jefferson actually basillates. And you know Jefferson I do think he pulled way back during his presidency I think he rose it went too far. The end of the Missouri crisis. This is one of the problems we have when we talk about the founders we act as if we read as if they're a marble statue Jefferson thought this way or Madison thought this way. Jefferson certainly changes over time and his thinking develops over time. And as I said I think he pulls way back in his presidency. He's been accused for 200 years of hypocrisy I don't think it was hypocrisy I think he realized some of the stuff we were saying in the 1790s, we can't do that. That was, that was hyper partisan it was, we can't do that. The Missouri crisis. 1820 when he's talking about, you know the fire bell and the night we have the wolf by the ears we can either it's neither safe to hold on or to let go. He reverts to a much more radical states rights view and Madison, you know we don't there's, and I only came upon this fairly recently you might be familiar with it. In 1925, where the federal government is talking about implementing infrastructure, and Jefferson and Madison believed that was unconstitution. And so Jefferson has this sort of crazy idea. He says, Well, if we're not going to stand up to the federal government and we're not going to nullify what we ought to do in Virginia is whenever the federal government passes an unconstitutional law like infrastructure. We should have the Virginia legislature pass the identical law in Virginia. And that way our people would be abiding by the constitutional Virginia law, not that unconstitutional federal law. And it's crazy and Madison writes and it's lovely letter sort of says, you know, he doesn't quite say Tom you're crazy. But if you're reading it he's saying Tom you're crazy you can't do that that's another idea. But it's, I think it's an indication of Jefferson gets back into that more radical states rights idea that Madison spends the rest of his life, trying to down. We have one last one last questions come in and then then we're going to wrap it up. Okay. So the last question is, do you think part of the reason Patrick Henry is not as well known is is the lack of his letters, or because his political shift didn't lend itself well to the Confederate mindset. I think it's some of both. I think his the lack of letters the fact that he did not accept the federal position, the fact that he was a loser on the Constitution, he was an anti Federalist. So I think there's a lot of reasons why we don't remember Patrick Henry as well, as we might. But the question, I think their last point is absolutely valid I think Jefferson spends, Henry dies in 1799, Jefferson dies in 1826. Jefferson spends 27 years trashing Patrick Henry, you know, Daniel Webster as a young politician comes to visit Jefferson at Monticello. I think it was 1822 1823. Jefferson goes on and on about Henry was stupid he was a bad lawyer he couldn't write he didn't read crazy stuff. He says George with refused to sign his law license, which is not true we have found a copy of Henry's law license signed by George But as your question implies it, he does then come out on the wrong side of the Confederacy. And that's why I said when we started that Edward Pollard the great apologists, the Confederacy that author of the lost cause, absolutely despises Patrick Henry, because of his 1799 campaign. And, and so Henry know he in Virginia, he loses his luster, because of the 1799 campaign. Well john thanks so much this is this has been a fun hour for me obviously I'm going to have to give a little recap as a, you know, as a diet in the old man of Sony I'm going to have to go so it's a measure of reconsideration to Henry's. I did give the Patrick Henry lecture at Johns Hopkins once and we actually had a there's a Henry descendant in the audience and I had a, I couldn't overload quoting Jefferson slide but what we have to do is it's hope for Patrick Henry's death. It's a lot of fun sharing through and I hope all our viewers and listeners out there were had as much fun doing this as as as I've had joining in it. So that's a wrap from here and thanks to all of you for listening and john great to be in touch with you. Thank you, Jack.