 Good afternoon, and welcome to the William G. McGowan Theater here at the National Archives. I'm David Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States, and it's a pleasure to have you with us today, whether you're here in the theater or joining us on YouTube or Facebook. I'm pleased you could join us for today's special presentation of the Years Bring Enlightenment, the Friendship and Politics of Abigail Adams and Thomas Jefferson. This afternoon, as sort of a preview for tomorrow's July 4th festivities, we bring you Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the Second Continental Congress, former president of the United States and drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, who was famous for her early advocacy of several causes, including women's rights, female education, and the abolition of slavery. Today, they will engage in a spirited discussion of their often conflicting views on the events that surrounded the struggle for American independence and the establishment of the United States under the Constitution. Our actors are Stephen Abando and Kim Hanley, and they are members of the American Historical Theater. We hope that you'll return tomorrow, July 4th, as we celebrate the 243rd anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence with our traditional 4th of July program. Come early for a free t-shirt giveaway between 8 and 9.30, and at 10 o'clock the Declaration of Independence reading ceremony will begin. Local Fox News anchor Allison Seymour will return as the master of ceremonies. Author and journalist Koki Roberts will give a keynote address. Then Mrs. Adams and Mr. Jefferson will be joined by General George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Private Ned Hector for a dramatic reading of the Declaration. The Old Guard Fife and Dremcor will perform before the reading, and additional musicians will perform before and after the ceremony. And inside the National Archives building, we invite you to take part in an assortment of family activities between 11 and 4 p.m. And of course, take advantage of the opportunity to view the original Declaration of Independence, along with the other Charters of Freedom, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in the Rotunda. And now without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce you to Mrs. Abigail Adams and Mr. Thomas Jefferson. Good day to you all. My name is Thomas Jefferson. My esteemed colleague here with us tonight is Mrs. Abigail Adams. Good afternoon. Yes, I'm Mrs. John Adams. Oh, right. Upon becoming a married woman, I lose all self-determination and ceased to be Mrs. Abigail Smith and became Mrs. Somebody. Fortunately, I married an excellent man in John Adams, and I am very proud to be Mrs. John Adams, and the wife and mother of his children. We are planning on a number of subjects to speak about today, Mrs. Adams. Perhaps we might agree on a certain amount of parliamentary procedure that during the debate format, we will stand behind these lecterns, though I know it is not your native place to stand. And during more leisurely portions of our time with our friends here, we will sit in our chairs. Would you like to begin with a debate or with a conversation first? Oh, well, I would like to ask you about why, in your Declaration of Independence, you did not state all men and women are created equal? To the lecterns, then. Right. So Mrs. Adams, would you mind repeating the question again for me and for our friends? I do apologise if I seem a little bit uncomfortable behind a lectern. This is not my normal milieu. My normal milieu is a lovely set of chairs and by a fireside. Anyway, yes, I would like to know, Mr. Jefferson, why in the Declaration of Independence, when you stated all men are created equal, why did you not say all men and women? Why did you exclude 50% of the population? Well, all men are created equal was symbolic language. And mankind, the idea behind it is that I'm drawing at the time, I was drawing at the time from a linguistic tradition in which mankind meant the human race. So for instance, I will not ask you what your own beliefs are religious and otherwise, they are your opinions between you and the progenitor of your faith. However, let us imagine that you were to read or hear read to you something, a passage, an ancient passage from an old book of one of these kinds of faith. And in this ancient book, you might hear someone read, you might read a statement along the lines of a man hath displeased the Lord. Now, when you read that, when you hear that read to you, it does not mean that women were behaving themselves and get little boats while the men had to swim in the flood. That means mankind. Well, I was drawing from that same tradition then, when I wrote all men are created equal, women were implied. It means mankind. Well, if women were implied and mankind was what you truly meant the people to think, why not move beyond the ancient texts and come up with a more modern phrase and say all mankind are created equal, if that's what you meant. Well, I didn't think anybody would abuse it to the degree of saying that human rights don't belong to women just as much as they are men. All men would be tyrants if they could, Mr. Jefferson. I firmly believe that. Now you sound like Mr. Adams. This is one of the places Mr. Adams and I disagree. I can see that you two are well matched to each other. I believe that men are virtuous by nature and will behave virtuously if they are only given the means to do so and have the obstacles removed from in front of them as best as possible. If men are not implicitly instructed to include all other non-persons such as women and enslaved people, then they will be inclined to take the literal statement of the meaning. All men are created equal and exclude those of the dis-staff and the reduced nature of other beings and not include us in our information and our opinions in any legislation that they foment. I think I see where the fundamental misunderstanding is here. When I wrote all men are created equal, all human kind are created equal. You didn't write that. You wrote all men are created equal. When I said that statement and meant what I meant by it, I did not mean that all men are the same. I did not want to imply that we thought all of the human race were the same any more than I wanted to imply that we are treating everyone as equals. When I wrote that, this was the founding goal of the United States, not a statement of what we had already achieved. So, for instance, equal doesn't mean the same. We are all called to serve according to what our gifts are. General Washington, it was well and good that he was made the general of our armies. I wrote the Declaration of Independence. If I had joined a military, I would have been made an officer. I would have been a terror. I see you agree with me. If I had joined a military, I would have been made an officer because I was born wealthy and powerful, important according to the standards of the time. But I admit to I would have been a terrible officer. That's not what my talent lies. General Washington, while he is highly literate, he reads a great deal. If he had been given the task to write the Declaration of Independence, it perhaps would not have been as concise. If John Adams had been given the task to write the Declaration of Independence, it would have been much longer. If I had been made the general of the armies and George Washington had written the Declaration of Independence, it would all be saying God saved the Queen. My point is that this idea applies also in what I meant when I wrote the statement to men and women. Men and women have different sets of talents and abilities they're given by nature to serve in society, to make society function. Thus they should not be expected to serve in the same way in the public sphere or in the private sphere. The domestic sphere is indeed the realm in which women and wives live. And it is indeed our honor and our pride to manage our domestic spheres to the best of our capabilities. But our domestic sphere is completely subsumed under that of our husbands. When a wife marries all of her property becomes the property under the disposition of entirely her husband. So our domestic sphere is not equal. It is subsumed under the authority of the public sphere. We are reduced as beings. Our property is removed from us entirely. We have no self-determination. And I do believe that with that in mind, women should be determined to ferment a rebellion and not hold ourselves bound by laws in which we have no voice or representation. Well, that is quite a radical statement, Mrs. Adams. But Mr. Adams implied to me something about your writing, something like that at the time. Yes, I told him to remember the ladies. Apparently lots of folks have asked me about that. And I wonder if you've all been reading my mail. Well, perhaps someone will save the letters that we have written and make them available to the public for generations to come. My husband told me to actually make copies of all my letters in my copious spare time. Well, anyone who would save them and make them available to the generations to come would be providing a great service. However, to my point of the differences that were implied and acknowledged in the statement, laws of property ownership I think are an excellent example of what I mean by this. We are equal, but we are not the same. When a man and woman are married, they become as one legally. But you still have to have only one of them representing outside of the family. And this is where the difference is between the home sphere and the public sphere. Women, because of their natural talents, because what they've been given by nature, and also cultural and training, but more their natures, they are much more able to guard the family, to teach, to raise the children. Men are much less able of that and much more able in the public sphere to represent in government, to engage in negotiations and property, et cetera. If we were to create laws that allow women and men to both hold property while they're married, something I didn't agree with at the time, I think we'd have the same kind of problem that we ran into in France. When I was in France, the French Revolution was still going fairly well. I left just before it started to go very, very badly. And one of the things that I think caused the destabilization and the extremity of the French Revolution, one of the many causes of it, was that everyone, men and women, believed politics, the public sphere was the only worthwhile sphere. No one in France respected the home, respected caring for the home, protecting the home, raising children, educating children to be an honorable pursuit. Well, the home, the family, that's the reason why we have politics. That's the reason why we have government, to protect our home, to protect the happiness of that engenders. If no one respects that, if everybody is there being treated less than equal, because that is their place, well, then we're going to have another French Revolution instead of the American Revolution. I'm going to extrapolate from what you just said. There are so many things in there to tackle, one of them being, of course, the education and the ability of people to make determinations is not necessarily connected to whether they own property or not. Also, the distaff sex is often denied an education or any kind of a proper or advanced education. So too, though, there are many men that I know that have not achieved for themselves dignified enough education that would render them responsible enough to cast a ballot. So I do believe that education should be a very important aspect before anyone casts a vote. But then you also compared our nation, our people, to the French Republic. And that is almost implying, Mr. Jefferson, that you would say that American people who I consider having grown up in this country to be the very best of sorts, virtuous sorts, that if people are acting in the public sphere, they are minus a virtue. So I would like to extrapolate from that. All the virtue is contained in the domestic sphere. And the men in the public sphere are lacking in virtue. Well, they're not lacking in virtue, but entering into the public sphere, property negotiations, politics, those tend to deplete virtue. So they are engaging with a depleted sense of virtue. Right. It seems as if they are even less able, by your definition, to cast a responsible ballot. Perhaps we should leave the ballot then in the domestic sphere because we're the virtuous ones. Now you have exactly my point. The idea that I was working with was that the men would enter into the public sphere where they will be tempted, power is tempting, where there will be temptations for corruption and worse, but as long as they respect and revere the home and they return home again, they are reminded of what all of this is for, the purpose of having the public sphere, the purpose of having property be protected, the purpose of entering into politics in the first place. When they return home, they are reminded of the virtue they are perhaps brought back into the fold of virtue if they had begun to cast their eye scants. So when they enter back into the public sphere again, they are stronger for it. Well, speaking of our abilities and our ownership of the domestic sphere, when a woman does indeed give up all of her property and all of her interest to a husband upon marrying, then she has engaged, or it has been thrust upon her, a more difficult struggle to maintain her interest in the economy of her family. Mind you, women are indeed patriots in all ages. I believe our patriotic virtue runs deeper because we are deprived from a voice in government. Our property is stripped from us upon marriage, yet we still maintain that honour, that virtue, that interest in the future of this nation which enables us to educate our children to become the leaders of this new nation. So I do believe, though, that with the rights to ownership of property, we would not be completely corrupted. We would perhaps just have a deeper interest in the future of that property. And if we had the ability to devolve that property, to will that property, to those whom we deem worthy, we would be able to be even further inspired to educate our heirs to be responsible citizens of this nation. I believe that a vested property interest creates a different kind of virtue upon the people. Well, I could take you up more upon the subject. I think at this particular juncture based upon our agreement for the structure of our conversation today, we might want to invite our friends here in the audience for a few moments to partake in our discussion. Perhaps we could take a vote. A vote. Would the ladies be invited to vote as well? I think they should. I think there are more of them in the room. How many here are ladies? How many here are men? Yes, I think we should have the ladies vote too. Perhaps we start with a vote. Our vote on which subject would you like them to vote? Well, I suppose perhaps we should just crawl before we walk. Under the laws in which I live, which I married, my husband owns all of my property, my earrings, my dress, my mob cap, don't you think he'd look charming in this outfit? So perhaps we should ask, do you believe that our constitution, our new government should indeed remember the ladies, be more generous to them and not put unlimited power into the hands of the husbands by assuring that a married woman's property devolves through her and that she may will that property to whom she chooses, not to whom her husband determines. So who will vote for that? Yes. Who could? Seven, eight. You can't even count. How who would not vote for that? Well, let me phrase my own side of it. All right, you're a rebuttal. Because this is a bit of a trick question, or at least in the way I'll phrase it. Who believes that, first of all, I honestly did describe to you what my perspective was throughout my life and the men who voted for the Declaration of Independence, what our perspective was as well legally in how we were applying these ideas at the time, now that you know an honest description in a general sense of that concept, who believes that once you learn what the men who established this nation believed, you must slavishly imitate us for all time until time immemorial. That's a very different question. I still, I cannot change what I believe, but I do believe the earth belongs to the living. I don't worry. I won't ask you to raise your hands. I know what the vote is. I'm fortunate to change the direction a bit of our conversation. Oh, I think we should ask a trivia question. I think that is an excellent idea. We're going to ask for a volunteer from the audience. We will be asking you a question, and we'll invite you to ask us questions. I'll give you a few options as to what the correct answer is. One volunteer. And the volunteer upon correct answering will win a prize that we have up here. Who would like to be the first brave soul to volunteer? We have over on the edge there we've got, and the very top on the edge in the orange shirt. Oh, all right. All right, so Mrs. Adams, while they are bringing the vocal augmentation prize. How come you got to pick the person? There was a lovely young lady right up there who I was going to pick. Perhaps you can pick him next. Do you have the next choice? I don't know. All right, fine. So you've got the microphone. My question, the trivia question is, all of these women, I have communicated with women who have engaged in all of the following professions, but one. So yours is to choose A, B, C, or D, which is the one that I have not known a woman to engage in the profession of. A, I correspond and know a woman who is a respected author and playwright. I correspond and know a woman who is a brilliant artist with quill and inks and crayons. I know and correspond with a respected historian and author. I know and correspond a woman who is a representative elected to the legislative body of the United States. That would be D. I'm going to say it's A, D. D, the last one. You are absolutely correct. The latter, yes. That I have not known or corresponded with a lady who is an elected representative of the United States. So here we have that document in Congress July 4th, 1776, which clearly states that all men are created equal. Perhaps we'll work on this later. Now we can engage in questions. A few moments here before we begin the next subject that we'll be debating. To invite the audience to ask us such questions as they may wish to ask us. With this carousel, I'm afraid that neither one of us can answer any questions about your technology. It is inscrutable. And neither one of us, I think we can agree, would touch your politics with a 10-foot casusco. So our question is about our day and our time. Perfectly welcome. Who would like to ask the first question? What did we agree on, Mr. Jefferson? Within that debate that we just had, the portion of the debate we just had, the premise of Mrs. Adams' argument is the same as the premise for my belief in what can make a government by the people exist at all, and that is an educated populace. And I do agree that women need to be educated as well as men. I just think what is useful education for them is something that's different based on what you know... What do you consider a useful education for a young lady, Mr. Jefferson? We've already gotten to what we disagree with now. But we do disagree that... We agree that women must be educated. We could talk about that, but we do agree, yes. We're not yet... We haven't yet done the other part of the debate yet, but you see how easy it is to start one. Perhaps another question. Move closer to the front here, perhaps. If you want to choose the next person... I think this gentleman is already ready to pass. When Mr. Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, did he have in mind enslaved men as well? Yes, but I also had women in mind, too, as we've seen. Again, you should have just said all humankind, and we wouldn't have had to engage in this discussion. But I think the key part... The document, though, might not have passed through Congress, so... It wouldn't have. If we had specified slaves and women, no, it would not have passed. But that's the hard reality. At the time, we were just trying to establish something very simple, independence. Actually, there was an entire section of the document of the Declaration of Independence that did, indeed, address the issue of slavery in the hopes that we would work to ameliorate the issue, but that had to be struck from the document. My husband initially tried fiercely to defend that part of the document, but then it came to the unfortunate and sorrowful realization that the Southern states simply would not have agreed and ascended to independency if that were part of the document. Well, I did specify that there were many Northerners, too, who felt a bit tender under the censures of slavery, because they didn't own slaves, but they made a lot of money from the slave trade. Those ships that brought them to the West Indies and North America, by and large, were not Southern ships. They were Rhode Island, they were Massachusetts ships, New York ships. People who were involved in this kind of injustice aren't always the ones who see it face to face. But anyhow, sir, yes, it means the human race, but, of course, I was not stating that we now, in 1776, treat people as they are creative as equals. I was acknowledging, though, that they are, and that was the starting point. Mrs. Adams, would you like to choose another question? Is there another question? Oh, Scott, are there any other? Actually, I'm with this young lady. I'm sorry, madam. Dear, up there in the lovely turquoise, yes. Yes, dear. Young lady, yes. Well, you can just shout it out. I'm sure I can hear you. Women have loud voices. Could girls play around like boys? Oh, could young lady, could girls play and engage in entertainments and sport and things such as boys? Well, yes and no, I suppose. There are many young ladies who truly enjoy horseback riding. In fact, one of the finest horsewomen I know is Mrs. Alexander Hamilton. Eliza Hamilton is an excellent horsewoman. So, yes, and depending on where they grew up and how they grew up and how their parents treated them, we certainly can climb trees and jump over fences and run and play. But there comes a certain point in a young lady's life where she must find herself sitting down attending to card-playing music. Well, these were all essential things that my husband thought were necessary and a wife, the playing of cards, the understanding of music, comporting oneself well and dancing. These were the things that ladies had to be turned to as well as, of course, stitching and embroidery. All terribly useful things. So I guess, yes, when we were younger, we were given the opportunity to move and jump and run and play. But in our teen years, we were more relegated to sitting by the fire, looking pretty and having polite conversation. In the south, especially because I was wealthier, in the wealthier part of the culture in the south, young ladies actually were placed in the more focused pursuits that Mrs. Adams just described much earlier. So there, of course, would be ladies who would learn how to ride, but they wouldn't be able to go wandering in the hills like my friend Dabney Carr and I did, climbing up the mountain that my father had built, or bought, rather, a few years before I was born. I named it Monticello later. We had a favorite spot up there, and young ladies wouldn't really be permitted to do that or go out hunting as we used to do, swimming in the river. I guess it's regional because, again, in the north we had a little bit more land. And certainly Mrs. Hamilton talks often of her youth as a rambler, but... I wish that you could all see the face she was making when I was describing what she wasn't allowed to do if she lived in the south. Now, we will have more time for questions, but I think perhaps there are some other subjects that you and I were considering talking about. Mrs. Adams, considering today especially how important the press is in sharing our discussion today, there were a few subjects I know we wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about dissent and what is considered proper dissent and what is considered seditious or treasonous dissent. And specifically, I'm talking about something we both heard about at a distance. While we were in France together, there was Shays' Rebellion. Yes, this may not be as current of an event for many of the people here as it is for us. So perhaps we ought to first... There may be a few who don't remember it, so maybe we should introduce the concept of what the series describes. So this was, oh, winter of 86, 85-86, stretched out over. There were disaffected individuals who were also veterans of the Revolutionary War. In my home country of Massachusetts, mind. They were not being treated fairly by the state government, or at least they believed they were not. They believed they also were not being paid their soldiers' wages quickly enough by the state government. Yet they also had taxes and debts that they had incurred in their lives to repay. Well, the laws in the state... Now, I was distant at the time, so I'm able to take a bit... somewhat of a distant view of this and be less passionate about it than some others would be. I saw that the laws in the state of Massachusetts were being controlled by individuals who were very wealthy, very powerful, many of whom did not serve in the war at all. And many of whom were located in Boston. These were Western farmers, for the most part. Yes, ours ride from Springfield and the places with the days. Right, exactly. Yet they were being controlled by these people who did not sacrifice in the war, yet who profited from it. And the laws were being switched in a way that later happened in the 1790s and those who were poor and who served in the military and who were struggling to establish themselves and advantage those who had already been established and never risked themselves. So a number of them, including Daniel Shays, who was one of the prominent individuals in this movement, organized a rebellion, an armed rebellion, against the state of Massachusetts. They marched on the armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. They were ignorant, restless, desperadoes who were crying out for any number of things, but they couldn't come up with a cohesive and cohesive complaint. Some were for abolishing the government altogether. Some were for paper currency. Some were for removing the courts to a closure. Some were for closing down the courts entirely. We did not know what they were asking because they did not all speak with one voice. I wouldn't call them ignorant and restless and desperate. As a matter of fact, I think perhaps this might be a good moment. I don't really agree on your definition of the individuals engaged in this rebellion. However, I will not argue that they were right or wrong. Rather, what caused me umbrage and difference that we would turn to these lecterns, Mrs. Adams, is that I believe the rebellion was necessary. Whether or not their complaints were factually correct. Whether or not they were misinformed or misunderstood. Hear me out for a moment because it sounds like I'm encouraging people to be ignorant and to run out and rebel against their government even when they don't know what they're talking about. I'm audience. I'm not. When I was in France and watching the events in Europe as they became more tense and more dangerous and I saw rebellions happening in Prussia, for instance, where thousands of people were killed for just an insult of a member of the royal family. And then I saw this rebellion unfold on a much, much smaller level in one of our 13 states. I saw the difference in scale and threat was so wide between what was happening in the United States and what was happening in Europe. They could hardly be compared. The people in America who were alarmed by these little rebellions, these little, comparatively speaking, the Shaysites were a small group of people compared to the rebellions, the uprisings that were happening in Europe. There were a small group of people compared to the population of Massachusetts. Exactly, my point. So my response to this is, whether or not they were well informed, God help us if we go 20 years without such rebellion. Even if they're misinformed, people cannot be all and always well informed. They cannot always understand what their government's doing. And they can always be happy with what their government's doing. If they misunderstand what their government's doing or if they're unhappy with what their government's doing and they are quiet, they are silent and docile, that is a lethargy, which is the beginning of death to the public liberty. Are you suggesting that every generation will create a rebellion on a regular basis? Well, I think it has to happen more than just every generation. I think that anytime the people, when the people are disaffected, they need to take some kind of action. I hope it doesn't mean killing other people, but they do need to take some kind of action. They need to remind their government, first of all, that the people, they retain the spirit of resistance, keep the government, the representatives and government in check. And secondly, those rebellions, instead of being reacted to by the government harshly, should be reacted to generously. The reaction should be to inform them, to pardon them and to pacify them, to listen to the complaints rather than to react to the fact that they're rebelling. Because if you react only to the fact that they're rebelling, well then every rebel is bringing war, Ray Bellarade, bring war back, is bringing war back to society and they must be the enemies of society. Instead the government's job is to listen to them and adapt where it has to, educate them when the people are misunderstanding. But we do have a code of laws. We have a constitution. We have legislators that were theoretically voted on by a majority of these men in the state of Massachusetts. So they were unhappy with the laws under which they were living. They were. To that end of that constitution, though, even said something a moment ago that did touch on the larger picture. I don't believe we should have a rebellion of regeneration, but I do believe we should have a codified rebellion. I think we should have a constitutional convention every generation. Oh, my lord. The first constitutional convention was difficult enough. Are you suggesting we create a crisis every 20 years or so? Oh, no, no, not a crisis. No, we just create a new constitution. I'm not suggesting that we should get rid of the old constitution, create a Lavoisier vacuum in which there is no order whatsoever and in that chaos try to create a new constitution. That's not what happened in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution either. There was a period between 1788 and 1889. In that period, there was an overlap period in which the Articles of Confederation was still in effect and the Constitution was beginning to be placed into effect. Once all of the necessary aspects of the Constitution, the elections, the inauguration of the president, et cetera, were placed into full effect, that was when all of the remnants of the Articles of Confederation were made irrelevant. So I say we should do that every generation. We have another convention, keep what doesn't work, what still works, get rid of what doesn't work and the people can add whatever we didn't think of or whatever we failed to implement. We made the Constitution amendable for that very purpose so that you don't have to throw out the entire system or re-examine the entire document. Just focus on the parts of the document that require improvement for the new generations. I do believe in amendments. I do believe that things must be changed. For example, I do believe that our Constitution needs to be amended to include women. But anyway, there is a series of amendments for that. But if all we ever do is alter the Constitution by amendments, generation by generation, eventually the patchwork will overtake the garment. Eventually you're going to have to make a new suit of clothes. I would not expect a man to wear still the clothing that fit him when he was a boy. Why would we expect future generations of Americans to abide by the same laws and codes that our generation created? I do not say that they have to agree with what my ideals were in my lifetime. I say if they disagree, they should do the same thing we did. That's part of what all men have created equal means. That every future generation is the equal of the founding generation and has our responsibility. I can't help but agree with you on that regard that we should have an improving situation for our rising generation. I'm raising my boys to be responsible members of the society and hopefully ameliorate the situation for those who are considered non-persons under our government, speaking of which, our government. Mr. Jefferson, you and I often disagree about the jurisdiction of legislation. Perhaps we're... This I think also steps into this issue that we began with, the Shazite rebellion. One of the greatest causes of disaffection, of rebellions in any government, is the same that was the core of what caused the Shazite rebellion. The people felt like they didn't have influence. They felt like their government wasn't listening to them. In part, that's because they felt like the government in Boston was too distant from where they were living. They weren't heard. The best way to cause the people's voices to be heard then is to do exactly what we've done in the Constitution, in this compact between the national government and the state government, put the vast majority of the powers of government in the hands of the states. And then within the states, put the vast majority of the hands of government in the hands of the local authorities, be they a county or a ward. The more local you are, the more power you should be able to wield. Well, one of the problems Massachusetts had with the Shays rebellion and the Shazites was actually putting down the rebellion and creating some control for the people. There was no ability to call upon a national defense. There was no ability to call in a greater power. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had its own series of legislation that was disparate from one state to another, from one jurisdiction to another, and that we needed a more strong central federal system. That became a terrible problem with the Shays rebellion and certainly called attention to it and I think it sparked the need for a new constitution in the first place and a constitution that would secure national defense and national security. I do agree that in everything that is outward facing in perspective, from the perspective of the United States, we ought to place the authority in the hands of the national government. So warfare, clearly, national government, international trade and commerce, clearly national government, interstate commerce, certainly. But those are only limited spheres of influence. Any sphere that can be limited within each individual state must be controlled by that individual state. To argue anything else, Mrs. Adams, would cause me to start to think that you're beginning to agree with Alexander Hamilton. Well, I do agree with him about national defense and national currency that we require a national bank, that we should have a system by which we can look outward and that we can defend our states against the advances of more powerful nations such as England and Spain and, oh my goodness, the Napoleonic ravages of France. If we have not a national system and national currency and the ability to engage in the world stage, then we as a nation will indeed fail in the global outward look that you have. Well, then perhaps we've come to a point again where we have articulated a few clear binaries for our audience and this might be another opportunity to open the floor to perhaps another vote. Oh, all right. What will it be? I'm confused. Yes, we've covered a number of subjects here. I think we should vote on one of the earlier subjects we talked about in this segment and that was on this notion of the Constitution, the permanence of the Constitution of the United States. I will articulate my argument first for the vote. Who believes that what we ought to do is, I believe we ought to do, a per article five in the Constitution, hold a Constitutional Convention every generation by a show of hands. See here. One, two, three, four. I have five there. Oh, six over there. I have seven down here. Oh, you're getting brave. Oh, nine. That's more than I usually get. Ten right there. And Mrs. Adams, would you articulate your opinion? And who believes we should examine our Constitution on a very regular basis, hold our legislators responsible for the amendments of it and make sure that they are indeed aware and listening to the voice of the constituency that placed them in the position of responsibility to ameliorate and change our legislation as befits the rising generation. Well, I have more than eight on this side already. I think it's fairly obvious. And I can't be right about everything. Well, at this point, perhaps we can invite another brave member of our audience to enter into another contest of their mind to see if they can answer correctly yet another trivia question. A trivia question. Who would like to volunteer? You picked the last one. I get to pick this one. For this, yes. There's a gentleman there. You're a young man here. Very good. Oh, in the front here? All right. Yes, right here. All right. So I will articulate this particular question. And as with before, you have a number of options to choose from. So the question is, which of the following is something that I did not invent? I did not invent. One, a device for copying letters with arms on it in springs that when you write with the one, it writes the other letters. It's called a polygraph, but it cannot tell whether or not you're lying. B1, or A, that is A. B, the dumb waiter, which has nothing to do with whether or not the person who brought you dinner or breakfast is intelligent. It has to do with a system of pulleys that can bring your wine up from the wine cellar, that kind of thing. Two, that is B, the dumb waiter. Number three, or C, the light bulb. I don't even know what that is. Neither do I, but I saw it on the piece of paper so I thought I would read it. People ask me that. Anyhow, and four, or D, what shall I have for four? Oh, the revolving chair. That's a good one, yes. So the polygraph, the dumb waiter, the light bulb, or the revolving chair? Or none of the above. Oh, none of the above. That's an option. All right, then five, or E, none of the above. None of the above. None of the above? Correct. None of the above. None of the above. I've been giving credit for inventing every single one of them. Yes, even the one we don't understand. Light bulb. That's another Thomas is what I tell them. And here you are, my friend. This is a copy of the Declaration of Independence. For you. At this juncture. Mr. Jefferson, on that note. What did you invent? What did I invent? Oh, glad you asked. I invented a kind of mold board that goes in the front of a plow. It's specifically calculated to turn the earth up on one side and the lower side of a hilly region to reduce the erosion. So really it's just an improvement of the already existing plow. I'm a farmer, as we have many plows. Well, yes, but a very specific improvement. It's a specific function, of course. Well, my husband has been perfecting a recipe for manure. Perhaps we can spread the manure with your plow. Yes. What would that mean he invented? Never mind. Perhaps we ought to go on to a few questions for any other subjects. There's, let's see, a young individual in the Peach College said they're going to bring you a vocal augmentation device so everyone can... Oh, vocal augmentation. Yes, they make us almost as loud as Patrick Henry. Not quite. Nobody's as loud as Patrick Henry. My husband might be as loud as Patrick Henry. Who handwrote the Constitution? Who handwrote the Constitution? Who handwrote? Govinda Morris. Govinda Morris was the stylist at the very end of the... Yes, at the end of the summer. He wrote We the People in order to form a more perfect union. He actually espoused on that. That was Govinda Morris. And the actual writing was that on James Wilson. Well, the actual... Penning of it. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were largely responsible for the codification of it, but it was a congressional effort. Govinda Morris was the man who put the pen to paper at the end, though they had already figured out what it was going to say before that. He just made it sound good. Another question. Yes, madam, we should have come back to you before. Before we answer, pardon me, Mrs. Adams, there are those who are listening at a great distance. That was good to repeat. That means I could not understand. Would you like to repeat the question? Yes, I was going to. Have we in Massachusetts, we women in particular, began an abolition society, abolition being the abolition of enslavement and the eventual manumission of slaves. Well, in Massachusetts we have not had necessarily a woman's effort or a diss death effort, but Massachusetts itself within the state constitution, which my husband actually was largely responsible for framing, did begin the process of enabling manumission. So actually in Massachusetts slavery started out becoming very unpopular, very costly for people to keep slaves for indeed they were taxed upon slaves that they held because slaves were considered property. So if you're going to consider something property that you own and like land it should be taxed. So enslavement actually began to become unpopular to those who held a lot of slaves and eventually manumission took its way. So now as far as creating an abolitionist society, I have not personally engaged in such, but again being a woman I found it very difficult to engage in such public sphere issues. I have however raised three boys who've all attended Harvard all become lawyers and are all staunchly against slavery, in particular my eldest boy, John Quincy Adams, is adamant that slavery must be removed from this country. She likes John Quincy Adams, he applauded him. I like him too. I predict great things for Johnny, he's very bright. Perhaps another question. See here we've, well in the centre here, perhaps you may just wish to ask it and I'll repeat it. So a question about one of the grievances and the declaration of independence. It's about the ignorant savages. No? Early on the grievance is about the king moving the place of storage, the depository of the public records to different locations or the meetings of the delegates to locations far from the depository of the public records, so that the public records were not accessible to those representatives for lawmaking purposes or for moving the records from the people so they could not access them. There were a number of occurrences where in various of the colonies, when, for instance in Virginia, if the House of Burgesses passed a statement, a resolution that displeased the royal governor, he would dissolve the House of Burgesses. There are other colonies where the capital was moved from location to location. We believe this was intentional to make it inconvenient for the people to keep an eye on what their government was doing. That's a wonderful question, which leads me probably to another question about the depository of public records and the responsibility of the people to know what is true before they cast a ballot or before they create legislation that we should understand the system of government. We should be able to access the public records so that we should know what is truth and what is falsehood and so that also when a falsehood is printed in a newspaper, the person who has written that falsehood and the person who prints that falsehood and the person who's paid for that falsehood or supported it in any financial way should be held responsible for sedition. That was very specific. Podiums? Yes, podiums. Oh, electrons rather. Electrons, yes, podium and an electron. It sounds to me that you are beginning to reference an individual or two. I'm referencing sedition. Sedition, yes. Perhaps James T. Callender. Oh, definitely James T. Callender to whom you on several occasions gave $50 in financial support of a man who knowingly wrote and had published lies about the president and the government. First, the money that I gave to this individual, he published newspapers. I don't recognize that minuet. Actually, it scans very nicely for a dance. Individual to whom the lady is referring. Is an individual, yes, I did, give him charity on occasion because he was impecunious in his activities, but that was not payment. He published newspapers during President Adams, John Adams Presidents. They were not newspapers. They were scandalous rags. Categorize them as you will. The point is, though, that he was highly critical of John Adams. I supported critical newspapers, if not with actual monetary payments. I certainly supported them with logistics during President Washington's tenure as well. And President Washington felt as though I had betrayed him just like Mr. and Mrs. Adams, apparently. Feel like I betrayed Mr. Adams. Here's... Lady Washington will never forgive you. No, I doubt that she ever will. But here is where I believe that this activity, even though some of the individuals who directed it actually did the printing may have been questionable. I could not judge their morals. I could not control what they printed. But here's why I think it was an important undertaking, even if some of them went too far or reckless. There was a dangerous precedent that may have been set. First with President Washington, then with Mr. Adams, especially with President Washington. Everything that President Washington did was a precedent. There came a point in my service as Secretary of State that to criticize George Washington, because he was so universally revered, was to criticize America. Therefore, if you disagreed with the President, you must hate America. And Alexander Hamilton, who was writing specific articles for newspapers, which were published all over the United States, was utilizing that rhetorical approach, that logical construct. What I saw to be dangerous was if that were to be established as a precedent, that disagreeing with the President of the United States was treason, or was disagreeing with the United States of America, instead of disagreeing with one of the servants. I, therefore, worked with James Madison in leading the establishment of a press under President Washington's tenure, and under Mr. Adams' tenure. That would be free to criticize the President. Yes, even unfortunately, if they printed falsehoods, I did not encourage the falsehoods, but I could not control them, because I was a member of the family. I do not believe freedom of speech, and the First Amendment gives anybody latitude to willingly print lies and slander, and call it news. I do not believe the First Amendment should guarantee that right. That needs to be punished under some national... What happens if the Seditionist lives in Virginia, writes something in Virginia, gets published in Pennsylvania, and the person to whom it is slandering lives in Massachusetts? Well, each of the states have sedition laws, have liable laws. Yes, and so do you expect Virginia to prosecute in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts? Well, it is possible, at least, during the 1790s, it was possible. We need a national ability to prosecute and punish sedition. Well, then you need an amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment prevents the federal government from doing that. There was an act, a sedition act, made which the Constitution would not... was an act meant by a fairly appointed legislature, a legislature voted into office by we, the people. And that legislature passed the sedition act. My husband signed the sedition act. That sedition act was law. James Callender was found guilty of breaking the law. And the first thing you did, Mr. Jefferson, when you became president of these United States, was to pardon that snake. Can I go back to my podium? You're perfectly welcome to stand here, Mr. Adams. I'm flattered. It wasn't the first thing I did when I was president. All right, the first thing you did was to remove a bunch of appointments and judges, which actually lost my good son, Johnny, a job. Well, I didn't remove the appointments. I just didn't have them delivered. They were left on my desk. Regarding James Callender, yes, I pardoned James Callender for the pardoning powers of the President of the United States. And here's my reason. I believe that the law that incarcerated James Callender was itself unconstitutional. I believe the pardoning power of the President of the United States is part of the checks and balances. The purpose behind it is if one branch, the executive, believes that to support the action of another branch, they have to engage in unconstitutional activity. That branch, in this case the executive, can stand to protect the Constitution by not executing that law. I disagree with my husband on this point, too. I do believe that an executive should not have unlimited pardoning ability. The distinctions between a tyrant and a responsible executive become blurred. It gives one man far too much power. I have always believed that the people who put the legislators in office and those legislators, the body which actually makes a law, should have the responsibility to repeal it if their constituency believes that is the right course of action for the people. There's actually a foundation to which I agree in which you stated there. I must confess I've noted that we are drawing close to our closing of time here. Oh, I wish there was some way we could reclaim our time. Well, though we have a few minutes left, there are a few other topics we had jotted down to debate. Perhaps we could open up to the audience once more before we end with our time. Can we do another trivia question? I think we could. All right. We could ask about pardoning and sedition and all that, but that's an ugly matter. Let's go straight to a trivia question. I like those. Those are fun. Well, this trivia question that we're going to put to the audience first is there a volunteer who would like to be the one to be tested by this last trivia question? Oh, we have a hand raised right here on the edge. Well, the last trivia question then. All right. Because we are dealing with the repository of public records and pamphlets and documents which have been written, all of the following pamphlets were written by either Mr. Jefferson or my husband with the exception of one. A, Mr. Jefferson, would you like to start? Certainly. A, Thoughts on Government. Thoughts on Government was a series of essays that analyzed the history of constitutions and theory of constitution that affected, influenced almost every single one of the state constitutions during the revolutionary period and just after it. This is the most widely distributed document in Congress in 1776. I'm rather proud of that for some reason that we don't know. B, a dissertation on canon and feudal law, which was a dissertation on canon and feudal law. It was a brilliant denunciation of the Stamp Act and in it was clearly stated that Massachusetts, indeed all the American colonies, had an inherent right to self-determination. I think you might be making this a little bit too easy for the Mrs. Adams. All right, I'll go on to C. C, a scientific document on a ground sloth. It was an extinct form of a giant ground sloth. Not just a sloth. The claws were almost this big. Now who's making it too easy? Oh, right. Fine, a pamphlet on an extinct giant ground sloth. A, B, C. Scientific. Then D. D, the United States Constitution, which I believe we were all very familiar with. And E, the original book of the rules of parliamentary procedure for the United States Senate. All right, Madam. Which one was not written by either Mr. Jefferson or my husband? Could you name him again, please? Thoughts on government? Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law? That looks like sure. A scientific essay on an extinct form of a giant ground sloth named Megalonix Jeffersoni, by the way. The Constitution of the United States and the original rule book for the United States Senate. The Constitution. Well done. Well done, yes. I pretend with this document here, the lovely Congress. This is a declaration. We didn't have a Constitution for evidence. Mr. Juncture, we have about three minutes left. Mrs. Adams and I will remain afterward, by the way, for less formal conversation. And I understand many of you have miniscule paints and easels on your persons. And self-portraitors become Alamode, I understand. But we will, I think, begin to draw to a close here, Mrs. Adams. Yes, I believe we should. Should we make closing comments or take questions first? Well, if we take questions in the last three minutes we have, there will be no closing comment. Why don't we do closing comments? Four more questions. Very good. Would you like to give the last one? Oh, I will start, ladies, first. Well, again, my hope for the future of this nation and for the future of our United States Constitution is that we will have that very same virtue and knowledge that we spoke of at its core. And that, of course, the women of this country and any of those considered non-persons under the legislations under which they live would eventually be able to have that self-determination that is the promise of our Declaration of Independence. And that as we do have that form of self-determination, that inspiration to raise generations of responsible citizens of this nation, that there's where the education comes in, that women will be able to have the foundations of knowledge that will enable us to raise our children to become the leaders, the heroes, the leaders of this new nation that we require for the rising generations. So I hope that you all will take that spirit of inspiration and instigation to enjoin in a more knowledgeable pursuit of your nation and your people and the issues around you that you can make decisions for the benefit of the greater good and the rising generations. So thank you. That was a lot of words. Thank you so much. Tomorrow is our great Jubilee Festival. We have discussed some of the imperfections and some of the idealistic notions that were originally articulated there upon and that you are going to celebrate. On July 4, 1776, though there was not an original idea in the Declaration of Independence, I made sure of that. I'm a lawyer, we do that. Yet, we did something original. On that day, when we voted for those five words, imperfect though they are, all men are created equal. When we voted for those five words as the basis for our revolution, for the first time in the history of mankind, a people established a new land with a goal in mind at the very beginning of that new land. Our goal is hidden between the lines of those five words. If you are an American, you share that goal. No matter where you live, no matter where you were born, if you share that goal, an important part of you is American. Our goal is hidden between the lines of those five words, all men are created equal, is this. That one day, all men, meaning all mankind, ladies, will be treated as they are created, as equals. But I wonder how long that will take? 100 years? 250 years? As future generations contemplate the efforts of our generation, I hope they do not fall into one of two traps. The first would be to reject what we did accomplish because we did not accomplish everything, to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. The second equally dangerous would be to reject acknowledgement of our failures because of our successes. The baby does need a bath. Because that would be to reject their right to improve on what we started and the responsibility to move us closer, generation by generation, to the goal that defines us as a people and we are defined by a goal. We are not defined by the blood that runs in our veins. We are not defined by the soil on which we were born. One of the three greatest men who ever lived, Isaac Newton, once said that if he had seen farther than those who had come before him, it was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. If I could say one thing to future generations of Americans as they celebrate the great Jubilee tomorrow, I would say this to them. If you look down on our failures, do not fear yourselves too lofty. If you look up to our successes, do not fear yourselves too low either. You can see farther than we could see. You can reach higher than we could reach. Of course you can. We are holding you up on our shoulders. Thank you, my friends. It was a pleasure speaking with you today.