 Greens from the National Archives flag ship building in Washington DC, which sits on the ancestral lands of the Nacotch tank peoples. I'm David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to today's conversation with Nathaniel Philberk about his new book, Travels with George, which retraces George Washington's tour of the United States shortly after his inauguration as our first president. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you about two programs you can view next month on our YouTube channel. On Wednesday, November 3rd at 6 p.m., we welcome Steve Roberts, who has written a tribute to the extraordinary life and legacy of his wife, legendary journalist, Cokie Roberts, in his new book, Cokie, A Life Well-Lived. Steve and Cokie's daughter, Rebecca Boggs Roberts, will join her father in conversation. And on Thursday, November 4th at 1 p.m., Philip Bigler, the author of Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, will share the history of the tomb, which marks its 100th anniversary this year, in his America's most cherished and revered military shrine. In Travels with George, Nathaniel Philberk both recounts the historical journeys made by George Washington through the new United States and describes his own experiences he followed the same roots in the present day. As Philberk's progress and thoughts are recorded in this book, Washington's own words are preserved in his diaries. Transcriptions of those diaries and his correspondence are freely available on Founders Online, the searchable website hosted by the National Archives, through the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. Founders Online has transcriptions of thousands of documents written by and to the nation's founders. There you can find Washington's letter to this cabinet written before setting off for Savannah, Georgia, laying out his itinerary instructions should any serious matter occur in his absence. You can also read entries from his diary which record the places he stopped, the conditions of the roads and lodgings, the weather and the terrain, and major crops of the area. While following Washington's paths, Nathaniel Philberk came to know our first president, not as a monumental figure of our history, but as a man, a traveler like himself. In reading the words preserved in traditional and digital archives, we too can become more familiar with Washington and the other founders. Nathaniel Philberk is the author of award-winning books including the New York Times bestseller Mayflower, which was a finalist for both the 2007 Pulitzer Prize in History and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize. His book in the heart of the sea won the National Book Award for nonfiction and was adapted as a film in 2015. Joining him in conversation is Evan Thomas, the author of numerous books including The Very Best Man and Robert Kennedy, The War Lovers, Sea of Thunder, and John Paul Jones. Now let's hear from Nathaniel Philberk and Evan Thomas. Thank you for joining us today. Hello to the National Archives. We're both, Nat and I are delighted to be here. Lots to talk about. Both of us are veterans of speaking to the National Archives and know a lot of you are history buffs and so glad to have you. So, Nat, this is a bit of a departure for you. You've written all these great books, but haven't gotten in your car with your wife and written about that before. Tell us about your thought process, how you got into that, how you went down this road metaphorically and literally. And maybe you could start with the chariot. Yeah, well, really, and that's where it began. And Evan, so great to to hang out with you for this hour. It's to see you in this post, well, in the midst of the aftermath of COVID. But well, yeah, it all began for me, really, during a research trip for my last book about the American Revolution in the Hurricanes Eye about the year of Yorktown. And I had a late inning research trip to Providence, Rhode Island. And I made my way to the John Brown House. Now, this isn't John Brown, the abolitionist. This is John Brown, quite the opposite, a slave trader and co-founder of Brown University. And in the back of his magisterial home is a little annex where there is what is known as John Brown's chariot. And it's to our modern eye, tiny. I compare the single forward facing seat to the back seat of a VW bug. It's this tiny little thing. And according to family tradition, when the newly inaugurated president, George Washington, was visiting Providence, John Brown gave Washington a ride in that chariot down to his shipyard where he was building a ship named for the new president. And that got me to wondering, because I, in the book I was writing, Washington visited Providence several times, but I had no idea he had come to Providence once he was president. Why? Why was he there? And that led me to realize he went on the series of presidential trips in an attempt to create a sense of nationhood among 13 former colonies. And so I was finishing up this book of straight history. It was one of close to a dozen books I had written in the last 25 years. I live on Nantucket Island, which is all of 14 miles long. I grew up in Pittsburgh, a sailor in that maritime capital of the universe, and where I needed to travel just to sail. And I used to love putting my sunfish on the top of my VW bug and traveling all over the country for sailboat races. And I was getting itchy after 25 years, hold up on Nantucket, where it takes all 20 minutes to drive from one end of the island to the other. And I thought, you know, I would love to go on a road trip. And Washington went on these series of tours across this country. And as it turned out, my wife, Melissa, had just retired. And hey, she could join me. And, you know, one of my favorite books of all time is John Steinbeck's Travels with Charlie, you know, where he famously gets in his Ford truck with his faithful Charlie, you know, a 10-year-old standard poodle at his side. And they head out in search of the meaning of America, you know. And I thought, well, what if we had a new puppy named Dora, not a sedate 10 years old. She was a, this is a mouthful Nova Scotia duck tolling retriever, you know, pretty hyperactive. But what if, you know, the three of us went, you know, did our Steinbeck imitation and followed Washington across this country, you know. It's been said over and over again that we are in the midst of unprecedented political division. And I thought, well, it would be kind of interesting to get, you know, what historical perspective would I get on to where we are today by following Washington in his attempt to unite this country at the very beginning of our history? And so off we went. You know, you're a very warm and sunny guy, and your basic message is one of unity and how did Washington do it. But I was struck just when I started to read it, that you were drawn as you put it to moral ambiguity in mayhem. Yes. And, you know, that's where the dark side of history, if you will. So talk to us about that. I mean, both sides. I mean, you know, this is a message of unity. I know you're writing this to inspire us to be more unified and it succeeds on those terms, I should say. But also talk to us a little bit about your being drawn to the dark side. Yeah. Well, I am a big Stephen King fan. You know, I have, as my wife will attest, and our children, I do have a dark side. I'm fascinated by the darkness of life and, you know, one of my books in the heart of the sea is, you know, that light-hearted tale of survival cannibalism. And I just love this stuff. And for me, you know, even my story of the pilgrims, I had only interest. I did not want to make this an inspiring story that climaxes with the first Thanksgiving. It seemed to me that other things happened as well. And one of the convictions I've had in writing history is that, you know, there is this tendency to look on the past as a simpler time. You know, when people knew what they were about and seemed faded to make the journey in life that has led to where we are today. And that's hogwash. You know, the past was just as conflicted and terrifying as the present is, if not more so. And that's what interests me because I think we learn a lot more about who we are as human beings when we look at the dark side. And yes, there is light there. And I have to say, Travel with George is one of my few books that, you know, where I really, you know, I wanted to purposely go out there and not focus on the divisions. I mean, we all know what's going on with the divisions. What I wanted to know is what is still holding us together. And so that's what I was looking for. I wasn't looking to, you know, to, you know, go into the depths of that discord. I mean, that seems so painfully obvious to me. What I wanted to know is what kind of historical perspective could I get on a time when Washington tried as desperately as he could to pull us all together. So set the stage a little bit for those who don't know what federalists and anti-federalists are. What were some of the divisions? What was he faced with? Yeah, well, I think it's a surprise for a lot of people that we did not invent partisanship. It's been around from the absolute beginning. You know, when there was the revolution, it was patriots and loyalists. You know, this was a civil war as much as it was anything directed against Great Britain. And then what I think a lot of people don't realize is how much the Constitution divided this country. It was a very controversial document. There were no organized political parties, but there were two factions. There were the federalists who were fans of the Constitution and the strong national government it created. And then there were those who distrusted the very neat fact that there was the strong national government. These were known as anti-federalists who believed the states should retain the power that they had had under the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution had supplanted. And so, you know, when Washington was inaugurated, two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, had not even ratified the Constitution. They hadn't participated in his election. And so there was a deep divide already in America. And then there was another overlay, which is that there were these profound regional differences. You know, when the governor of Virginia said, my country, he did not mean the United States, he meant Virginia. And this held true in all the states. And so Washington felt a real need to try to create a sense of nationhood and also attempt to include both sides, those that were for his government and those who weren't so sure it was a good idea. And so off he went. So I was struck when he gave his inaugural address, we think of the great mighty George Washington confident guy. He was so staggered by the whole thing, he fell back in his chair. Right. You know, I mean, that's not my picture of George Washington. No, no, no, this is not that George Washington, so much, you know, he is not the guy in the $1 bill, you know, looking at us, you know, and almost a judgment because, you know, I did it. And, you know, this is, no, that wasn't, Washington was the most reluctant president we have ever had. He sincerely did not want to become president of the United States. I mean, he had, you know, somehow won the American Revolution. He was a hero bigger than anyone else in the world, really. And all he had to do was lose when it came to taking on the presidency of the United States. And so, you know, his diary account of his journey from Mount Vernon to New York, which was the temporary capital of the country, is one long lament of, you know, everybody's applauding me now, but man, they're going to get on top, you know, they're going to be tearing me down as soon as I try to do anything. And remember, this was a people who had rebelled against the strongest military power on Earth over the issue of taxation. How was he going to tax these people? I mean, he, you know, he knew that all the divisions that had been there from the very beginning were latent. And yeah, they all, everyone loved him. But as soon as his policies came into clear focus, he knew those old divisions were going to come back. And so, you know, there's this account of his inauguration, 15-year-old girl Eliza. She's on the roof of a house across the street from Federal Hall, where Washington is about to be sworn in on the second floor balcony. And he's up there, you know, immense crowd all around. Everybody's excited. And Washington is not excited by this at all. He's terrified. And at one point, it so staggers him before he takes the oath of office. As you've referred to, Evan, he staggers back and falls into a chair, and everyone goes silent. They know he's on the brink of what looks like a nervous breakdown. I mean, this is not the Washington most of us grew up with. And for me, you know, I've had some people say, well, you know, that's not why. Well, this makes him all the more heroic in my eyes. You know, if someone is blindly brave, they're not experiencing the inner turmoil that goes with someone who knows the risks, is completely aware of them, and goes forward just the same. Yeah. You know, I had that experience a little bit following politicians on the trail. Some of them, Bill Clinton, every crowd, he got a little, he loved it, you know? He loved the people, and he drew off, and he fed off of it. But other politicians, it was hard for them. Richard Nixon, not a hero to many people, was actually a brave guy. Every time he walked into a room, he was brave, because he didn't want to be there, he was shy. Yeah. And, you know, he had to muster the courage. A more recent figure, John Kerry, was not somebody who loves crowds. I remember traveling with him, and I could see him mustering the courage to go out there. And I kind of admire that. One of the things you really get at, and talk to us about it, is this interesting, you can be a guy who projects confidence, like Washington, but be insecure. Right. And those things are not necessarily a contradiction. But talk to us a little bit about Washington's mix of insecurity and great security. Right. Well, you know, he had spent eight years as commander in chief of the Continental Army. And those eight years had been, I think, probably the best training anyone could have in putting a good face on a disaster. The war effort, I mean, Washington did not win the war. He survived it, as did the United States. I mean, anyone who thinks this was fated that we would throw off the chains of British tyranny, that's baloney. I mean, he knew better than anyone that it could have been lost countless times. And yet he also knew that everyone, not only in his army, but throughout the nation, looked to him as the symbolic presence of their name. If he should crack, if he should show a lack of optimism and strength, everything was done. And so he had spent eight years doing that. This guy knew how to make an impression. He knew how to hide his innermost feelings. He knew how to, you know, he loved the theater, you know. He, and he was, you know, he wasn't an outgoing guy, but he had a sense of the dramatic, the theatrical. And he knew that, you know, the, you know, I wonder sometimes how many, how did he look at a mirror and just try to say, what's the pose I need to have here? You know, you know, even though I'm dying on the inside, how do I look completely decisive? And, you know, and I, he had that. And so, you know, here he is on his way to, you know, he's arrived in New York by water and there's the biggest party New York has ever seen. And he has to somehow get through the crowd to his new residence and, you know, it's packed. They're unable to go by carriage because nothing can fit down the road. And so he gets off the boat and there is the head of the militia that's to escort him to his quarters. And the officer says, you know, I'm here to escort you and Washington, you know, says thank you. And then he looks around and he says, but the people are the only escort I need. I mean, that's theater, but that's not what, as his diary reveals, that's not the confidence he feels. He's feeling, you know, they're screaming for me now, but soon they're going to be screaming against me. And so he saw these people as, you know, a force that, you know, could go either way. And so, you know, this is Washington, this was Washington's great gift, I think, to hide that insecurity, to project this aura of absolute invincibility. And yet, not audacity necessarily, but he was able to, and you hear people, people refer to it constantly of, yet he doesn't come off as a braggart or whatever. There's a certain almost modesty about him as well. Tell us about the brown suit. I was struck by his brown suit. Right, well, you know, Washington was, of course, a general from the revolution and people were used to seeing him in his general's uniform. In fact, that's what he wore during his pre-inaugural journey from Mount Vernon to New York. And that's what he was wearing when he entered New York amid this huge crowd. But when it came time for his inauguration, he realized that, you know, I am now the leader of a republic. You know, I do not wanna project a sense of, you know, I am the dictator in waiting. You know, I do not wanna be accused of being a monarch. I wanna be seen as one of the people. And so, Washington, the great role-player, realizes he needs to dress differently. And so, you know, and he was great with symbolism and there was a new, very embryonic cotton cloth manufacturing, textile manufacturing in Hartford. And so he gets from them to send him some, you know, dark brown cloth out of which he creates the suit in which he will be inaugurated. And, you know, it's as drab and nondescript as you can have, and I think it must have been kind of a shock for the people when he stepped out of the carriage in front of Federal Hall to be inaugurated to see him suddenly, not at resplendent with golden epaulets on his shoulders, but now in this drab, you know, suit that was, as Washington admitted, not of the greatest cloth whatsoever, but it was American made. And that was his point. You know, and that was the Washington from the beginning realized it was a, he was tiptoeing a line where he wanted to project this aura of being in command, but he also wanted to make sure he wasn't accused of being a king. He had to be of the people. And I think presidents to this day are flirting with that edge, you know? And this is the nature of what was created in America is, you know, how you project this aura of command and yet are one of the people. And Washington, I think, established, you know, played that role beautifully. And thank goodness he was our first president because, you know, I think there were a few people who were capable of just that kind of, of, you know, seeing it so clearly, that dichotomy. I mean, he was a federalist, but he was willing to, of course, had to deal with the anti-federalists. And to be, he was a believer in compromise. That too was important. I mean, we think of the era we live now, people have not big compromise. I mean, maybe they're thinking about this right now on Capitol Hill, but, you know, we live in an age where people are morally superior and I'm better than you and I'm not compromising with you. That was not Washington, but that was some of the people around him. Absolutely. Talk to us about how he sort of fit in on that. Yeah, you know, Lincoln did not invent the cabinet of a team of rivals. I think you can look to Washington doing that because he brought aboard the two most brilliant people in America at that time, Alexander Hamilton as his financial, you know, Treasury Secretary, you know, as smart as anyone, you know, eloquent, but also a numbers guy. I mean, there was just no one like him, but he also brought in Thomas Jefferson, fellow Virginian who had been an absolute disaster as a wartime governor, you know, basically said, I can't do this and abandon the state at the worst of times, but also a brilliant man. This is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence. And, you know, he had spent the last five years as minister to France. And so, you know, what he thought, he had not participated in the constitutional convention, but his good friend James Madison had and had been a huge supporter of it and actually worked in concert with Hamilton in promoting the Constitution. And so Washington, you know, so Washington decides, you know, he brings in Hamilton, but he also reaches out to Thomas Jefferson, whom he'd had a kind of a prickly relationship with during the revolution, but he recognizes his obvious gifts. And, you know, typical fashion, Jefferson takes a while to respond. And he's turning from France, you know, it's not, you know, it's not until March, almost a year after Washington's inauguration that he becomes a part of Washington's cabinet. And from the start, he's very skeptical of what's going on, you know. He really doesn't, you know, he distressed this thing called, you know, a presidency, you know, with all that power. For him, you know, Hamilton's looking to the British model when it comes to creating an economic basis for this country. And because Washington, both Washington and Hamilton knew after fighting the revolution that if they lost, it wasn't because of the, you know, what was happening on the battlefield, it was because of British economic might, that, you know, because, you know, they could, they had a national bank because they, you know, they had the ability to borrow, they could outlast anyone economically. And that's what would, you know, would have ultimately given them superiority. And so that's what Washington wanted. He wanted a strong, you know, economic basis for the country. You know, after his time in France, Jefferson is seduced by the French revolutionary fervor. You know, he comes from the opposite side. You know, that's not what a republic is about. We don't want to be like England. We want to be, you know, passionate and idealistic. And, you know, we know where the French revolution would go, but that didn't even bother Jefferson. He was, he was someone who was an idealock. He really was. And he was willing to ignore reality if, you know, I think he would be very happy today, you know. And I thought of that really bad. He's so all in. He's all the way over for the French revolution. He'd fit right in on Twitter, you know. Exactly. Social media blasts away. And shame people. And shame people for it. Shame him. Yeah. Yeah. Which he did with John Adams accusing him of monarchy. You know, John Adams didn't want to create a king. You know, come on, but you know, it was the tagline that worked. You know, you say, you know, you say monarchy, that's the, that's a code word. You know, the kind of code words we have today. And sort of reassuring that they were just as vicious with each other as we are today. They didn't have the internet to do it, but they had pamphlets. They had way of getting their message across. Oh, and they were just as unreasonable and mean as we are today. Absolutely. And underhanded. I mean, in Jefferson's case, here he is serving in Washington's cabinet, getting increasingly alienated by Washington and Hamilton's economic policies. And he decides it's, he's going to do everything he can to secretly undercut Washington's administration. So what does he do? Yes, he didn't have the internet, but remember the internet of the day was, you know, the newspaper. And so he hires a guy supposedly as a translator for the State Department, but his job is to start a newspaper that is critical of the government. And, you know, it makes Washington life miserable, this paper. But, and Jefferson betrays, you know, absolutely no knowledge of what's going on when he and by this time, Madison are the ring leaders in organizing what will ultimately be the opposition party, the Republican party. And so, you know, this is going on in Washington's cabinet. And it baffled and infuriated him because he had no stomach for this kind of ideal log, you know, because Hamilton was just as bad. You know, he was on the other side. You know, he has this letter to Hamilton that I quote in the book where he says, you know, basically, dude, when you are this far on one side and another guy, Jefferson, is that far on the other side, maybe a middle course is the one that is best. I mean, doesn't that sound a little familiar? This is where Washington was. He didn't care who was right, who was wrong. He just wanted to make things work. My favorite song in the show, Hamilton, which I'm sure a lot of our viewers have watched is where Hamilton comes in. He's all hot about Jefferson, you know. Jefferson's, I think he's quitting and Hamilton wants to get him, you know. Come on, let's stick it to him. And Washington says, calm down, son. Let's sit down and have a drink and talk about this and let's show them how it's done one last time. Let's show them how it's done. I'm going to, I'm resigning or I'm not going to run again. I'm going to, you know, we're going to peacefully turn over power here. We're not going to have a fight. We're going to show them how it's done that democracy can go on after I've left the stage, but we can still have a country. And it made me cry listening to this. I mean, it was just such a powerful scene. And it made me wonder what made Washington so wise and so selfless that he could give up this lust for power that animates most politicians. How did he do that? Where did that come from? You know what I mean? You know, it seems enigmatic, but this is my take on it. I think Washington was the most ambitious person we have ever seen, but he knew how to hide it. He was swinging for the fences. He wanted to be remembered as he is largely remembered today as someone who was above the fray, who always looked to what was better for everyone rather than himself. And I think he honestly wanted to be remembered as that. You know, and that, I mean, basically he's going for political immortality. And it is the high, you know, and so you can say, yes, he is being selfless and all of that. But I also think at some point in his life, he said, you know, I want to be remembered as that person who, you know, who'd never wanted anything. And yet, you know, there's a part of him who did want, you know, he, you know, I mean, and so, yeah, I'm probably being a little cynical here, but I think there was a part of Washington. Washington was hugely ambitious. And he was playing the longest of games. He, it was posterity. He, you know, he didn't need to have the power now because he wanted to be remembered in future generations. And, you know, that's a deep game. Most of us want, you know, want it now. You know, we don't have enough faith in the future or in ourselves to do the right thing because, you know, it's right. I mean, so I think with Washington, yes, he is doing it for all the right reasons. And yet there's a part of him is, I'm not saying he's manipulative, but there's a part of him that knows, well, you know, if I want to come off the way I want to come off, I can't want something. I need people to ask me to do it. Well, the long game, I mean, that all that experience during the revolution that you've written about so well, of playing the long game, he's not winning battles, but he's stand a lot. Yeah. And he's, you know, he's playing kind of a rope-adope strategy with the British of just standing one step ahead of them, waiting for his moment, waiting for the French, basically waiting for the French to arrive to be around. Yeah. Whatever, you know, he stays alive and keeps his army together. And it's this incredible patience when, you know, a lot of others wanted to fight the big battle and come on, let's have it and he, you know, be patient. And he learns that way. I wonder, he had to learn how to be modest. One thing about him that interested me was he's the one founder of framework who hasn't been to college. And he's a kind of modesty about that, intellectual, he's insecure about it, but there's a kind of modesty he gets from his minor attainments in the intellectual field. I wonder if that helps him. I'm just thinking a lot about it. Absolutely. I mean, you know, what he would, and you know, you see people, Abigail Adams has this wonderful description of him soon after she met him when he came to Boston during the revolution as the new leader of the Continental Army. And she said, you know, she just is taken by him about how there is a reserve in him and yet a modesty about him where, you know, you don't feel like you're close to him and yet somehow you revere him. She even says love him. And I think that really comes back, I think people who incite that kind of response in people do not, you know, they project an element of modesty. And I think it comes from Washington, you know, his father died when he was 11. He did not go to the finishing schools in England that his stepbrothers went to, you know, so he has this sense of not being kind of abandoned and he had a very strong mother which he had a very conflicted relationship with. But, you know, it was one of these things where he's, you know, he has that sense of not measuring up. You know, it's sort of like when, you know, Tom Brady, when he, you know, wasn't drafted until, you know, the 30th round or something like this. Oh, yeah, the chip on his shoulder for the rest of his life. I think Washington had some of that. The British, you know, he desperately wanted to be, you know, a part of the British regular army, that was denied him. He didn't go to college. People like Jefferson and Adams really, you know, would refer to that in all sorts of ways. He doesn't know his Latin and Greek, you know, that kind of thing. And yet Washington was a, as, you know, we don't think of him as, you know, he wasn't brilliant the way Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison were, but he was a great thinker. There's, you know, I remember in one of my books, Valiant Ambition, where I'm talking about the Battle of Monmouth. And, you know, it all goes very well for Washington. And that night he sleeps on the field of battle with his men, you know, with his cloak under a tree. And an officer at midnight comes up and hesitates to, you know, wake him. And he says, go ahead. I'm not sleeping. I'm here to think. That's Washington. Washington, you know, he would just think about things. I think it has a lot to do with how our cultures have changed. You know, here we're on the Twitter world where, you know, bing, bang, bong things are, you know, no one has any kind of ability to concentrate on anything. Washington had this incredible ability to dial out the static and just figure out what is the most important thing for me to do. And, you know, that's pretty, you know, that's incredible in any age. But I think it gets back to his lack of formal education. This is a guy who, as a young surveyor, spent countless nights out there in the wilderness just thinking. And, you know, that's how he got through the revolution and that would have, I think, a big part of his presidency. Now, towards the end of his life, he's retired and he's able to go back and sit under his fig tree and you would think it would be all great, but it's not. Talking about thinking, you have this scene of him thinking at Mount Vernon towards the end where he's troubled and talk to us about that. What is he troubled about? What do we think he's troubled about? Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I think we, I mean, throughout this, throughout my, the three books about the revolution in this book, I kept wanting Washington to have a high five moment, you know, where he said, yes, I did it, it never comes. It never, he never gets that sense of satisfying accomplishment because always there's another catastrophe looming. And for Washington, you know, I said earlier he was swinging for the fences when it comes to posterity. One of the things that bothered him more than anything was his involvement with slavery. He had come to realize that, you know, it was a pernicious institution. You know, this is a guy who became a slave holder at age 11 when his father died and he inherited several enslaved people. You know, he had befriended Lafayette, the idealistic Frenchman who would later say if I had known I was helping to create a country of slavery, I never would have lifted my sword in the cause of America. Washington, you know, overheard, and this is recorded in Jefferson's, Jefferson writes it down, overheard saying at some point during his presidency, if slavery should divide this country, I will go with the Northern part. I mean, that's a pretty extraordinary statement from a Virginian who, you know, and there are 300 enslaved people at Mount Vernon. Half of them are owned by Washington. Half of them are owned by the estate of Martha's dead deceased husband and will become the property of their grandchildren. And Washington is responsible for all this and the two groups of intermarried. Washington has decided that he is going to free his slaves, but you know, by that time the groups are, it's a very complex situation. And so, and there are these accounts of Washington at the fireside with his family at Mount Vernon after, you know, the presidency. And he's not there sort of looking back with a benign smile on his face. He's tortured, you know, his lips are, you know, and I think he's wrestling with what the heck do I do when it comes to slavery? Because, you know, he didn't want to create a situation for Martha where, you know, it was just so complicated. And, you know, and I think he recognized that this would be the biggest challenge for his legacy in the future would be his involvement with slavery. And one of the things I want people to get from this book is the sense of how far Washington traveled, not just in terms of miles across the country but as a human being. I mean, he, you know, he's almost, he's born into this institution of slavery. He comes to doubt the assumptions of his childhood but he's not able to completely free himself from them given the entangled nature of his personal life. And, you know, and yes, he frees his enslaved workers. He's the only slave owning founding father to do that. I mean, it's pretty extraordinary. And yet in the final year of his life, he is actively pursuing own a judge, the enslaved servant of Martha's who has escaped from Philadelphia to Portsmouth, New Hampshire in search of freedom. And, you know, how to reconcile in Washington is a paradox like all of us. You know, he is not consistent like all of us. And so, I mean, I think, you know, I don't think it negates everything that he was working towards. You know, the concept of the union that would inspire Lincoln to issue the emancipation proclamation was what Washington was working so hard to create during these travels and during, in his presidency. You have a line in there, the past is not always a pretty place, present isn't either. Talk to us about Washington's teeth. This is a little grim, but. Yeah, no, I mean, it's, you know, it's one of the things, you know, there's a couple of historical jokes that are associated with Washington. One is Washington slept here, you know, that whole sort of ha ha ha, he was sleeping around, you know, but Melissa and I, following Washington came to realize, you know, each one of those stops was not, you know, this was not fun for Washington. He was working tremendously hard to pull this country together. And then the other, you know, joke is Washington's teeth, you know, that he had dentures made of wood. He had dentures, they weren't made of wood, they were made of teeth from, you know, various animals from, you know, ivory of the hippopotamus. But even before he ended up with those dentures, he, in desperation, he had only a few teeth left in his mouth by the time the revolution was over. He was back at Mount Vernon and there was a new technology and dentistry of tooth transplants. And the way it worked was a dentist would extract the tooth, the diseased tooth and then a person would be paid enough to donate their healthy tooth that was then extracted and then stuck into the jaws of the person who was paying for the procedure. And it almost never worked. Sometimes the tooth would hang in there for a year, sometimes five years, sometimes it would be rejected from the beginning. But Washington at some point, invites a French dentist to Mount Vernon. And this is really just very recently, have we become aware of this? Mary Thompson, who is a fabulous researcher at George Washington's Mount Vernon and covered this evidence of where he paid several, and it seems clear they must have been enslaved workers to donate their teeth, nine teeth. And you know, what happened? I think the scenario is pretty obvious. They were probably inserted into his jaws, which is just one of these scenarios that is just awful, awful to contemplate. And yet, I purposely include this in the book because this is where I come from with history. I think you have to look into the deep, dark recesses of the past to put what happens in a positive way in the proper context. And so this is part of Washington that speaks to the original sin that is still plaguing our society today. You have, there's an interesting moment when you're driving back with Melissa and she says, you know what? We got this diary, but I'm not sure I know what he's really thinking. And we've touched on this a little bit, but this is an interesting question about the, to me, he was a fellow popular historian, the writer's craft, you know, when you don't really know what they're thinking. And the diary just says, well, I slept here, or I ate here, but it doesn't really reveal thoughts. What is that like for you? You know, what do you do then? I mean, how do you proceed when the record is pretty bare bones and you're trying to figure, get in their heads, what the hell do you do? Right, and you know, and you can't make it up. You really can't make it up. You can't make it up. I mean, I need to interrupt you for a second because I think a lot of people don't quite understand that. Yeah, because there is historical fiction where people do make it up. So there is another genre that does do this, but in our trade, you can't make it up. And you know, you can speculate, but you have to have, you know, a basis for it. And you know, one of my books in the heart of the sea, I mean, and that's the thing with history. It's all in the evidence. And so often there are situations when, you know, you and I tell narrative history, you know, we're telling the story. And you know, there is a plot and often there just isn't the evidence to fill in what must have happened there. And so, you know, what I would do in a lot of my books is I say, well, we don't know what happened here, but in a very similar situation, this is what happened. And you know, and try to insert that into the narrative without breaking the historical period in which you're writing. It's a challenge. Those are the kinds of challenges I enjoy. And when it comes to a historical personage, such as Washington or George Armstrong Custer in my book about the battle of Little Bighorn, inevitably, you know, what the heck were these guys thinking? And so you can't make it up. And so what I, you know, I find myself doing is saying this is what was happening around. This is, you know, this is what they would do. This is what perhaps they were thinking. And you know, you have to have evidence to go on. And so it is, you know, and I think you have to go there as someone writing about history because to leave it a blank is to, you know, leave out, you know, what it is like to be alive at that time. You know, we both come from a journalistic background, you know, where we're writing, we're creating a sense of life as lived today as a journalist and the way we both tell history, I think we're trying to create a sense of life as lived in the past because for me, the past is only as relevant as it can be related to by us now in the present. Of course that's tricky because things were different back then. It's, you know, they thought differently. I mean, if you're writing before, I never have, but if you're writing in the 13th century or whatever, totally animated by religion. Absolutely. Their thoughts are infused with God and that's the way they think. And that's, you know, that is true for some of us, but we live in a secular age, obviously, or more secular age. And that's an interesting translation problem. So you've written now about the 18th century, obviously, and the 19th, what are some of the challenges of conveying to us moderns the way they were thinking then? Yeah, well, you know, the biggest challenge I had with that was writing about, in Mayflower, writing about Plymouth Colony, where, you know, as you were saying before, religion was everything to them. I mean, that's why they got on the Mayflower and sailed across the Atlantic. It was this sense of spiritual destiny, you know, that very few people in the 21st century have experienced firsthand. And how do you get into that world? How do you write about their actions and do justice to what is the most important aspect of their lives? And so for me, it was, in that instance, you try to use their own words. William Bradford's of Plymouth Plantation. He's constantly translating what's happening into terms of a New England Puritan at that point, who sees everything in terms of God's judgment. You know, if it goes well for you, it's because God is on your side in this instance. If it goes bad for you, it's a judgment upon you and perhaps a test and you were left trying to interpret this kind of thing. And so it's a huge challenge. And you know, for the past to be relatable, there has to be some common ground between then and now. And yet to do justice to the then, you have to push it to a point where most of us go, what, you know, this is not anything I can relate to. And so that is, that's the trick. More fortunately, human nature hasn't changed too much over the... No, exactly. No, and I think that's where I think that can be lost. You know, it can, someone can, you can sort of deny the fact that we have any access to that past. But I think an historian who claims that they, you know, just through sheer archival work are there, it's, you know, you need to have both that in some kind of sense of our common humanity. We have a few questions, good questions from the audience that I wanna run by you. Here's one, how would Washington use social media if it was available during his time? Try to imagine Washington using social media. It's a hard leap, but give that one a try. Well, okay, well, first off, it's a good thing there wasn't trip advisory because, you know, in his diary, it's one long lament about his accommodations, you know, fence terrible, food even worse, you know. So that would not reflect well on Washington. You know, I think this, I mean, the whole page, this is where I think we're treading on difficult ground because Washington lived in just a completely different time with a completely different pace. In talking with Dean Melissa, who is now the retired Washington interpreter at Mount Vernon, he talks about how what a pleasure it was inhabiting Washington because you're in that past where there is no, what he describes as bubble gum of the mind, Twitter and social media and all that. But, you know, Washington was very sophisticated in his time. He used the technology of his day to his advantage, you know, particularly when it came to the industrial revolution, he saw that needed to come, you know, in his New England tour of Massachusetts, which was already the tech capital of the world, you know, he saw that and he loved all the technology, you know, was all over the place when it came to his Mount Vernon, farm of Mount Vernon. So, you know, I think, you know, if he was here today and had was grown up in this whatever, he would have been a very highly functioning person who would have, you know, figured it out. But that's not the Washington who is then. And so, you know, to plant someone from that age here, I think probably blood would start coming out of their ears at, you know, what has happened to the country we started doing in 30 years ago. But that, you know, I think Washington might have been a professional athlete if you brought him here today. He was incredibly physically gifted, you know, powerful thighs from writing it. Yeah. Another question was Washington's shyness and humility part of the reason he declined to serve more than two terms, not just because he felt he shouldn't be a president for life. Yeah. I think it was exhaustion more than it was anything. He really didn't want to run for a second term. By that time, Hamilton and Jefferson were at each other's throats, but both sides said, look, we're federalists and anti-federalists will tear this country apart if there isn't you there as president, you know, and it's just, of course, he gets elected and then the opposition party takes over Congress and his life is just hell for the next four years as things go from bad to worse. But, you know, so, and by that end of that, it just was, I can't go on any longer and I refuse to and now it's time for someone else. And, you know, by that point, I don't, I think he just was done with it. I mean, he was really done with it. And so the shyness and humility at that point was, you know, he was exasperated, exhausted and wanted to just get back to Mount Vernon and hang out with Martha. I mean, I think that was really where he was. And, you know, he didn't leave with, as I referred to early, any sense of, you know, yes, I've done this. It was, I just got to move on. Yeah. One thing on your travels, you were constantly running into myths and fables about Washington and Washington slept here, you know, just the man, all that stories that were useful but made up. It does raise this interesting question to the degree to which we need fables, you know, history or your history is true history and you go to the dark side when you have to and you're fascinated by it and it's useful. But there is also, I mean, we're talking to us about whether there is a place for mythology, if you will. Cause we live in a funny age where people are making up a lot of stuff. And I have to say I'm a little torn by it. You know, some that make countries do need myths. They just don't need completely fictional one. But I'm gonna shut up. Tell us what you think about it. Yeah, well, I know exactly what you're getting at. I mean, it's, you know, we need some shared basis of pride about a government, you know, about a nation. And we live in a nation where, you know, our origins were recorded, you know, with documents. And so we know the gritty, ugly truth of so much of what was once mythologized into, you know, this inspiring tale of national origins. And, you know, when you go to England or France and look back to, you know, the, you know, 2000 years ago, horrible things were happening as, you know, one group emerges, but, you know, that's in such a distant past and the mythology has whatever, you know, there is that element of it. You know, and so when it comes to America, I mean, I really have no patience with looking back and claim and insisting that, you know, it was great and everyone was, you know, full of light and all of that. I just have no stomach for that. And yet I really think we cannot hold historical figures to a level of, you know, a litmus test derived in the 21st century that is, you know, tolerates absolutely no deviation from what is now considered, you know, acceptable behavior. That, you know, 100 years from now, they're going to be looking at us and saying, what were they thinking? You know, no one measures up to this. I don't think any of us met, you know, we look back 20 years at ourselves and we say, what were we, you know, oh my God, you know, I mean, this is the nature of being alive on this planet. And so I think we need to give our, we need to look at our past with as much clarity as possible, but you also have to have us, you know, be able to recognize the times in which they operated and give people, you know, they were doing the best they could under the terms they had and give them some credit for that rather than, you know, expunging them from the record for not towing, you know, the line. Yeah. Well, a few people, maybe nobody does it better than you, Nat. I mean, telling these stories that are true and meaningful and moving and helping us get in touch with our past. So it's been a delight for me to have an hour to talk to you. And I know our audience has enjoyed it too. So thanks everybody for tuning into the National Archives and to Nat Philbricks. And I'm sure he'll be back. Well, thank you, Evan.