← Civics & Coffee: A History Podcast
Civics & Coffee: A History Podcast
America at 250: Revolution & Memory with Ethan Healey Pt. 2
00:44:29
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Civics and Coffee, a history podcast. The show all about United States history delivered to you in the time it takes to enjoy your morning cup of coffee. I'm your host, Alicia, a historian trained in United States history with a passion for telling both the known and unknown parts of America's past. So grab your coffee and get ready for some bite sized history. Welcome back, peeps. As the Nation enters its 250th anniversary, I sat down with former guest and educator Ethan Healey to explore why the revolution remains such a key moment and the historians who have influenced and challenged our understanding of the past. I released part one of that conversation on Saturday, so be sure to tune in and listen if you haven't already. And I hope you all enjoy the second half of our dialogue. So switching a little from our kind of our internal journeys to looking outwards, you and I have talked a lot about history and its contemporary meanings. So, you know, what does the broader public, do you think, misunderstand about the Revolution?
- [01:08]
B
God, many things, some of them we've already touched on. But I'll just reiterate like, it was not a united front. And I really can't stress that enough. It was not, let's go, America versus Great Britain. It was not everybody was on board. Right. Just like today in.
- [01:25]
A
Right.
- [01:25]
B
Trying to get anybody to agree on anything, that's very difficult. It was just as difficult in 1776 to do the same. So just keeping that in mind as they, they, you know, try to understand the American Revolution, especially the complicated, and I should have mentioned this earlier, but the complicated relationships between the Native Americans and the colonists and the British, right. Trying to figure out what would be the best ability for us to have a deeper connection or have a deeper understanding and vice versa. And sometimes a lot of times it's violence. Right. Sometimes it's a ton of early peace treaties between the early colonists and the Native Americans that are just, and this is one thing Alan Taylor talks a lot about in his book American Revolutions is and American Colonies, but he talks a lot about how these early treaties just occurred and they would promise all these things on both sides, but then one side would break it apart. Does it sound familiar where like, you know, sometimes, sometimes they would agree and then they would disagree. And I'm to your listeners, I'm certainly not trying to equate the two, but, but like that was a very clear stage in the early Republic. To my point, it's not a united front and it shouldn't be seen as such. And that deals with the, you know, trying to understand all of the different perspectives. The other thing that people get wrong is I think it's important to understand that Britain wasn't really tyrannical at the start. And I know it's very, very easy to say that they were tyrants. And no taxation without representation, like, it's very easy to go down that rabbit hole. But after a brutal war in North America with the Seven Years War and with the colonies, especially New England, having a strong component to that and a strong majority of that, to be honest, if. Is it really a bad thing if you spent all of this money on this conflict with the French and the Native Americans? And is it really that much of a big deal to ask you to pay a little extra? Right. On your team? Probably not. But, you know, obviously it. There's layers to the cake, and it stacks on top of one another, certainly. But I think it's really important that we sort of recognize that. Is it really unreasonable for Britain to tax their colonies after those colonies just went to a major conflict? I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to say that. And you could argue about whether the amount on those taxes was unreasonable. If you're to ask my opinion. I don't think so. But again, if you're, if you're gonna, if you're gonna do that, right, Understanding, like, and I do understand the no taxation without representation thing, and there is a absolute unnecessary conversation there. But Britain being tyrannical at the very start, anyway, I think is something that we have to figure out a way to destigmatize. Cause they were not this sort of tyrannical. They were tyrannical in other ways. Great Britain. But I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for them to say, hey, just so you know, you kind of started this conflict over there with the French. You should probably pay a little extra.
- [04:57]
A
Yeah, no, I, I agree. And. And people who have listened to the. The podcast from its earliest years, which, again, apologies to the early episode listeners, it is still on my bucket list to go back and fix some of those, because some of those early episodes are rough, but, yeah, you're a ma.
- [05:16]
B
You've done enough of these things.
- [05:17]
A
Yeah, well, you know, actually, I meant to. I meant to mention it. This is, this episode is episode 350. So as the nation is celebrating its 250th, I'm celebrating episode 350.
- [05:29]
B
Look at that. Congratulations.
- [05:31]
A
Thank you. Thank you. But, you know, even back then, in. In my early days of recording the pod, I was very much like, come on, Colonists, you can fork up a little bit here. They. This. These were expenses incurred on your behalf.
- [05:47]
B
So.
- [05:47]
A
But yeah, no, I agree. And I think, you know, definitely the united front. The. They were. There was a lot of trepidation. Nothing was entered into lightly. I think that's the other thing. You know, I think it was. People thought that they just all got into a room one day and did a hey. And that was it. And it was like, no, everything was very tenuous. There was tension at every step. There's a letter that John Adams writes to Abigail on July 3rd, right? It's the, it's the famous one where he says, you know, we. I think today is going to be the day that lives. Lives forever. Because he thought July 2nd was going to be the. The day that we celebrate independence. But he's talking about how for several months, right, we had negotiate. We were trying to negotiate peace and we were trying to do this and people were not sure. And John Adams was. I, you know, kind of not wanting to. To go into the. These hostilities with. With Great Britain and was one of the later converts. So, yeah, this whole idea that this was all inevitable and it was just gonna drop the hammer, like, no, that wasn't what was happening. I think the, The. The other thing too is like, it was filled with contradictions, right? Like here they're gonna go ahead and they're gonna write this Declaration of Independence while holding slaves. They're gonna create a government, quote unquote, of the people while denying the franchise to women and ignoring the existence of indigenous nations or slaughtering them when they, you know, when they got in their way. So, you know, there's. There are several things that if you just look beneath the surface, there's. There's more to the story.
- [07:21]
B
I agree. And to go to John Adams for a second, my BA thesis was entirely written on John Adams and his retirement specifically, and sort of how he viewed his retirement and how that affected his legacy and the whole thing. But specifically John Adams during the Continental Congress. It may be a hot take, but I don't think there is a Declaration of Independence without John Adams. Because John Adams was such a really. And there's so many different things people say about John Adams. And I get very defensive about him because people call him a lot of things. And there are certain aspects of John Adams that are very obnoxious and that are very. He could at times be very verbose, but he could also at times be really pushy about a lot of things and really annoying and all that. So I do get all of that there. But the role of John Adams in the Second Continental Congress specifically was so influential because the way he was able to convert, as you say, and bring people together into understanding that this independence thing is something that not only should we consider, but it's something that if we as colonies are going to survive in the future, is something we are going to have to do. Like, we have to do it especially because by the time the Second Continental Congress happens, right. They're already fighting at that point. So John Adams says, if we decide not to do this and the British decide and the British win ultimately because we decided not to declare our independence, we're all getting beheaded. Right? Like, we are all going to be hanged for treason. Like that is going to happen. And so he was really influential in doing that. And I think if you've ever seen the John Adams HBO series, which I love, and I go back and rewatch every now and then, Paul Giamatti as John Adams, like, he is John Adams to me forever now. And that's not a bad thing. But in that series, there's that really great whole episode, I think, entirely based on this whole thing. And he's at the center of this debate and conversation. So I always want to emphasize the role of John Adams, obviously. Is he the single most. No, because there. There is no single most person. But I don't think the Declaration of Independence would have passed without his involvement. I really don't. And he's also part of the Committee of Five who helped create the Declaration of Independence. And he tells Thomas Jefferson, like, you're going way too overboard here. You're talking about their slave trade law. Like you. But now's not the time, right. Now's not the time to talk about that. And so he was very pivotal in doing that. And what's always interesting to me is Thomas Jefferson didn't think he should have been the one to write it. He said, well, John Adams is way more supportive of this than I am. And John Adams said, yeah, but nobody likes me. So if I wrote it, nobody would vote for it just because I wrote it. So that's one of the reasons why Thomas Jefferson gets the gig that he does. But so the role of John Adams is incredibly important.
- [10:34]
A
Yeah, well, in terms of as far as founding fathers, you know, John Adams in my book is quite simply one of the best. Sorry, like, no Founding father was perfect, obviously. But if we're ranking him not a slaveholder, was pretty true to his morals throughout his entire life. Yeah, he was obnoxious and could be a bit of a braggadocious guy, but he had the goods to back it up. So I'm kind of like, well, and
- [11:04]
B
I know people bring up the alien sedition acts, which is a whole nother episode and a whole nother conversation, but there's reasons for everything. And, well, I'll mention that later when you mention Lindsay Chervinsky, because she makes a good argument about this in her book.
- [11:21]
A
Okay, so we've talked about kind of what the public gets wrong about it. So we both kind of operate in the public history space. How can we course correct these misinterpretations, do you think?
- [11:33]
B
So I, I do it in two ways. I write a substack every now and
- [11:37]
A
then, which is quite beautiful, and everybody should subscribe to it. Okay, thanks.
- [11:41]
B
EthanHealy.com, which is very infrequent. I sort of write whenever I get the urge to do so and thinking about working on something for 250, but so I, I, I write on the substack every now and then, which my attempt on, on that substack is to, you know, connect things that are happening in a real world with the past, right? And trying to connect because for a long time, and you were sort of the one that, you know, you were, you've been trying to get me to create a podcast forever now. And I said, well, let me start with a substack first. And I really enjoy the substack. And the, the thing I like about doing that is, is being able to attempt to contextualize a lot of things I'm, I'm very, very big on to contextualize. Well, why are we here, right? Whether it be about the Iran war or whether it be about, you know, I mean, name a topic in America, right? And I'm very big on, well, how did we get here, right? How do we get to a point that we're going to this conflict and all these things? But the second piece, the way I do it is I teach, right? I teach high school students. And I think my role as a teacher, I take my, I take my role very, very seriously as a teacher, but I also do connect my historical work with my teaching work. And I've been trying to get my students to understand that, yes, I am a teacher of history because I like history, but, like, history is a job, and learning your history and writing about history is not just a Wikipedia page or the World War II section in Barnes and Noble, which is fine. They've gotten a lot better with it, by the way. But, right. It's. It's more than just these things you are exposed to. And one of the ways that I try to do this in both ways is putting people at the center of the story, which we've talked a lot about our writing, putting people at the center by telling their stories in the best ways we can. And, for example, one of the ways I do this is in my modern US History class. I talk a lot about the Vietnam War. And you can't talk about the Vietnam War without talking about the soldiers of the Vietnam War. And I try to get them to experience it as a human event, right. That not only are there these veterans who come home and they are, you know, being blamed for a lot of the things that are going on in Vietnam when there's also these other horrific tragedies that are happening in Vietnam, and there are a lot of, like, addiction is one of the big issues that occurs in Vietnam with American soldiers. Right. So I try to tell them those stories because it's something that is incredibly, for me, at least, impactful. And if I think it's kind of impactful, I think it may be impactful for them. So telling that story is really important to me, and I try to do that in all those different ways. Right. And I'm talking about, on the Vietnam theme, talking about the protests that occur at home. And one of the things I like to do is there's, of course, the draft lottery with the Vietnam War. And I put on the board for them the picture that shows the number of the draft lottery and the birthday. And it was always interesting to me is they always look through that and they always say, I'd be safe or I'd be okay. Right. If I was living through that time. And whatever. Whatever their conclusion is of that, they're now put at the center of where would I be if I was in that position? And there was one student who is number one. They were the first one, and they said, oh, I'm screwed. I'm going to Vietnam and I'm going to experience all these horrible things, but it put them at the center. The person at the center, the individual, in understanding what this may have felt like, understanding America's past. And. And there's tons of different examples I have for that, but that's probably one of the more prominent examples, because for a lot of these kids, the Vietnam War is. It is. It's old history, but it's still very modern. There's still a lot of Vietnam War veterans alive and still experiencing traumatic effects from that so very long winded answer to just say, put people at the center of the event. That's what I'm trying to say.
- [16:00]
A
Yeah, well, it's funny you say that because in The Revolution at 250 book that I read th Breen, one of the historians who wrote a essay for the book, one of the quotes was an understanding of the revolution must include people traditionally excluded from the story of independence. So, I mean, right there. And I think, you know, the best that I try to do is this here podcast. I try to spark curiosity and get people interested. I try to keep the episode short. This one obviously is not going to be short.
- [16:34]
B
Sorry, y'.
- [16:34]
A
All. But you know, I just did a little guest spot on another show just a couple days ago, and they asked, oh, well, how do you figure out what you do? And I say, I synthesize. I stand on the shoulders of other wonderful historians and I try to kind of tease out their, their really great work and they're really great arguments to, to spark people's curiosity. Because my hope is, is that at the end of the episode, you're not feeling like you got your, you got everything, because I don't cover everything, but that you want to know more and that you get to read 15 books about Frederick Douglass because you just had to find out more. Right. And that's how, you know and that's how you learn. And that's, that's, that's what I try to do here.
- [17:18]
B
So, yeah, and that's often the hardest, probably some of the hardest parts of what do you include and what do you not include? Right. Because you want to tell the story, but you also want to keep it to a certain, you know, 10, 15 minutes, whatever it is. So that way you don't, you know, because all your podcasts could realistically be this long and, but the, you know, you could be the next. What's his name? Dan Carlin? Is that his name? For four hour podcast episodes. So. But yeah, I'd imagine that that's a very difficult task.
- [17:48]
A
Maybe in retirement.
- [17:49]
B
That'll be great.
- [17:50]
A
Well, speaking of public history, what are your thoughts about the American Revolution on how it's been depicted for general audiences? You know, we've already talked about Ken Burns a little bit. He did that recent treatment about the revolution on PBS versus, you know, something like Hollywood films and like, like the Patriot. Would you consider these examples of good public history or, you know, what works, what doesn't?
- [18:14]
B
I mean, I think the patriots gone awful. It is not, not a good example of good public History. Is it a fun movie? Is it a fun movie? Yes, it is. Is it interesting? Kind of. But is it? And I know. And I know there are a lot of early American historians who love that movie, not as a historical fact by any means, but just because it's entertaining. So. So the Patriot as an example is something like probably the more extreme ends of it in terms of bad public history, right? As a. In terms of consuming it as history. It's awful, right? Like, you do not want to take that film as an example of truth because you will be wrong for a good portion. And as far as Ken Burns is concerned. So I think anytime somebody like Ken Burns comes around, I think Ken Burns is a treasure, is somebody who really appreciates history, really appreciates and understands his role. Like, I under. I think he knows the weight of the role when he's doing it, and I think he's talked a lot about that, especially in the last few years and especially in this last run through that he's gone through, this last tour that he went through. As far as the film goes or the series goes, I thought it was really well done. A lot of great, interesting people were part of that. A lot of really cool historians. I always love seeing a historian that I'm fascinated by. It's like seeing a famous person. You go, oh, my God, there they are. My friend who I've met once and. But one of the things that Ken Burns that I struggle with is he's sometimes a victim of hagiography or hagiography or however you say it, but point is the same. And sometimes he sort of puts a lot of his. Not his work necessarily, but he puts a lot of people on pedestal. There's a lot of. He talks a lot about George Washington. Now, George Washington obviously deserves a centerpiece at any story within the American Revolution, but there is this sort of almost leaning into some of the myths about George Washington, not necessarily the cherry tree or anything like that, but leaning into the idea that here is this unmovable. He does mention some of the faults that Washington had, but he. Especially when he was on tour more so he talked a lot about, you know, the elevating all of these founding fathers in a way that he attempted to use it to sort of serve some larger purpose. And that's something I. One of the issues I have an issue with of Ken Burns from an academic standpoint, in terms of the show, it's great. And I think, like, when you look at something like his. His Civil War series, right. Like, some of that stuff did not age. Well, like Shelby Foote being in there and not. And not only Shelby Foote being in there, but Shelby Foote being in there for a large chunk of that series as sort of this historical expert, which. Sure. But like. Right. There's a lot of problematic things about Shelby Foot and sort of his biases. And we all have biases as historians, I think, but some are a little bit more overt than others. So I think one of the ways in doing public history or films as public history is to tell the truth. And I think if a film does that, I would say for a strong majority of the film, I'm happy in terms of showing it to people. As a historian, it can be really difficult because I am not the best person to sit and watch a historical movie with, because I am that person to be like, well, not really. That didn't really happen like that. Right. And I think there are liberties that must be taken every now and then. But if it's so overtly wrong, I have a. I have a strong issue with that. And I think as long as you tell the truth and you're honest about it, and you're honest, especially about, you know, what you left out, then I think you're good. I think Ken Burns American Revolution is the most comprehensive piece of public media on the American Revolution that we're probably ever gonna get in the next couple of years. Cause I just don't think, you know, Ken Burns packs so much into his films, and it's really difficult to do that in a series. But there are things like. I don't know if you've ever watched Turn A Washington Spy series on amc, but that's an example of a TV series that a strong majority of that was not true. But the storytelling, the truth telling in the way you had the costumes, or the way you had them talk, or the realities of the situations between farmers and their enslaved people and, you know, so on and so forth. Like, you're still telling the truth by doing that, even though it's a fictional story. And there are elements that are true in that series, but even though it's a majority fictional series, you're still enjoying it. You're able to enjoy it as a piece of public media. So I think that's the. That's a good example. Or as something like the Patriot is the obvious sort of awful example in my mind. And I genuinely. I don't like the Patriot even as a piece of entertainment. Like, I just. It's not something I vibe with. I don't even vibe With. I don't vibe with Mel Gibson.
- [23:46]
A
Yeah.
- [23:47]
B
Like nothing. No part of that movie vibes with me very well.
- [23:50]
A
Yeah. Well, your turn is my HBO Gilded Age. Right. Gilded Age benefits, though, from having historians on staff. I believe Erica Dunbar is a consultant, and I know enough Rabinich Fox is a, or was, at least for season three, a consultant. So again, they, they're taking like the asters and kind of transforming them into these different types of characters, but they're trying to be very specific about, you know, the. They're not recreating these storylines specifically, but they're kind of placing them into these fictional worlds. So you could still appreciate that, period. But it's, you know, it's fiction. Right.
- [24:34]
B
I think the best thing that the public history can do is if it is able to get you to say, I want to learn more about that.
- [24:42]
A
Exactly right.
- [24:43]
B
That that's the best thing public history can do. And if the movie the Patriot can do that for somebody and say, I don't think that's right, I want to learn more about that, then for me, it's a good piece. And that's why these films and stuff are so interesting. Right. And if you are just going to take Ken Burns word for it and say that's the final straw, you're wrong. Right. Because there's so many different. There's so much more. But again, if that can get people to be the, the, the starting point and say, I need to go learn more about that. That is a good piece of public history to me.
- [25:19]
A
Yeah, that. I mean, basically you stole the words right out of my mouth because.
- [25:23]
B
I'm sorry.
- [25:23]
A
No, you're fine. You're totally fine. Because I was saying, you know, not all public, all public media is not the same. Everything that's as that, that is created for the public should not be classified as public. If it creates curiosity, I would argue that there is some value in it. And you know, to be completely transparent, audience members, I wrote a college essay about the Massachusetts 54th because I watched the movie Glory and I was like, huh, I want to know more. Like, I'm very, very curious about this. What happened? Was this real? Was this all bs? And again, because I took a labor seminar, I. In my senior year of undergraduate, I happened to watch Hoffa with Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito and was fascinated by the film and ended up writing my senior thesis about the Teamsters. And so again, was like, the movie accurate? I mean, they took a lot of liberties. Really played up, right. The, the, the organized crime aspect of it, we don't, you know, we still to this day don't really know what happened to Hoffa. But, you know, like, I got really fascinated by this and it's, you know, it's like that pulp culture history. But I appreciated it because it, it triggered an interest in me. And so I think too, it goes to the other point that I wanted to make is people should be critically evaluating every piece of media that they take in, whether it's a podcast, whether it's a magazine article, whether it's a movie, whether it's a book. Right. And that's one of the things as historians we are trained to do is who wrote this, who made this, what was the intent, who's missing from this? Like, what are we talking about? And when we say you should be, you know, we engaging with that, we mean not asking chatgpt, we mean thinking about it, using the, the chatgpt in your brain. Because most historians want you to engage with them. They want you to ask questions, they want you to critically engage with their work. And nothing will make an historian happier than to get an email from you or to, to get a, an instant message, a dm to say, hey, I read your book and oh my gosh, I have all these questions like, they love that. And so you. And that's. Can be translated to primary sources is you can't ask the people anymore, obviously, usually because they're long gone. But, hey, who wrote this? What were they writing about? What was the intent behind this? What was the context? What was happening in the moment that they were writing this document? That's what you do. And so I would say, yeah, to your point, if it creates curiosity, I say, I mean, I don't watch the Patriot because of what you already mentioned, but, you know, I've watched some pretty historically inaccurate films, but they sparked my curiosity. So it led me down these other research rabbit holes. Yep.
- [28:15]
B
And that's really all you can ask for, for a good chunk of the public media pieces. And I, I think you hit the nail on the head. Critically evaluating all media is so, so, so, so important. Like, you need to always be thinking, what's missing? Why do I, you know, who's part of this, who isn't? Why was this written? How is this written? Right. Like all of everything, you just highly agree. And I think if we are to, to fix some of the stuff that we're kind of going through. Right. I think that is sort of one of the foundations is trying to not getting sort of defensive that critically evaluating something is like, you know, personal. Right. And you know, critically disagreeing is perf. Is not, you know, not personal. I mean, the majority of historians. Right. Like I tell my students. Cause I have a lot of bookshelves in my room and I say, these are all historians arguing with each other. Like it. That's all it is, is it's just a whole bunch of historians arguing with each other and saying, you know, very rarely it happens, obviously, of like creating a brand new sort of thought process and all that. But a strong majority of this is just this historian arguing with that historian or arguing with their sources or whatever. And. But they're critically evaluating it. Right. They're not like, you know, personally offended by the piece.
- [29:41]
A
Yeah. Okay, well, because we haven't talked about books enough yet. We're gonna, we're gonna talk about books, I think, one more time. And then I think we're gonna finally. We're finally gonna put the nail in that coffin.
- [29:51]
B
Yeah.
- [29:52]
A
So kind of sticking to the theme of those kind of putting out work to the public, let's talk one more time about some of our favorite books about the Founding era. So whose work do you think kind of best captures the heart and the spirit of your interpretation of the American Revolution and the Founding era?
- [30:11]
B
All right, I have a list.
- [30:13]
A
Hit me with it.
- [30:14]
B
I'm going to read the list and I'm not going to talk in depth about them because again, this could go on forever. And I don't want to waste any more of your listeners time, but I will sort of give a brief of why I like the piece and why it stayed with me. So these books for me are some of the books that have made me rethink how I interpret the American Revolution. And they've really helped me develop an understanding of why I study early America, why it's such a passion field for me, and why I continue to go back to it. So the first is, I've already talked about it. American Revolutions by Alan Taylor. Alan Taylor has written a quartet of books. The first was American Colonies. The second was American Revolutions. And then he wrote two other ones that sort of dealt in the same, in a similar vein of trying to dissect American history through a global perspective. But American Revolutions in particular was that for me, already talked about this book as well. Liberty is Sweet by Woody Holton. Help me understand the cultural perspective of a lot of these different histories. Understanding the soldier perspective, the enslaved women, et cetera. Really think everybody should. Should read that one for the cultural components of the revolution. Now, to your point earlier you said you're not interested at all in sort of the military campaigns of history. And I know there are a lot of military historians and probably a lot of military enthusiasts, listeners. And to your point, I am also not a military campaign person and I know there are a lot of people who are like, it's. I genuinely wish I had that ability to remember all of those military historical movements. I genuinely wish I had that capacity to do that. But the one book on the American Revolution and the military specific stuff that I loved was Stars of Independence by Halger Hawk, I think is how you say his name. And this was a turning point for me in reading about the American Revolution because this book talks about how the American Revolution was so violent and there was so much manslaughter within the Revolution. Because when we think about the Revolution because there's no pictures. And that was one thing that Ken Burns also talked about was not having photos was really difficult for him. But because there's no pictures, it's really, really hard for us to imagine the brutality of that war. Really. We have the American Civil War with, you know, we have pictures, we're able to see the bodies, you know, we're able to see some of that brutality. But there is none of that for the American Revolution. This book is the closest that I've ever gotten to visualizing that violence in the American Revolution. And that book, Scars of Independence really puts all that into perspective for me. And even though I'm not a military person in terms of study, that for me as a non military historian was super fascinating. And I really, really loved that book. The First Salute by Barbara Tookman. She discusses specifically international diplomacy in the American Revolution, especially naval diplomacy. She's really, really influential. She wrote the Guns of August, which is a very famous World War I book. She wrote a really, really good book about that. The other one, and this one is one that helped me understand things a bit more closer to home. Because I am from New England. I've grown up in New England my whole life. And that book is called Donlin Encounters by Colin Calloway, who was a part of the Ken Burns series several times. And he specifically talks about Native American discussions with New Englander. Specifically. And this is a bit pre Revolution, but it helps set up our understanding of why we had the relationship with the Native Americans that we did going into the creation of our country. So that it's really fascinating book. And then finally, if that all wasn't enough, in the Midst of Perpetual Feats by David Walt Stryker is a brilliant, brilliant Book about how political festival helped influence our American identity. And you would think that'd be pretty boring talking about political festivals, sort of how political celebration helped us form how we view ourselves as Americans and coming up with this brand new American identity that we had to sort of, as I mentioned before, take away the fact that we are no longer British and we are now Americans and what does that mean to be an American? And he goes into that specifically about how early American felt about being American.
- [35:00]
A
So my list is much shorter because like I said, definitely not the expert in this conversation about the founding. But again, my hat's off to Ronald Angelo Johnson with entangled alliances. That book really just helped me realize the importance of diplomacy, the importance of the transfer of ideas and just how malleable everything was. I just think really helped frame things for me. And again, because we knew she was coming back. Lindsey Travinsky's Making the Presidency, which is really an exploration of John Adams's presidency. And her main argument really was that, yes, George Washington was very mindful and very intentional in creating his presidency with the creation of the Cabinet. It was really John Adams that kind of solidified and ensured that the institution of the President made it and continued. And his presidency, the transfer of power, having a Cabinet, doing all of those things. He's the one that kind of made sure that the idea of a precedent was established. And you know, if you are somebody who is not really familiar with the early America or the founding era, I would highly Recommend Picking up Dr. Stravinsky's books, either Making the Presidency or the Cabinet. She just writes in a very accessible manner. And I just think that book, for so many reasons, I don't think she does it intentionally, but it came out in a very critical time, I think because it just without necessarily meaning it, she's speaking to our moment. So it's a very applicable book about the importance of institutions, about the importance of the people in those institutions holding them, and that they're only as powerful as the people that respect them. They're only as important as the people that guard them. And I just think it's a. It. It really helped me understand, again, the precarity of those first several decades. And she just writes oh so beautifully. And I think you're also a super fan of Dr. Stravinsky, so I'll let you say your few things too.
- [37:03]
B
Yeah, I am. I've never had a full length conversation with her like you have. My first ever sort of formal, professional. A review that I ever wrote was for this book, Making the presidency. And the sort of highlight for me was that she, she loved it, that she read it, that she read my review and that she loved it. So that was, you know, so exciting when that happened. But I, I really looked at this book from the perspective of somebody who felt like they knew a lot about John Adams. And I always felt that if there's one area of his life that needed better understanding, it was his presidency. So I was thrilled to hear that she was writing this. And, and it's, it's very well done. It's brilliant because like you said, you're. She, she's able to write for the current moment, which, you know, as you indicated, I don't think she really means to, but it's turns out that that's the way it happened. And that book helped me better understand sort of it, it helped me finalize for me why I really appreciate and admire John Adam. And she goes pretty at length about the Alien and Sedition Acts and how a good chunk of that, like, yes, he put his pen to the paper and he does take responsibility for that, but there is a chunk of that where a good chunk of that is not necessarily all his fault. Right. You cannot blame him formally saying, putting forth the Alien and Sedition Act, Alien and Sedition act. Can you put responsibility on him? Absolutely, you can. But we think of that, those Alien and Sedition Acts as so solidifying of his legacy. And that's sort of one of the things that I researched and wrote about is he's only known for so many people about this one thing about this Alien and Sedition Acts. And his life story is so much more fascinating, not only for the Declaration of Independence, but helping us get peace with the Trinity of Paris. Like all of that is so important. And she does a really good job of explaining all of that. But I also highly recommend that book.
- [39:18]
A
Yeah. Okay, so I think to end our conversation, I want to ask one final question, which is how should the collective quote, unquote, we think of the revolution in 2026?
- [39:33]
B
I think the main takeaway for me is that the revolution is something that we've inherited as a society, that the revolution is something we've inherited not just from people who were born here, but people who were, you know, came here and became naturalized citizens for immigrants. Right. We inherit this almost formal weight on us. And it is in my mind, sort of our responsibility to keep talking about it, keep writing about it, keep publishing about it, keep trying to understand, because again, Even though we're 250 years old, there's still so much more to learn about us. And America is considered sort of the melting pot.
- [40:14]
A
Right.
- [40:14]
B
That's something that's said time and time again. And if that's the case, if we believe that, then we have to sort of understand what's in the pot. Right. We have to understand that the pot that's holding us all in together to end. A horrible metaphor, but we have to understand what we were given. And, you know, one of the ways we do that is we go back and we have to understand that it is not just a whole bunch of men sitting in a room. Do we need that as part of the story? Yeah, of course you do. But there's also these other perspectives where if it wasn't for women. Right. The soldier would not have been as effective, arguably. Right. If it wasn't for the enslaved people. Right. What, what would that. How would that have been so much different if we had said we're freeing all the enslaved people? Right. And we have to carry that burden as a country. And it's certainly not all on you or me to sort of solve all those problems. Right. But by us talking about it and writing about it in our separate fields, Right. We are contributing to an ongoing conversation. And I think continuing to talk about it is what most important. So I think that's a big piece, is that the revolution is something we have inherited. And we need to keep talking about this inheritance and, you know, whether we like it or not.
- [41:36]
A
I think I will default again to Dr. Stravinsky because she wrote so beautifully about the founders in the book the America at 250. And she argues that one of their. Their main legacy was about innovation and improvement. And a beautiful quote that she says is, by rejecting the call to constantly seek a more perfect union, we are betraying the founding legacy. And so much to what you're saying, right, we inherited this. We've got to keep it going. We gotta keep pushing the proverbial football down the field, to use a terrible sports metaphor, but. Right. We gotta keep moving forward. We've got to address the systemic issues. We've got to wrestle with the true story of the past in order to move forward. We're doing the best that we can here in this conversation, and that's all we can do.
- [42:26]
B
And it's something we can continue to talk about. I feel like I'm doing my part as best as I can by teaching and writing. And, you know, sometimes I feel like it's never enough, like I should be doing more and more, whatever else, but continuing that that conversation is important and as Dr. Strabinski said, seeking a more perfect union, you know, by if we rejecting that only betraying the founding legacy. And I I think that yeah, I mean what better way to to end it than by saying we need to keep seeking a more perfect union.
- [43:05]
A
All right, so before I let you go, please tell listeners where they can get more of your fantastic perspective.
- [43:10]
B
There's a couple different places ethanhealy.com is prob place you can find. That's where my stub stack sub stack is footnotes annotating the path. You can also find me on thread at Healy jpeg, which is an Instagram handle. And you can follow me@bluesky, which is also ethanhealy.com and I think that's where I am.
- [43:36]
A
My thanks to friend and early America expert Ethan for coming on and walking me through his journey of discovery with the Founding era. And as a reminder, the month of July will feature conversations with historians about a variety of topics, including gender limits in the Gilded Age and the power of community in seeking freedom in antebellum America. Be sure to tune in each Saturday for those conversations. If you're interested in any of the books Ethan and I talked about, be sure to head on over to my bookshop storefront where I curated a list just for you. A link is ready for you in the show notes. Thanks peeps. I'll see you next time. Thanks for sitting down with me as I explored this chapter of American history. If you liked what you heard, be sure to subscribe and share with your friends. I look forward to our next cup of coffee together.