tv H.W. Brands Our First Civil War CSPAN January 8, 2022 6:52pm-7:58pm EST
seeing to this other reality. i guess two books that were really important to me. >> thank you. >> are we getting to the end? we may have more time. otherwise, i am happy to wrap up it was a pleasure to talk about this book. s.t.e.m. welcome to the miami international book fair. it's my pleasure today to
introduce to you h.w. brands who is a history professor at the university of texas in austin. he has written numerous books on american history and came to great acclaim and i can tell you personally it's not at all the kind of things that they give history books a bad name. his latest look is "our first civil war" patriots and loyalists in the american revolution and i'm looking forward to discussing this book with him. so. such a great read and i've enjoyed it very much and i thought i knew a lot about in history so much. let's start with the kasich
question of why did you read this book and what did you hope the readers would get out of it and learn from it that they probably don't know about the process by which the united states gained its independence from great britain. >> thank you marsha and thank you for the conversation here. i wrote it because i wanted to convey in terms of first of all generally in this particular age have complicated it was. you can't tell rulers what they have misconceptions about. there's a common misconception about the american revolution that they establish their independence.
it's very much more complicated than that. they wanted independence from britain. there were a lot of americans who did and won independence from britain at all. it was a situation that the american colonies and american empire was very different and they thought there was no reason to risk that for something that might not pan out and might not be an improvement over what they had mrs. as i say it's the first time in elementary school where we learned about the revolution and the continental army and eventually the americans when and the founding of our country which we celebrate on the 4th of
july. there was indeed the serious conflicts between americans who wanted independence and those who did not pay those who wanted independence call themselves -- and the ones who did not call themselves loyalists and path between those two different parties. the point of making the book and i hope i make it effectively is the american revolution is not between americans and the british and american soldiers in the produce soldiers -- the british soldiers. that's why titled the book "our first civil war." the american revolution was indeed before or during the
revolutionary war and i wanted to recapture that moment and just remind readers that history is complicated. and it's important even if you don't remember all of the details and the complications but just remember that it is indeed complicated so that's the principle message i want to get across budding getting the message across i was pleased and i had to smile when he said that this book doesn't read like those history books. i'm glad to hear you say that although i have to say as a teacher of history there are lots of good history books but i do make a point of trying to make history come alive and i do
it, it in various ways in the different books that i've written but i find myself gravitating toward particular character so i tell this story through the lives and experiences of several characters some of them are patriots and i try to make these individuals come alive and i try to convey to the reader my understanding of what prompted them to do what they did so george washington for example we think of him of course is the commanding general of the continental army and would later become president of the united states and in the standard telling of the story it was obvious that george washington would become, we will call him a patriot of an american freedom fighter and the british called him a rebel and that's the part that i find into because george
washington, george washington was one of the least likely rebels are revolutionaries. usually people who become revolutionaries are people who are seriously dissatisfied with the status quo. the status quo is the thing that they are rebelling against and overturning in the revolution. and these are usually people who in the status quo were not satisfied. the status quo went really well for washington and so this should be a little bit as a puzzle as to why george washington became a revolutionary. because of course he is the leader of the revolution and its obvious he would become -- and it wasn't obvious at all. this is part of the story try to tell. i look at benjamin franklin and benjamin franklin was another unlikely revolutionaries because
frankland at the status quo worked for george washington it would work even better for benjamin franklin in. he became world-famous in the british empire and george washington wasn't very excitable character so he didn't get excited about the british empire. benjamin franklin was then in busiest of the british empire. he thought that british empire was the greatest thing going and it was within the british empire and under the auspices of the opportunities of the british empire provided the benjamin franklin became the most famous american of his time. it's entirely possible the world would not have heard of george washington. he was a virginia planter and he would have lived his life as a virginia planter and that would have been that norwood people goaded thomas jefferson to write the -- people would have heard
of benjamin franklin because he was this world-famous scientist and as i say he was in and busiest of the british empire but he turned against the british empire and the striking thing about franklin is it's fairly common to think of rebellion or revolution as a young person's game, a younger generation revolting against the old generation. they think the folks didn't get it right in and benjamin franklin's case he was 70 years old when he became a rebel and an franklin's case it allows me to tell an interesting side in a personal site of the same story of william franklin who is the another figure that i focus on the william franklin remains a loyalists. benjamin franklin became a rebel and william franklin became the loyalists in the sun was the more conservative one. the sun was the one who stuck with the status quo so this is why wrote the book and these are the stories that i try to tell.
>> you do it in a really fascinating way. conventional american revolution narratives usually begin or so they are taught in schools and such as beginning with the signing of the declaration of independence or more accurately with the battle of lexington and concord but in your book you take the roots of it back not only to the french and indian war but even in the decade before that and you see the roots of this brewing bifurcation as going back long before there was an actual conflict whereas as you also point out for benjamin franklin
well into 1775 he was still hoping for reconciliation with the british empire and that an arrangement could be achieved whereby the united states or what would become the united states and that's an anachronism but where the colonies would become partners with the british motherland in a world empire so i found that really really interesting and i was wondering if you could elaborate on that ache as i think that's also a very fresh approach. >> so yes i do start the story in lexington and concord in before the french and indian war because what i'm trying to get at is this question of what causes a person to turn their back on the country and take arms against it? how are these rebels created? i don't think that they are born
exactly think they become rebels rev period of time and one of the point to make in the book is that all of the individuals i look at the ones that become patriots and the ones who remained loyalist were born british subjects and they all thought of themselves as englishmen and englishwomen and for the most part they were proud of this because they looked at the rights they had as englishmen and they had a right to be represented in parliament in the right not to be taxed without their consent and the british freedoms that of being guaranteed over 800 years. so they really thought this was a good deal and they looked around at the people who lived in other countries and other empires in the considered themselves far more privilege than people who lived in france or new france apart at the french empire north america or the spanish. they were proud of being
independent so something is going to have to happen to get them to change their mind to say i'm no longer proud to be english and to put it another way the people that were born english and the rebels have became americans and the patriots among them became -- but the loyalist didn't become americans and this is kind of a puzzle because it might just be a generational thing and this time changes and context changes they think of themselves differently but in fact benjamin franklin was a proud subject of the british empire and he was the sprouts could be until 70 years of age and all of a sudden he starts thinking of himself as an american. and one as i all of a sudden. income along suddenly but there was this evolution but nonetheless he'd basically
claimed a new identity and the same was true with john adams and george washington and all the other patriots where is the loyalist for some reason which i will get into the dawn embraces new identity. they still think of themselves as british subjects so this question of who are you and how do you identify, this is crucial and especially crucial in something like this where there's this new country created and this new country requires a new political elite within the political identity but it's also behind all sorts of conflicts and other aspects of history. who are you and how do you identify? would you consider to be your allies and friends and would you consider to be your enemy so there's that aspect and you raise the proposal and this was franklin's fondest dream that the british government and london would have sense enough to recognize that the future of the british empire actually lay
in north america or franklin had done some the demographic work in probably america's first demographer studying the growth of population he could see that the population of british north america was double every generation. this was a much more rapid approach than what was happening britain so you'll may have to extrapolate a couple of generations before there would be more englishmen and more of britons living in north america than there were in great britain and if the british could see that this was the future of their empire or are they simply called at other countries of the country has the these three parts. at the british could see that then this could be the greatest thing going. franklin reveled in the identity is a britain and he had lots of friends in britain and he spent almost 20 years of his life living in london as an agent for
several of the american colonial legislatures and he really liked it. but franklin was born in boston. he sat up -- what about group boston by the age of 17 or ran away to philadelphia and established himself as a leading year in philadelphia but in his 50's he was sent to england as a representative of pennsylvania assembly and he spent 18 years in london. he thought london was the greatest place going. franklin was one of those who is always looking for the bigger stage and the brighter lights. in fact it almost broke his heart that he found london -- the british were too short-sighted to be able to see the future of the british empire lay in equality between the north american colonies and britain itself and franklin imagined what a great thing this would be and he could not
persuade the british that this was their future and because they refused to accept it they. franklin is a mere provincial his whole life. this finally was more than franklin could bear but basically he took the position that if these in london cannot see he's going to make franklin sent a modest but he was fully aware of his talents and capabilities and accomplishments. if they are going to treat me this way then they no longer serve my allegiance and there is a moment where you can almost pinpoint the moment i met the privy council but king's closest adviser made to answer for the sins of colonies the most recent of which are in the boston tea party. a mob in boston destroyed millions of dollars in currency of tea. inactive case a massive case of
vandalism and it was a thumbing of the american knows that the british government. somebody was that the answer to this and benjamin franklin was the one who is the closest at hand. he was criticized up one side and down the other. as those are general was made to stand there and suffer in silence the slanders and everything else and annette to our session i sometimes say he went into that session walked into na -- walked in a -- walked out american for through one of the historical ironies is franklin was striving for an 18th century was what winston churchill embraced and try to re-create in the 20th century who came to be called the special relationship of the anglo-american.
churchill would often talk to the anglo-americans and churchill was in the peculiar position because his mother was american and his father was british but what the british finally came around in the 20th century including arguably too today was a recognition that a partnership between america and britain was the best thing going and they won two world wars and save democracy in the 1940s so i guess maybe franklin wasn't wrong for 200 years. >> what i found really interesting also in the book was that while members of parliament and the king were not particularly sympathetic to the grievances of the american colonists there was considerable support among ordinary riddance for the position that the colonists had taken and what they were asking for it.
i thought that was a really interesting thing that i had never understood before and i'm sure that many people with me now will have not heard of that and there was tremendous popular support among the non-governmental elite for the idea of the colonists having their rights they were asking for it. >> this is a reminder again of how complicated history isn't just as the americans were not unified in their opposition to britain the british were not unified in their refusal to grant americans the right the americans or the patriots reclaiming him this underscores the fact that first of all all wars are ultimately political events and they are driven by political motives and the end when politics say they are going to end. when the guns start going off then military forces are very
important but war is still a political act and what the americans understood was that the american and i say the american patriots understood that they didn't have to destroy the british army. all they really had to do was convince the british electorate that the war in america was no longer worth fighting and in this regard the american revolution was the first not necessarily the first but it early example of a nationalist revolution of the government that would become common in the 19th and 20th centuries and indeed the united states would get on the wrong side in vietnam. so george washington and american leaders understood something that ho chi minh and the leaders of the vietnamese communist understood themselves, you don't have to defeat the foreign occupiers could all you have to do is wear them down to
the point where the decision-makers back in that other country britain in the case of the revolution and the united states in the case of the war in vietnam and they say we have had enough we don't think it's worth continuing the war that's when you -- in the case of george washington george washington didn't have to win the war could all he had to do was avoid losing because sooner or later the british would say this isn't worth it anymore and in this regard the position of the two sides in the american revolution were not symmetrical because the americans were fighting for their existence and if this didn't work then this thing that they had created in the united states would be destroyed but the loss of the american colonies would by no means be the end of the british colonies. home territory so it is easier for the british to say enough is enough it's over that would have
been for the americans because they would have had a would have had up his if they try to and there was a small fact that they identified as traders by the english -- british government and in their would have been sanctions. those who if you also talk about how the rivalry between britain and france impacted how not only the american roof revolutionary war was fought the before and how critical french support was to the ultimate victory of the colonists. >> france plays a role large role in this and since you are the french indian war era minders to our viewers and listeners that the french and indian war was not the french against the indians. it was the americans and despite we'll call the americans the british, the anglo-americans and their indian allies against the
french and the french indian allies in the reason i mention this is he wasn't simply americans and british fighting for control of north america was the americans the british and the french in the native americans and the indian tribes they had to decide in the case of the french and indian war which side do we choose? do we choose the british side or the french side and some of us had to do with how they have been treated and the relationships that they had with the british on the one hand and the french on the other hand but it had a lot to do with who they think is going to win the war and who's going to come out of this and which of the forces is going to win three didn't want to choose the side that loses because then you would catch punishment from the side that had one so this sets the scene for all of this and from the perspective of european history the american revolutionary war is simply a sequel to the french
and indian war which itself is the sequel to three wars that preceded it during the previous century. so from a european perspective the empire britain was fighting the empire of france and there was also an empire spain who was involved in this as well and they were jockeying for position within europe. but in doing so they were jockeying for position in north america so when american patriots like george washington and benjamin franklin and john adams when they decided to be in favor independence thing and knew they would have to fight for it. the british government is not simply going to cave in and walk away so in this fight it would be of great help to have a foreign ally, an ally that had money, that had resources that could provide military support and naval support a particular
the fledgling united states had no navy. the british had a good baby but the 90s had no navy so one of the first things the continental congress did upon declaring independence was to prepare to send benjamin franklin off to france to try to negotiate a treaty of alliance between this new united states and france. it was a difficult undertaking because while the french wanted revenge against britain for france's defeat in the previous round of fighting at the end of the french and indian war in europe france had been ejected from north america so britain claimed all of canada and spain want up with louisiana and the french were looking to get back at britain for this great americans knew that so they were thinking okay france is going to be inclined to support a automatic. it was something that had to be negotiated and the french had to be persuaded because from the
standpoint of france okay taking on britain weaken and the british empire that's a plus so these american revolutionaries would support them except the other side that was the mine is was wait these are revolutionaries and they began the revolution by overcoming their king and king louis the 16th is thinking we don't want the french people getting ideas like this so it was a difficult negotiation. benjamin franklin had a lot of persuading to do and it really required a major american battlefield victory to bring the french around because the french wanted to know that the americans were serious and they had a chance to enter the last thing france wanted was to join the side of the americans and have the americans lose and then they would be left taking on britain alone. it just so happened that the french were building the their army and building up their navy
and they were quite ready to take on britain again. the timing in america reward just seemed opportune. the last thing the french wanted to have happen was is to side with the americans. that would prove that would provoke prove both written that go toward france because of -- before france was ready to do so franklin had to persuade louis the 16th and french officials that the americans were in this for the long term. they would keep fighting until they won independence and in fact franklin and others tried to convince the spanish of the same thing but the spanish word fighting for through the spanish had an alliance with france and through france they indirectly supporting united states but the spanish were more skeptical and in the case of the spanish this brought up something that the french had and that is well okay maybe we will help the americans
now but are we creating a monster cliques for the spanish this was a big deal because the spanish were happy to see the written weekend but they didn't want this powerful united states because spain had lots of territory in north america and if united states got too strong spain would have to defend this territory against the united states. as they say the basic listen to this as things are complicated and if you are the leader of spain or the leader france you have to figure out how what this is all going. >> you mentioned canada. canada was in an interesting situation in this and i think the american revolution and the french and indian war before it although i should point out it wasn't the french against the indians. you have native americans on
both sides but i had occasion to visit an exhibit in washington d.c. the game the war of 1812 from a canadian perspective. that's a little ahead of the game in this book but certainly the factors that the canadians had a very different respective and in canada it occupied a kind of ground that many of the american colonists would have liked to make apart of the newly independent colonies and from the book it makes it quite clear that americans even had a hard time understanding american patriots and had a hard time understanding why canadians would want to remain part of the british empire rather than join in their independence and we
might have some canadian listeners and also the subject is quite interesting so i wondered if you could collaborate. >> basically the 13th colonies that declared independence they wanted to get canada to join as well and all of british north america would be fighting for independence and it seemed as you say quite reasonable to the patriots that the canadians share the british rights and everything else but the canadians didn't see it that way. in the first place a lot of them were -- because canada had been french until fairly recently and so it's not as though they were acutely sensitive on the rights of englishmen because if you are french you don't think about the rights of englishmen. there was a second thing and that was the grievances that the americans claimed against
britain were not shared by the canadians and for many of them in fact they thought britain was the better deal than being part of france had been. another way of framing versus the loyalist in the 13 colonies. in fact that was going on to in canada except in canada there were some canadians who said we will join this new united states and joined in the freedom but they were outnumbered by the loyalist. we have got what we want so let's keep it and not out of the question that something similar could have happened in one of more i'd will call it the lower 14 british colonies that wasn't out of the question that north carolina could have said you know we don't want to join this independence and it would in all
13 so another way of thinking about it is that actually it wasn't all 14 good one of them stayed british except there was this difference and that is that they saw canada is one of their own so they weren't part of the continental congress and the correspondents against the stand back. is roy's in different group and during the revolution the patriots the common army that invades canada to persuade them to join. if it takes an army of invasions to persuade you did harbinger for your cause but it's true that george washington tried to talk and they didn't agree to with me that part of the this
relates to interesting questions. canada is an independent country and so if the american revolution ever plays one could imagine this scenario for example when i actually in the 13 colonies continue to outnumber the patriots and so maybe there were complaints that they didn't rise to the level of starting a war. so how would american history -- presumably the united states would become independent at some point and that's when canada became independent and for example the british empire and before the united states ended so if the united states had been part of the british empire would american had ended during the war and maybe on the other hand
the existence of large numbers in what i'm calling the united states or the british empire would have made it harder to and the british empire so it kind of the counterfactual question but in the end, in the end the future what i'll call the united states and canada in the 1770s when the americans declared independence they eventually come back together in the 1860s and canada today is more independent and much more like the united states senate is written so just as there's a separation between the united states and britain and the british came back together in the 20 century the canadians did the same thing in this raises the question did all this happen without the war? what everybody it had the same vision?
just look where this is all going but of course that's not what happened. >> i found different aspects of in the book and the personalities of some of the that you highlight can be extremely interesting. promises were made to inflate people that if a fox on the loyalist side are they fought on the patriot side they would receive their freedom and they got a lot more complicated than that and many of the promises that were made to the were in fact not honored. i thought that was a really interesting aspect of the book
because one reads quite often about how this promise of freedom is granted to the particular in the north and as you say many of the were returned to their owners who fought on the british side even though they will were promised their freedom but they were only promise their freedom if the british won the war in the areas where the british dominated so if you could say a few words about the whole issue and complexity of slavery and there was tremendous ambivalence of giving slaves their freedom on upsides of this war. >> slavery is illegal within the british empire and slavery was practiced in all 13 of the
american colonies. her to the british government that the promise of freedom might weaken the patriot side because it was observed slaves were a workforce and continental for promised freedom to the slaves patriot masters perhaps they could entice those slaves to leave their masters across over to british lines. originally it was a matter of simply -- and this was an enticement to the patriot side. before long the british decided they would put in slate people who left a capacity to put them
into the army to augment the british forces. for the people this was an opportunity i was also a potential peril because it's a big deal to decide okay i'm going to escape my master and it's worth noting when you left the plantation you have done you often have to turn your back on your family and the world that you knew and basically take a leap of faith. and the british side would have to one that they would keep their promises to you. the hazards that i had to deal is that if you are fighting an british side are trying to escape to the british side and you were captured what would
happen to you. slaves were returned to their masters are in some cases they were sold and even less satisfactory situation so whether a given person in slate person took up the british offer depended on a whole bunch of different factors and first of all they didn't even know that the offer had been made. and for really obvious reasons they treat masters didn't publicize this british author and secondly there was a question of how far do i have the go to reach the british lines and what usually happened was for slaves on plantations almost none of them took up the british offer because it was too hazardous and too risky to leave or they were to the british lines but when the british approached it became more reasonable and by the way was
mostly males. the ones most likely to leave were of military age and they didn't have families yet to there were all sorts of calculations and some of them did take up the offer. one man watched as the british armory -- army was getting closer and closer and when they finally came close and this is critical it might require a broadening of our prospective but not every slave economic turn it to the took the opportunity so in the case of
ping he said he was very well treated tie over on the whole he was relatively okay given the alternatives but there were a couple of occasions of mistreatment and there were a couple of occasions when he said it might get worse. he went to the british line and he went along with the british army and he suffered the various casualties of war. finally he was recaptured but then he got away again and he finally wound up in new york state. this is an important point and maybe a reminder even during the best times of the patriot cause
there was a stronghold of loyalist him because people who lived in new york city had close commercial ties with england and they didn't want to break those and also because it was relatively easy for the british navy and british ships to occupy your city which was the strategic spot. they had heard through the grape vine that the british army more precisely british negotiators in paris negotiating the treaty they were going to abandon the farms and make the slaves independent.
in fact some of the slaves took up the british offer and boston was evacuated where tens of thousands so boston was a loyalist. many fled the united states at the end of the war and this is an interesting chapter. it's kind of like you guys when at the end of the war and all is well. but no one in fact i was thinking about this when we watched the end of the war in afghanistan and as american forces were leaving people who have assisted american forces were doing their best to get out of afghanistan because they knew they would be subject to
reprisal. that's exactly the situation so that's the situation of former slaves oren said they needed to get out of there. the british to back that i'm not going to say as many as they could but many of the former slaves and boston came one off to canada and found his way to sierra leone or at africa. so that's a straightforward story because boston king can make a move out of his own self-interest and they look at the other american slave who is a patriot master a man named
jeffrey brace who is the slave of the patriot master and he didn't opt to fight on behalf of the patriots that his master went to fight in this master still had control of him so he went to fight on behalf of while he understood the irony of this he's fighting on the side that's going to deny me freedom in the future and that side one but two jeffrey brace his surprise and pleasure at the end of the war his master decided you've done such a good job during the war, here's your freedom so it turned out okay for him but this question of the loyalist evacuation is this huge deal but it's utterly forgotten in american history. >> i find this really really fascinating here. another thing i think that is misrepresented and culture we have visions of the continental army troops wearing these nice blue uniforms and holding fights
and playing yankee doodle and things like that. your book makes it quite evident that much of the war was fought by state militias and informal militia groups which had a hard time feeding and funding the militias fighting on the patriot side and i found it very very interesting, the emphasis he put on that war is expensive. when you have soldiers you have to feed them and when you feed them you need to be able to get the food somewhere and the very vivid descriptions you provide from the letters from washington for example where one side let's say the loyalist side will e. in
an area in the patriots come in and they take away all the cattle and the food to feed their soldiers and then the other side comes into another village affiliated with the opposite side and they take away the cattle and grain. and yet the troops were often starving so i wonder if you could elaborate on these very vivid descriptions you give about the difficulty of feeding and clothing and housing troops for the number of years that the revolutionary war went on and how expensive it was. >> logistical problems of supporting a continental army were enormous especially during those times because this was an overwhelmingly agrarian society american and it didn't have railroads and they hardly had
roads and the relatively few places where people gathered in large numbers were american cities were modest in size but they have been there for a long time so the networks of supply had developed to feed philadelphia, to feed new york and it's not a coincidence that they were located on the water. you can bring shiploads of stuff. well when an army goes to war all of a sudden you've got 10,000 people, 15,000 people and it's worth bearing in mind that the numbers of soldiers engaged in the campaigns in the revolutionary war were very small by comparison with wars that we think of in world war i or world war ii in iraq and afghanistan. washington come his army was typically between 10 and 15,000 men but still that's 10 to 15,000 men that have to be fed
and they are the location that's not necessarily on crossroads and not set up to bring in all the things that they need so i should point out what they have to do is scrounge the countryside. because they were farmers they knew how to slaughter cat on carving up but still it meant whoever owned that cow is now out of the cow and that particular farmer is probably not going to be very happy with the person who stole this cow and in fact it's one of the things washington had the way and so did general howe on the british side, and that is how do you feed your forces without utterly alienating the people that you are taking the food from?
the british had an advantage here because they control the water and they could bring stuffs from britain and from the west indies in a way that the patriots could not. george washington and the continental army could not. the army had to live off the land and so washington for example in the winter at valley forge, this when the uniforms such as they were were falling off of them and they were getting frostbitten feet and they were low on food. he has to weigh okay i've got to keep the soldiers from starving but on the other hand i can't starve farmers and the surrounding area by depriving them of what they need to live so it's a very difficult balancing act. in the same vein washington did became extremely frustrated with the continental congress because the continental congress was supposed to be providing the wherewithal to fight this war. the continental congress was
operating -- they weren't operating under anyone before 1781 and that's in the battle of georgetown but i mention they operated under the confederation but the congress had no authority and they couldn't compel them to pay up to deliver so many head of cattle or so much of this and so much of that. they could request that the states refuse to honor their request and so a great amount of george washington's time was spent writing letters and pleading with congress, pleading with governors of the states, you've got to send us food. you have to send this uniforms and supplies our army will fall apart or it just as i said earlier where the british ultimately have the option of saying enough is enough, we are going home in fact so did washington soldiers.
if they found that they were starving they would get letters from home saying their wives and children are starving so they sit in the pence's find but i can't let my family died. so there was an absence without leave or you washington has to figure out how do i hold the army together against this overtimes in washington found himself having to shoot soldiers for desertion. it's not as though they were deserting to join the british. they were simply deserting to try to feed their family. it was a really difficult situation for everybody. >> to helipad towards many people on both sides, both the loyalist side and the patriot side had lost so much in terms of their homes and in terms of
their farms and in terms of their resources and obviously the winners took all and had very little sympathy for loyalist who had lost everything. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about the post-war relations between the patriots and the loyalist and if that cleft between them was eventually healed or whether it took new forms within american society would leave a legacy behind or maybe we are still dealing with today. >> in answer to your question looking at examples of what happened to two loyalists. joseph brandt was the leader of the mohawk tribe of indians of the arab coy confederacy and he was a talented young man.
people had seen him from the time he was youngest guys going places and he became a leader just about the time the troubles between the american colonists and the british government were developing it looked as though the larger group of uruguay would have to make a choice do you side with americans or do you side with the british injustices decision patriot or loyalist split the ranks of i called them that anglo-americans it is lit the native americans and indian tribes. joseph rant believed that the future lie with the british and this was partly because he had close family and friendship ties to british officials who had forged good relationships with the mohawk nation but also because grants believe that if
the americans gain their independence they would be able to turn their attention on the indians then brandt relies the best thing for the airport would be for the americans to remain part of the british empire because the british had been tapping the indians against the settlers and one of the proclamations of the government thing you no longer can legally settle across the crest of the appalachian mountains because you were constantly getting into fights with the indians so no more western settlement. so he sided with the british and the british wound up leaving and grant and his people would live in exile and they took refuge in canada where the british
government, the british government of canada set aside land for them and they thrived reasonably well but brandt went on to greater things. leaders of the american patriots george washington in particular didn't hold brandt's belligerency against him or at least not for too long because grant turned out to be a very astute diplomat as well as military leader and he recognized. the american side won the war and we have to make her peace with the americans the best we can washington recognized okay we are going to have to deal with the arab coy which was the equivalent of the nato of the native american people and brandt became a favorite of george washington and in fact when he visited washington when washington was president he was
treated with great respect and when he traveled home to new york city is celebrated and everybody wanted to see joseph grant so call that a happy ending to a story where a loyalist has a good relationship with the winning side. a sad story is william franklin. william franklin >> with -- split with his father over this question who are you going to be loyal to and benjamin franklin said my loyalty is to my new country and william franklin says my loyalty is to my existing country. william franklin held on to his position. he was the governor of new jersey are the royalty appointed governor of new jersey and held onto that position as long as he could but when things changed he was driven by force from his office and he was arrested. he was held in custody for many months and eventually he was
exchange in a prisoner swap and was allowed to go to new york city where there were a hotbed of loyalist and from there he organized the loyalist militia that brought warfare against patriot forces and he criticized the british government toward the end of the war for not fighting hard enough and for giving up too soon. we think of the last battle of the revolutionary wars the battle of yorktown in 1781 and it was. cornwallis had to surrender. the british could have kept fighting but they decided like we spoke of earlier that's just not not worth it. the government in britain fell in a new government came in and said okay we are going to change the war and william franklin was very disappointed and greatly dismayed with the british. he said hey there risked my life
for you and now you're pulling out. his feeling was akin to the feeling of many of the afghans who were shocked when the americans said they were pulling out of franklin, william franklin went to england and nobody wanted to talk to him. this is a little bit like the reception given to some american vietnam vets after the war. you lost the war and nobody wants to talk to you and it was the same thing with william franklin. he received a modest pension from the british government and he hoped for one thing above all. he knew he couldn't be reconciled with americans generally. he hoped he could be reconciled with his father because the political split led to an estrangement between william and his father benjamin franklin and at the end of the war after the war was over benjamin franklin
who had been in paris negotiating with the french government returns the united states and he stops in southern england and william franklin meet him there. william franklin holds out the hand of reconciliation is this father led bygones be bygones. we were a family before let us be a family again and benjamin franklin would have nothing to do with it. benjamin franklin felt really wanted by the fact that his son had not sided with him against the british government and they have parted. never to see each other again and this was the case, it's almost hard to explain the benjamin franklin because he had friends in england that he fell away from during the war. that war was over, okay the war is over let's kiss and make up but he couldn't do it with his own son. >> that is very sad. i think our time is just about up.
discusses her biography of chancellor of germany anglela merkel. >> presiding over today's discussion. it is as you see virtual which is a ltle sad that it means we have 400 people signed up instead of 100 in the room so it could be worse from that perspective. let me introduce you to our esteemed panelist today. we have to offer and human rights activist kati marton, conference chair wolfgang kissinger and institution senior fellow constanza. you probably know the council doesn't do