S1: From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan,
S1: where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught,
S1: nurtured and honored. This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour,
S1: bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners
S1: across the country.
S2: It turns out that every single additional paper produces less
S2: and less actual improvements in health per paper. We're spending
S2: a lot of money, but per dollar that we spend,
S2: we're not getting as much as we might as we have.
S2: People have labeled that the scientific stagnation problem.
S3: This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio
S3: Free Hillsdale Hour. Part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network.
S3: That was Jay Bhattacharya from the National Institutes of Health. Today,
S3: we hear excerpts from a lecture he gave in April
S3: of this year titled Restoring Gold standard science. And later
S3: on in today's program, historian Mark Edward Lender joins us.
S3: He'll tell us the keys to victory in the American Revolution. First,
S3: with Doctor Anthony Fauci and Covid back in the news cycle,
S3: we listen back to portions of a lecture by Jay
S3: Bhattacharya from the National Institutes of Health, from a Hillsdale
S3: College National Leadership Seminar in April of 2026 titled Restoring
S3: Gold Standard Science. Bhattacharya begins by giving his diagnosis for
S3: what happened during Covid.
S2: The problem we have now, and it was it was
S2: the reason the root cause of what happened during Covid
S2: is that we have a scientific authority that decides what's
S2: true and false, instead of instead of the normal functioning
S2: of science. And it's not just one person. I could,
S2: I could highlight Doctor Fauci. And that would be a
S2: very simple kind of example, right? Everyone you remember the
S2: votive candles to Doctor Fauci anyone? Anyone buy one I one.
S2: Just not a single person bought a votive candle. Um,
S2: I have to say, it's I find it deeply uncomfortable
S2: also to, to be a scientific authority, because I think
S2: really the root of the first scientific revolution was that
S2: there wasn't a scientific authority. What you had instead was
S2: you had a displacement of the power to decide for
S2: society to decide an epistemological authority. Um, out of the
S2: hands of a small number of ecclesiastical powers. And you
S2: put it instead in the hands of a few very
S2: clever people with telescopes, right. That they got to decide
S2: if the moons of Jupiter move. We are in a
S2: situation now, and I think Covid made that situation bear
S2: that a relatively small number of journal editors, uh, people
S2: who pontificate on TV about science directors of the National
S2: Institutes of Health get to decide what's true or false
S2: in science, and I think that's a pretty big problem.
S3: Jay Bhattacharya continues by assessing the current state of America's health.
S2: We're not a healthy nation, and that's just a sad fact.
S2: The Make America Healthy Again movement. I'm allowed to say
S2: that political slogan here, aren't I? It's a political slogan,
S2: but it comes out of a real cry for help
S2: from the American people. We aren't a healthy nation. We have.
S2: We have huge chronic disease problems. But because of the
S2: Make America Healthy movement again, I think we actually have
S2: a chance of, of, of, of solving these problems. Um,
S2: but we can only do it if we fix science.
S2: If we want to make America healthy again, we have
S2: to get the science. We have to launch the second
S2: scientific revolution, right? Because it's not just that we should
S2: look to gurus to decide how to make America healthy again.
S2: I mean, this is part of the problem. Doctor Aaron
S2: mentioned podcasts. There's some great podcasts out there. But is
S2: it easy to tell who to get the information from? No,
S2: it's very it's very, very confusing. And it's a symptom
S2: actually of the problems of science.
S3: We're listening to excerpts from a lecture by Jay Bhattacharya
S3: at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in April of 2026.
S3: The lecture, entitled Restoring Gold Standard Science, Bhattacharya continues by
S3: outlining the problems of science. Why are we not making
S3: more progress? He begins with the replication crisis.
S2: I'm going to show you some evidence about this, but
S2: it turns out that it is often the case that
S2: when people publish scientific articles, even articles you see on
S2: TV or touted by podcasters or whatever, when independent people
S2: look at the same article or same ask the same question,
S2: do the same, even sometimes the same experiment, they don't
S2: find the same answer. And the vast majority of science
S2: is not actually subject to replication. That's a major problem
S2: because because what that means is that a lot of
S2: what the science we read, a lot of the science
S2: that we see, um, is not actually true. Just to
S2: put a fine point on it, I mean, it means,
S2: it means that when you are making decisions about your
S2: health and you go look up an article, uh, you
S2: try to read it and it gives you an answer.
S2: A lot of the time it's not right. And that
S2: means and that's true even for your doctors. Your doctors
S2: will look things up and they'll give advice based on,
S2: on essentially bad, bad, like bad science. I mean, for instance,
S2: I'll give you an example. Um, are eggs good for you?
S2: Eggs are good for you. Eggs are good for you.
S2: Now they're the superfood, right? I grew up in the 19.
S2: My dad had a heart attack when I was when
S2: I was 13 years old and in the in the 80s,
S2: early 80s. And, um, uh, back then, uh, eggs were poison.
S2: Remember that? Uh, I did not eat an egg until
S2: I was 19 years old. And then it was a
S2: horrible egg white omelet. I don't because because because of
S2: the cholesterol thing, right? So egg whites then were good
S2: for you in the 90s and now eggs are superfood.
S2: Why is that? I could go on about examples like this.
S2: It's the replication crisis, the scientific ideas that that rule
S2: our society are not subject to the kinds of things
S2: that we all learn when we first learned about science
S2: are the basis of truth. Lots of clever people using
S2: telescopes to look to the moons of Jupiter. They all
S2: see the moons of Jupiter move. Then we decide together
S2: the moons of Jupiter move right. We take as authority
S2: of someone at Harvard published something and that therefore, that
S2: person must be right about that thing, right? It was
S2: published in a top medical journal. Authority is replaced replication
S2: as the basis of truth in science. It's a major
S2: epistemological problem that's solvable.
S3: The second problem of science, as Jay Bhattacharya outlines, is
S3: scientific stagnation.
S2: This is a funny claim to make, but it's actually true.
S2: Per dollar that we spend on science, we get. We
S2: get less and less advanced than we did ten, 20, 30, 40,
S2: 50 years ago. I'll show you some evidence on that
S2: in biomedicine. Um, just to, just to give some examples
S2: of that. There's you've all heard of Moore's Law. Moore's
S2: law is the, is the, is that the speed of
S2: CPUs doubles every, every few years. Right. Um, that actually
S2: apparently is no longer true. The speed of CPUs are
S2: no longer doubling at that at that rapid rate anymore. Um, in,
S2: in biomedicine, it turns out that every single additional paper
S2: produces less and less actual improvements in health per paper. Right?
S2: So like, I'll show you some evidence in just a
S2: second in a bit about, about randomized trials. Um, that's
S2: now we're spending a lot of money and we are
S2: actually getting advances. I already told you that about the
S2: cystic fibrosis and the and the and all, all of
S2: the big, big advances. But per dollar that we spend,
S2: we're not getting as much as we might as we have.
S2: People have labeled that the scientific stagnation problem. Now, again,
S2: I think there's reason. The reasons have to do at least.
S2: I think the reasons the. The way to solve it is,
S2: is through some reforms at the NIH that I've been
S2: working on. I'm going to I'm going to brag about
S2: in just a bit.
S3: We're listening to a lecture by Jay Bhattacharya at a
S3: Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in April of 2026. The
S3: third problem of science, says Bhattacharya, outlines, is funding concentration.
S2: About a third of the portfolio of the of the
S2: third of the money that spending. The NIH goes to
S2: about 20 institutions, 20 institutions. Now, I know that Hillsdale
S2: is not one of them, because famously, Hillsdale takes $0
S2: from federal government. But there are excellent scientists at Hillsdale.
S2: And just as there are excellent scientists all across the country,
S2: I've now gone on a tour of so many different
S2: colleges across the country, studiously avoiding as best I could
S2: any of the top 20. And the reason I've done
S2: that is because I wanted to see. And what I
S2: found is that everywhere you go in Alabama, in Iowa
S2: and Kansas in in in Wisconsin, in Arizona, what you
S2: find is excellent institutions not in the top 20 that
S2: do not receive, like, you know, a third of our
S2: portfolio of money. You have excellent institutions with excellent scientists
S2: who have a much less of a chance to get
S2: NIH support for their research than if you are a
S2: scientist in one of those top 20. And that's the problem, right?
S2: We are competing with the Chinese who have made tremendous
S2: investments in their biomedical research enterprise. Actually, they've stolen a
S2: lot of ours and we've trained them too. But that's
S2: another story. Um, we have to. So, but, but in
S2: order to solve that problem, in order to really compete
S2: with the Chinese, in order to really make the kinds
S2: of advances that can translate over to better health for Americans.
S2: We have to we have to empower scientists wherever they are.
S2: It doesn't matter if they come from Stanford or Harvard
S2: or whatever. If they have a great idea, we should be.
S2: We should. We should be funding them. We should be
S2: trying trying out ideas with them. All right. So I'm
S2: going to give you those are the that's that's my diagnosis.
S2: I've given you my three, three reasons. I think that
S2: we have this problem and we're fixed that we're in.
S3: We will continue in a moment with more from Jay
S3: Bhattacharya's lecture at a national leadership seminar for Hillsdale College
S3: on restoring gold standard Science. First, if you have 30s,
S3: take a quick break, go to radio our.hillsdale.edu because we
S3: want to stay in touch with you. If you click
S3: the subscribe button at the top of the screen and
S3: then enter your email address, you'll be signed up for
S3: our email list every week. One email from us telling
S3: you about the brand new radio free Hillsdale Hour episode.
S3: Might it be Victor Davis Hanson this week, or Mollie
S3: Hemingway or Doctor Matt Spalding from Hillsdale in DC, or
S3: Carol Markowitz or Heather MacDonald? We'll tell you our guests
S3: each week via email so you don't miss a thing.
S3: Go to Radio hour.hillsdale.edu, click the subscribe button at the
S3: top of the page and enter your email address, and
S3: then we'll be in contact. We continue now with excerpts
S3: from a lecture by Jay Bhattacharya from the National Institutes
S3: of Health. It's titled Restoring Gold Standard Science. This was
S3: delivered in April of 2026 at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.
S3: We previously heard Doctor Bhattacharya outline the problems of science,
S3: why we're not making more progress now, some potential solutions.
S3: He begins by outlining and explaining the cause of the
S3: replication crisis.
S2: It's authority. It's authority. We decide that we've elevated a
S2: relatively few sources of knowledge of of authority to decide
S2: for us what is true or false in society. Maybe
S2: Doctor Fauci, maybe CNN. God forbid. Don't do that. Um,
S2: you know, it could it could be anything but um,
S2: but we, we pick these sources. It could be podcasts.
S2: We pick these sources of authority and say, well, this
S2: is what's going to determine what's true or false rather than,
S2: rather than replication. Uh, the way that we solve the
S2: problem then is by making replication the standard of authority
S2: in medicine, the standard of truth in medicine. Essentially, it's
S2: an epistemological revolution. And actually the the lucky thing for
S2: me is that the NIH can do that. And this
S2: is something I'm working on this year. Very, very simple thing. First,
S2: we have to fund replication, not something that's like sexy, right?
S2: Because I'm like, okay, I'm going to every time I
S2: say I'm going to fund replication, I start to see
S2: people yawn. It's a terrible thing. Um, but I have
S2: to do it because if I don't fund replication, then
S2: how do you know what's what's true or false? Now,
S2: I don't want the government to tell us what what
S2: should be replicated, what shouldn't. In fact, what happens now
S2: is if some if some student comes to me and say, Jay,
S2: I want to replicate your paper, I view it as
S2: a threat to my career. Right? Because what if they
S2: find if I'm wrong? Oh my God, a scientist is wrong.
S2: That'd be terrible. The problem here is that is that
S2: is that we need to make replication a source of
S2: advancements in science. Like, it's actually a great honor. Some
S2: scientist comes to me and says, Jay, I want to
S2: replicate your work. Well, that means my idea is worth replicating,
S2: worth looking at. And if they find it's not true,
S2: then maybe we can figure out why we got a
S2: different answer. That's how we advance science together. Make science
S2: into a collaborative thing, rather than one where we're looking
S2: over our shoulder worried that what I what I'm saying
S2: doesn't replicate.
S3: Bhattacharya continues by talking about scientific stagnation and how to
S3: get things moving once again.
S2: The average age at which people got their. Get their
S2: first large grant at the NIH in the 1980s, you
S2: could be in your 30s and you would get a
S2: large grant, you get your first large grant. Now, the
S2: age at which a scientist earns their first large grant
S2: from the NIH is is the mid 40s. That's what
S2: this very depressing graph shows you. We require young scientists
S2: to do postdoc one, postdoc two. Postdoc three. After they've
S2: done their PhD. After they've graduated from Hillsdale, they still
S2: can't get an assistant professor job, much less get support
S2: to get to try their new ideas out. Um, it's
S2: also true that it's young scientists that are the most
S2: likely to have new ideas in the first place. Um,
S2: this is the most depressing paper I've ever this is
S2: the paper I wrote in Mikko Packalen is the most
S2: depressing paper I ever wrote. I'll show you why in
S2: just a second. Um, the question it asks is, uh,
S2: when in your career are you most likely to publish
S2: a newer idea? I just there's no way to sugarcoat this.
S2: It's like it's the first year after you finish your PhD.
S2: My career age is. I first published my first paper
S2: in 1996. I'm do the math 30 years old in
S2: career age when I was 0 or 1 years old
S2: is when I was most likely to publish a new idea.
S2: The 30 year olds are all way on the right
S2: side of that graph. The probability of publishing new ideas
S2: declines monotonically with career age. And yet we are now
S2: in a scientific ecosystem where we delay the time to
S2: which people get their first support for large, large grants
S2: long into the future.
S3: We're listening to excerpts from a lecture by Jay Bhattacharya
S3: for Hillsdale College in April of 2026 at a national
S3: leadership seminar entitled Restoring Gold Standard Science, Bhattacharya says we
S3: also need to change how funding decisions are made.
S2: We have to give support for early career scientists. We've
S2: already done some, some, some, some some things to do this.
S2: But this is this is a culture, a major cultural
S2: shift that's taking place in our scientific, uh, um, in
S2: science over the last several decades, we have essentially, uh,
S2: made it much more difficult for early career scientists to
S2: get their ideas, uh, you know, attempted. We made it
S2: much more difficult for early careers. We've made it too
S2: easy to fail as a scientist, as an early career scientist. Right.
S2: So what happens is you, um, in Silicon Valley, you
S2: start a firm, you're 22 years old. Somehow you convince
S2: somebody to give you $30 million and you start a firm, um,
S2: and it fails, but it was a productive failure. And
S2: then you get another shot where someone gives you $60 million.
S2: It's a real good business if you can get it,
S2: but it's not everyone gets it right. Um, the problem
S2: in science is that if you do your PhD and
S2: you don't get your paper published, well, you don't get
S2: a chance that the postdoc number one, if you don't
S2: get your a, a fancy paper published postdoc one, you
S2: don't get postdoc two it's so easy to fail in
S2: signs anywhere along the training path. And we have to
S2: change that. We have to make science more resilient and
S2: easier and with with possibilities of success. So that early
S2: career scientists can try their ideas out earlier and earlier. Second,
S2: we have to start funding ideas that are that we
S2: don't know they're going to work. We have to fund
S2: ideas that are the bleeding edge.
S3: And here, Jay Bhattacharya outlines the tricky trap of acquiring
S3: research funding.
S2: In order to attract scientists to your institution, where that
S2: can win those grant applications. You better have great facilities.
S2: I can tell you, what I've seen is that lots
S2: of young scientists at some of these top institutions, they
S2: can't get lab space because it's so competitive. At the
S2: same time, you have people with amazing ideas outside of
S2: these top institutions that can't that don't have a chance
S2: of getting our money because they're an institution that is
S2: not that doesn't have that fancy lab space the NIH
S2: gives you. We give facility support, but the way that
S2: we do that is by. We look at all the
S2: project money that all the projects. If you look and
S2: if you win the projects, um, you get the grant money.
S2: What's the solution to this? The solution to this is
S2: a radical change and I'm going to work on this
S2: this coming year. You cut the link between the direct
S2: money and the indirect money and instead have market competition
S2: for the facilities money. And then you allow researchers to
S2: more easily move the project money that they've won to
S2: the places where the labs now are. And you have
S2: a dynamic market that attracts scientists to go to the
S2: places where the facilities are. Essentially, what this will do
S2: is just expand the places where we send our money. Um,
S2: and it'll allow the facility support to go not just
S2: to 20 institutions, but to wherever the great scientists are.
S2: And then you build the institution up and attract the
S2: great scientist to your institution. It'll supercharge science across the
S2: country because the NIH money essentially is a seed seed
S2: money that that that attracts other investments in institutions. It
S2: shouldn't just be 20 institutions in this country that get
S2: half our money or a third of our money.
S3: Doctor Jay Bhattacharya from the National Institutes of Health concludes
S3: his lecture by explaining how all of this works together
S3: to point toward a second scientific revolution.
S2: The unified funding strategy makes sure that the portfolio is
S2: at the bleeding edge, that we are funding early career
S2: scientists with the newest ideas so that we get back
S2: to funding things at the bleeding edge, solve the stagnation problem.
S2: But if your funding ideas the bleeding edge, you better
S2: check if they're true. And so you solve the replication crisis.
S2: And so you allow people to do replication work to
S2: check if these bleeding ideas, the bleeding edge are true.
S2: And then finally, you recruit scientists from everywhere with this
S2: with this new funding model of funding research. And what
S2: you have is a second scientific revolution. I started this
S2: with a pessimistic note, and I want to end with
S2: an optimistic note. We can solve these the nation's health problems.
S2: We are the most important nation in the world for many,
S2: many reasons, not least of which is that we are
S2: a nation that is absolutely devoted, that has tremendous scientific
S2: accomplishment to point to. And the future is bright. The
S2: future is bright because the investments that that that we
S2: make in science can translate over to better health for people.
S2: If only we if we solve the things that have
S2: led to us where we are, there's no reason for
S2: you to listen to me as an authority. Let's instead
S2: reason together and figure out what the what, what, what
S2: way to what what's true in science, and make investments
S2: that really meet the health problems of the country. Thank
S2: you so much, and thanks for your kind attention.
S3: That's Doctor Jay Bhattacharya from the National Institutes of Health.
S3: His restoring gold standard science from April of 2026. At
S3: a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar, you can find the
S3: entire lecture at Hillsdale. Freedom Library at Freedom library.hillsdale.edu. Up next,
S3: historian Mark Edward Lender joins us. We'll discuss the keys
S3: to victory in the American Revolution. I'm Scott Bertram. This
S3: is the radio free Hillsdale Hour. We're back on the
S3: radio free Hillsdale hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to
S3: follow us on X at Hillsdale Radio. We're joined by
S3: Mark Edward Lender. He has a PhD in American history
S3: from Rutgers University, professor emeritus of history at Kean University,
S3: also the author or co-author of 11 books, including Fatal Sunday,
S3: George Washington The Monmouth Campaign and The Politics of Battle.
S3: And the New One is War Without Mercy. Liberty or
S3: death in the American Revolution. Also here on Hillsdale's campus,
S3: part of our lecture series on 1776. Delivering a lecture
S3: on Keys to Victory in the Revolution. Mark, thanks so
S3: much for joining us.
S4: Well, thank you Scott. It's a pleasure to be here.
S3: Mark, how did the British treatment of the colonies initially
S3: spark this war?
S4: Well, there are so many myths, particularly as to why
S4: the Americans won that war. And there's a question is,
S4: did they win the war? Maybe the British lost it.
S4: And there is a difference. I was asked for last
S4: night's lecture to to discuss, uh, the keys to the
S4: Patriot victory. And it was, uh, historians love to get
S4: asked questions like this because the answer is almost completely Subjective.
S4: I mean, I've got to pick and choose between any
S4: number of issues. And historians dealt with this question for generations.
S4: You take this disparate group of colonies and you match
S4: them up against the probably at that time, the premier
S4: military power in Europe, well trained, well equipped army with
S4: a very capable officer corps. People make jokes sometimes about
S4: the automatons of the British army. That's nonsense. These were
S4: good troops. They were motivated. They were led by a
S4: career officer corps. So how did they do it? There's
S4: a lot of things that come into play on this.
S4: And I think part of the reason you've got to
S4: begin with the issue of motivation. I mean, uh, what
S4: what possessed these people to take up arms in the
S4: first place? And, and for that, I think we have
S4: to look back to the British and specifically to Edmund Burke,
S4: the Anglo-Irish statesman conservative writer who, in looking at the
S4: relationship between the mother country and her colonies, came up
S4: with the term salutary neglect, meaning that the British got
S4: their empire on a cheap. They had the economic benefits
S4: and strategic benefits of the colonies without a great deal
S4: of overhead, because they let the colonies rule themselves. The
S4: Colonials like the arrangement, of course, because well, they were
S4: loyal to the. To the King. They had a very
S4: ambiguous relationship to Parliament, and they liked that. This ended
S4: with British victory in the Seven Years War, or in
S4: the American context, the French and Indian War. All of
S4: a sudden they've got an empire to run. They've got Canada.
S4: They've picked up colonies elsewhere. So in rationalizing the whole thing,
S4: then came this whole series of acts, which, you know,
S4: we learn about from third grade on the the Tea Act,
S4: the Sugar Act, the Quebec Act, the proclamation of 1763,
S4: and that brought an end there, a practical end to
S4: salutary neglect. All of a sudden, uh, these colonials are
S4: no longer going to have the kind of local autonomy
S4: they come to expect as a right as rights of Englishmen.
S4: So what happens now? Uh, I think the best answer
S4: by a 91 year old militia captain, Levi Prescott. And he, uh,
S4: was Massachusetts. He's a Lexington and Concord, uh, veteran. And
S4: he was asked why, you know, what was this all about?
S4: He said, well, I, I didn't use any stamps for
S4: the Stamp act. Forget the Tea act. I never read
S4: any of these radical Republican ideology, ideological things. We had
S4: always governed ourselves. We always meant to govern ourselves. And
S4: they meaning the British. They didn't mean we should.
S3: Mark was the entirety of the revolution motivated by this
S3: desire to return to self-governance that the colonies had enjoyed
S3: under earlier British salutary neglect, or did the motivation for
S3: the war change over time?
S4: I think there was enough of that feeling to. Certainly
S4: there was enough of that feeling to spark armed resistance.
S4: I don't know that there was enough of that feeling
S4: to maintain the war until 1783, and for a lot
S4: of folks, yes, it was. But, you know, the reasons
S4: that people initially go to war aren't necessarily the reasons
S4: that sustained them through a long and traumatic conflict. Unfortunately,
S4: war goes on. It tends to develop a momentum of
S4: its own and cycles of revenge and retribution set in.
S4: And the reasons you went to war somehow become less
S4: important because you're dealing with actual survival as time goes on.
S4: And we have to keep in mind that the war
S4: for independence was not only a war of major armies
S4: and major battles, that was a mere minority of the
S4: actual conflict. Most of it took place at the local
S4: level between, uh, irregular pickup groups, militia groups, uh, tribal groups,
S4: even families defending homesteads. When that kind of conflict takes place, uh,
S4: grander notions of liberty and so forth, uh, kind of
S4: fade away, uh, and their place taken by, uh, an
S4: existential struggle for survival. Mhm. Uh, there was an interesting
S4: comment by Lord Carlisle. In 1778, the British sent the
S4: Carlisle Commission to negotiate with Congress, saying that everything you
S4: objected to will get rid of. No one called it
S4: such at the time. But what Carlisle offered, essentially, we
S4: would call Commonwealth status today recognize the sovereign. But for
S4: all practical purposes you are independent. Your own laws, your
S4: own armed forces. Mhm. Well, Carlisle came up with a
S4: blank wall and he finally realized that it's too late.
S4: There's been too much blood, too much treasure, too much pride.
S4: And he recognized, and he said that as long as
S4: Washington has an army in the field, these people aren't
S4: going to quit. Mhm. And at that point, there was
S4: no more talking. It was just going to fight it out.
S3: How close did the Americans actually come to losing this battle?
S3: Was there ever a point when it was inevitable that
S3: they that they would win? Or was there was there
S3: this chance of loss?
S4: You know, there's there's it's impossible really. Historians have tried.
S4: There's been all kinds of of efforts to say, did
S4: the British really, given the resources available to the military, fiscal,
S4: diplomatic and otherwise, do they really stand a chance? I mean,
S4: at top strength, maybe 35,000 active troops fit for duty.
S4: I mean, think about 35000 in the expanse of just
S4: the Eastern American states, 35,000 would barely fill a Big
S4: Ten football stadium on a given weekend today. They were
S4: just stretched too thin, but let's assume that they had
S4: a reasonable chance. I think that chance disappeared after the
S4: campaign of 1776, when they had several chances to destroy
S4: Washington's army at Long Island. At Second Trenton, and they didn't. They?
S4: There were other chances, too. I think they stood a
S4: chance in the South in, uh, when they came back
S4: in strength in 1779, late in the year. But then
S4: in 1780, uh, they made appreciable gains in the South.
S4: And I think if Cornwallis had followed orders and really
S4: focused on bringing South Carolina back into line, maybe, maybe
S4: they could have rallied enough loyalist support to, to make
S4: a dent in the in the colonial cause and at
S4: least perhaps taken the South back. But For various reasons.
S4: These things did not pan out for the British. Let's
S4: borrow from tennis. Call them unforced errors and they could
S4: have done a classic error as Howe swept across new
S4: Jersey in the 1776 was before the Battle of Trenton.
S4: He offered pardon, and all you had to do was
S4: accept the pardon, read, you know, read, declare your allegiance
S4: to George the Third. Go home and stay peaceable. It's
S4: about 3000 people took him up on that. And then
S4: within days or weeks, as the British Army moved across
S4: new Jersey, disciplined, somehow collapsed. And there's explanations for that. And, uh,
S4: we try to explain it in the new book you mentioned,
S4: but they pillaged and plundered their way across the state.
S4: Rape was all too common. The town of Princeton was
S4: actually sacked. And all the goodwill that Hal had accrued,
S4: offering pardon and simply evaporated. And within weeks the new
S4: Jersey countryside, which had scattered the state government had scattered.
S4: The militia had melted away. I mean, rose in arms.
S4: You had a popular rising. And that was very, very, uh, costly.
S4: I mean, new Jersey was all but back in the
S4: British orbit, and they blew it. And then what happened
S4: to those 3000 who had taken the pardon? They were
S4: publicly identified in accepting the pardon, and they were ripe for,
S4: how should we phrase it, political reeducation. And they were
S4: re-educated with a vengeance. Patriot authorities came down hard on loyalists.
S3: Mark Lender with us here on the radio free Hillsdale,
S3: our mark. Were there any counter revolutionaries in the comedies?
S3: How important was it for the Patriots to suppress any
S3: of those loyalist efforts?
S4: Show me a revolution that survives and allows an opposition
S4: to become effective. I mean, you, the Vendée and the
S4: French Revolution, the revolutionaries put it down the the white
S4: armies that opposed the Bolsheviks. They were put down and
S4: they had to if the revolution was going to succeed.
S4: And our revolution was was really no different. Patriots understood
S4: that their enthusiasm. Many of their neighbors, family members didn't
S4: share it. I mean, there was a lot of loyalty
S4: to the Empire. And you establish your ascendancy by making
S4: sure that your opponents simply can't organize effectively and mount
S4: a counterrevolution. And the patriots struck hard and fast to
S4: make sure that that didn't happen. And that was a
S4: war long effort.
S3: Mhm.
S4: And the British were never able to cover loyalists to
S4: the extent that they could declare publicly against the revolution
S4: in any, any safety, any way, and certainly not in
S4: strength enough to mount an effective counter-revolution. It was brutal.
S4: It was absolute brutal. And terror is not too strong
S4: a word to describe what happened in many instances.
S3: Talking with Mark Edward Lender, the new book War Without Mercy,
S3: Liberty or Death in the American Revolution. A point made
S3: that local forces were left to fight according to their
S3: own rules, which quite often meant no rules whatsoever.
S4: Right. Uh, this was pretty grim. And one thing that
S4: my co-author was James Kirby Martin. That's our fourth book together.
S4: As a matter of fact, what we did was we
S4: we looked at some of the numbers that other historians
S4: had generated, particularly, uh, Howard Peckham, who actually tried to
S4: quantify in 1974 in the run up to the bicentennial
S4: of the Revolution. He tried to quantify, using graduate assistants
S4: and other research assistants, to scour the archives in the
S4: various states to quantify the number of military actions that
S4: took place. And he came up with a number of, uh,
S4: over 1500 land and naval actions. And of those 1300
S4: and change were land actions. Jim and I took a look,
S4: and about a hundred of those were 100 more, 100 less.
S4: But it was kind of an arbitrary decision, was a
S4: major battle. But our chief criteria was for actions that
S4: concerned the main American and British armies going head to
S4: head with one another, and that come with about 100
S4: of them. So you've got like 90% of the war
S4: that was fought at the local level, not combat between
S4: the main American and British armies. So who was doing
S4: the fighting? As I mentioned earlier, it was often ragtag
S4: pickup groups, organized militia loyalists against patriots on the frontiers,
S4: tribal groups fighting white settlers. Uh, we've got instances of
S4: families defending themselves on isolated farmsteads. The, uh, the fighting was, uh,
S4: all out. Mhm. People understood that you were fighting in
S4: a contest where you simply couldn't expect much quarter much
S4: mercy from your opponents. So why should you display it
S4: toward them? It got very messy indeed. And if anything,
S4: we know that Peckham's numbers were quite conservative. I mean,
S4: we looked at, uh, new Jersey, my native state, the
S4: number Peckham came up with was 250 and change actions, uh,
S4: in new Jersey. Well, new Jersey was located between the
S4: chief British garrison in New York City and the de
S4: facto rebel capital in Philadelphia. So you're right there. You know,
S4: you're going to be in trouble. Mhm. But, um, as
S4: a member of the new Jersey archives staff, while Peckham's
S4: research assistant was compiling numbers for him, was also working
S4: on his own compilation of what was going on in
S4: new Jersey and had much greater access to archival and
S4: other local sources. He came up with about 600 actions.
S4: I mean, more than double the number that Peckham found.
S4: And when we went through those, we found that about
S4: 20 qualified as major American British armies going head to head.
S4: So it's again, about that 90% comes up. And we
S4: know that in new Jersey it was absolutely brutal. You
S4: had part of the northeastern part of the state across
S4: from New York City, became known as the neutral ground
S4: because nobody could control it. I mean, there was raid
S4: after raid counter raid after counter raid. Down south in
S4: the southern part of the state, Monmouth County, and below
S4: the local inhabitants, local patriots became enraged because the state
S4: simply could not stop loyalist incursions from from the coast.
S4: And they formed a group whose name says it all.
S4: The Association for retaliation. They fought a private war. The
S4: Patriot authorities frowned on it because they wanted a war
S4: conducted within legal boundaries, because that establishment was not a
S4: question of mercy. It was a question of legitimacy they
S4: were trying to establish. And while they frowned on it,
S4: did they try to stop it? No, no. They're having
S4: their cake and eating it too. Like, tut tut, don't
S4: do that. But nice job. On the other hand. So, uh,
S4: it's this local aspect of the war that I think
S4: accounts for a great deal of the violence associated with
S4: the war.
S3: With all these small scale skirmishes, private wars happening up
S3: and down. How did people find out about the status
S3: of the war? How did they find out how anything
S3: was going in the fight?
S4: You know, we have the benefit of 250 years of
S4: hindsight to look back and document all this stuff at
S4: the time. People frequently had no idea. I mean, uh,
S4: there were efforts at communication. They were irregular. Sometimes they
S4: were dangerous. I mean, you couldn't get couriers through certain
S4: areas and expect them to survive. We know that sometimes
S4: we're really important messages that American commanders were trying to
S4: get the word out. British commanders trying to get the
S4: word out. You sent more than one courier and by
S4: different routes and at different times, because you knew there
S4: was a pretty good chance that the message was not
S4: going to get through. Worse, it was going to be intercepted.
S4: And that was that was a real problem. So frequently
S4: people fought not knowing what was going on elsewhere, particularly
S4: on the frontiers. And sometimes when you found out what
S4: was going on, it didn't make any difference to you.
S4: A classic example. October of 1781. Cornwallis surrender at Yorktown,
S4: out on the frontiers. Did they care? They did not care.
S4: That war continued. Mhm. The Indian wars, uh, had settler
S4: forces back footed for a long, long time. They didn't
S4: end that until the 1790s. There's some pretty stiff fighting.
S4: Went on well after Yorktown out west. So communication was
S4: a real a real problem, even in the more settled east.
S4: But when you get out into the frontier areas, it
S4: could take a long, long time for people to learn
S4: what was going on. And then once you heard about it,
S4: it could be even longer to actually verify it. So
S4: this was, I mean, communications that we take for granted today.
S4: You simply could not take for granted. Mhm. In the
S4: 18th century.
S3: Mark Edward Lender has written in a book about the
S3: Monmouth campaign called Fatal Sunday. For listeners who might not
S3: remember Monmouth from textbooks or their their school days. Tell
S3: us a little about what that was, when it was
S3: and why it needed the focus of an entire book.
S4: Well, this battle that was fought in the middle of
S4: the state, 1778, after, uh, the British had evacuated Philadelphia
S4: and after Washington had gone through the experience of the
S4: Valley Forge winter, it was the politics of the whole thing.
S4: What did this battle mean? Because, you know, the battle
S4: was technically we're talking about a tactical draw. Uh-uh. Henry Clinton,
S4: who replaced William Howe as British commander in chief. Uh,
S4: poor fellow. He was in Philadelphia. And, uh, you you
S4: get handed the top job with, along with orders saying,
S4: give up the only real prize the British had won
S4: in 1777. And and he finds out that he can't
S4: even make a complete evacuation because the Royal Navy simply
S4: didn't have the transports to to get the army down.
S4: So they you you packed up a lot of loyalists, uh,
S4: some military units, a lot of dependents and a lot
S4: of your equipment. But then everybody else has got to
S4: march across new Jersey, which is a pretty hostile place
S4: to the British by this time. What I found was
S4: that this was Washington's chance to redeem himself. He had
S4: done a brilliant job in reconstructing the army at Valley Forge,
S4: but he had had a very, very hard time early
S4: in the winter of 1778. It's been called the Conway Cabal.
S4: Poor Thomas Conway actually had relatively little to do with it.
S4: But let's face it, you had Congress doing its job.
S4: You had hired a general to win a war. And
S4: in 1777, it did not look like Washington was going
S4: to win that war. So the stakes for Washington at
S4: the Battle of Monmouth were certainly military, if you're going
S4: to collide with the main British Army. But they were political.
S4: If he had lost another campaign, I think Washington's political
S4: problems would have increased exponentially. And working with an archaeologist
S4: was great because the archaeology had not been completed when
S4: I'd originally written that manuscript and Gary Stone was posted
S4: at Monmouth Battlefield State Park as an archaeologist, and I
S4: held off because I wasn't going to write something up.
S4: And then the archaeology comes in. So wait a minute. And, uh, when, uh,
S4: it was pretty much done, uh, Gary had come up
S4: with some wonderful stuff. And the Arc is the team
S4: working at Monmouth had come up with some wonderful stuff
S4: and really did it didn't change the strategic look at it, but, uh,
S4: looking at the tactical level to figure out actually what happened,
S4: because Monmouth is generally considered one of the most complex
S4: and difficult to explain of revolutionary engagements. Uh, we straightened
S4: out a lot of stuff and we were able to
S4: write it up.
S3: Very neat. That book is Fatal Sunday, George Washington, The
S3: Monmouth Campaign and the Politics of Battle. The most recent book,
S3: War Without Mercy, Liberty or Death in the American Revolution.
S3: Mark Edward Lender, American History PhD, from Rutgers and professor
S3: emeritus of history at Kean University. Mark, thanks so much
S3: for joining us.
S4: Thank you very much, Scott. I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
S3: That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free
S3: Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Jay Bhattacharya from the National
S3: Institutes of Health. We heard from his lecture Restoring Gold
S3: Standard Science. You can find the full lecture at Freedom library.hillsdale.edu.
S3: And Mark Edward Lender, co-author of the book Fatal Sunday. Remember,
S3: you can hear new episodes every week on this station.
S3: You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews,
S3: or listen any time to the podcast. Find it@podcast.hillsdale.edu or
S3: wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram,
S3: and this has been the radio free Hillsdale Hour.