In the fall of 1789, George Washington, only six months into his presidency, set out on the first of four road trips as he attempted to unite what were in essence thirteen independent states into a single nation. In the fall of 2018, Nat Philbrick, his wife Melissa, and their dog Dora set out to retrace Washington’s route across the country. By following Washington as he attempted to bring the country together, traveling as far north as Kittery Point, Maine, and as far south as Savannah, Georgia, Philbrick hoped to gain some historical perspective on our own politically divided times.

Washington accomplished an extraordinary amount to bring this unruly collection of states together in support of the creation of a federal government, of a tax plan, of a Federal City – what would become Washington, DC. Without this road trip, America may never have made it, and today’s leaders could stand to learn from George’s methods.


Episode Transcription:

But when it came to the New England tour, he visited 60 towns and villages alone. And that took a month. The longest one would be the southern tour, which would be three months. It’s a joke today, Washington slept here. All the sleeping around, but what he was doing was by visiting all these towns and staying in these public networks. This was hard work for him. Part of him enjoyed the travel, but the other part it was extremely repetitive, arduous, physical way, and took a lot of time, particularly when we think of our schedules today, taking three months off to the south is kind of experiment. History isn’t just a bunch of names and dates and facts. It’s the collection of all the stories throughout human history that explained how and why we got here. Welcome to the history unplugged podcast where we look at the forgotten, neglected, strange and even counterfactual stories that made our world what it is. I’m your host, Scott rank. In the fall of 1789, George Washington, who was only 6 months into his presidency, set out on the first of four road trips as he attempted to unite what were basically 13 independent states into a single nation. To retrace those steps in the fall of 2018, Nathaniel philbrick and his wife Melissa set out to retrace Washington’s route across the country. By following Washington as he attempted to bring the nation together, traveling as far north as kittery point Maine, and as far south as Savannah, Georgia, he hoped to gain some historical perspective on our own politically divided times. Nathana wrote a book about his travels called travels with George in search of Washington and his legacy, and he’s today’s guest. He learned a lot of the tricks at Washington use when he strode into town to try to show people that, well, he was a man of the people. He said in taverns, the 18th century equivalent of roadside motels, he traveled to the modest carriage with no security detail at all, and visited a local shops, but he also wanted people to celebrate what he represented, a war victory in the united nation, so sometimes he threw on his journalist uniform and rights reached towns thoroughfare on his big white horse Prescott. He also reached across a partisan divide and ventured into what might be considered enemy territory. At time, the interior of Georgia and the Carolinas that strongly opposed the new federal taxes, or Rhode Island, which had only just ratified the constitution over a year after Washington was elected. But worried Washington above all as he went through a very disunited United States was that he feared if there were a president that would follow him, his chief priority was divide rather than unite the American people. So we see that Washington’s challenges mirror our own today, but he also had unique insight on how to overcome them. There’s a lot to unpack here, and I hope you enjoyed this discussion with Nathaniel philbrick. Now, welcome to the show. It’s great to be with you.

Well, there is an endless amount of ways to explore the life and activities of George Washington. One of which you got to experience on a very visceral level and that’s retracing the steps of his first presidential tour. So to give a overview of what that was before he dive into the particulars. Could you take us through Washington’s first of four presidential trips, which he took in 1789, what were the stops? What was his purpose? And what was the ultimate result? Yeah. Well, in October of 1789, not even 6 months after he had been inaugurated. He set out on the first of four presidential tours. And what he was trying to accomplish was he realized there was a danger of him getting very isolated by the American people. And he also realized that the United States was already politically divided. There were federalists who were for the strong federal government created by the constitution. And then there were anti federalists who distrusted that strong federal government and wished that the states that had the same level of power they had had under the Articles of Confederation. So, and when Washington was inaugurated, two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the constitution. So he knew he needed to do something to make people believe in the United States of America, as opposed to their town or state. So he set out on the first of a series of road trips going from the temporary capital of New York to New England. He set out with a retinue as he called it of his horse drawn carriage, pulled by four horses, a baggage wagon, several servants, two of them enslaved, and an aid, and they headed out from New York and would eventually make their way all the way up to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He’d get to kittery point, Maine on a harbor tour. And then they would make their way back, following a different route back to New York. And he also wanted to make an impression. He was the most popular man in the world at this time. And he had the hope to use his popularity to create a sense of legitimacy for this new federal government. And he also had a sense of theatrics after 8 years as commander of the Continental Army. He knew how to make an impression. And so before you would come into a town, he would often get out of his carriage dressed in his general’s uniform, get on his great big white horse and ride down Main Street to great acclaim. And this had a truly galvanizing effect on the people as newspaper and Salem, Massachusetts would say the appearance of the president has united all hearts in his favor. And this had not been the case prior to his tour. There had been federalists and anti federalists who really stated their skepticism for the whole concept of a new federal government. But things had changed once he returned to New York after his New England tour.

I’m curious what people’s impression of Washington was before they saw him because today we’re inundated with so many images of the president that our brain gets the sense that we know him even though we haven’t met him before, but people would have not only, of course, senior video of him, but based on how pretty impressive worked back then wouldn’t have even seen an illustrated image of him. So what sort of connection do people feel to Washington? Do they just think of him as some sort of political figure that they had heard of and knew him leading the war effort? So what was their sense of Washington before they saw him and what was the reception that people had of Washington after they saw him and met him or encountered him? Yeah, well, going into this tour, he was the revolutionary award hero. And for just about all Americans, he was larger than life. He was, you know, that mythic figure that had somehow led this country against Britain and won the country its independence. And in a way, he was reinforcing that mythology by these dramatic entrances into a town. But what you also see are people realizing, wow, he’s just a man. And what’s remarkable during that New England tour are the times that anecdotes have been preserved of often children seeing Washington for the first time or Washington talking to a group of people where he says I am only a man or a child standing there slack jawed saying he’s a man. And this was exactly the message Washington wanted to deliver. Yes, I was led you in the American Revolution, but I am now your president and as the president of a republic, not a monarch, I am not a dictator. I am one of you who has been elected by you to lead this country. And so he was trying to have it both ways and press people, but also reinforce that he was like them. And one of the things he did to underline that was to insist on staying only in public tablets and most people assumed he would stay in the most comfortable quarters he could find. The houses of his rich friends and each town or city. But he didn’t want to play favorites and he also wanted to reinforce this sense of his being one of the people. And so staying in a public tavern in the late 18th century was not fun. They were largely flee infested, terrible beds, food worst, but Washington felt that this was part of the agenda he needed to have if he was going to bring this message of being a president who was yet one of them. I suppose it’s luxurious if you’re comparing it to valley forge, but compared to anything modern, not that great. I wonder, based on how much you have been able to reconstruct with his lodgings and how he traveled from stop to stop. It’s mind boggling to compare that to a modern day where days, maybe weeks, I’m not really sure how long before president would stay somewhere. The Secret Service would come, they would do a sweep of it, make sure that it’s secure, then the president says it. There’s multiple agents around them. They have a very tight security protocol. There’s basically a flotilla of security that travels with him. So any type of encounter with the public is either very stage, it’s for political ops or under very secure, very controlled circumstances. So based on what you know about that and compared to what you were able to reconstruct of Washington’s travels and his lodgings and everything else, were there any particular things that really stuck out to you of just surprising how modest it was in comparison? It’s almost unimaginable. The informality of his traveling. He had no security tail. He had one or two aides depending on the leg of the tour. There’s no evidence that they were armed. They probably had some kind of weapon with them, but there was really no concern for that. And he’s going from town to town on a horse drawn carriage. It’s not Air Force One, and some instances when he was returning from Portsmouth to New York. His schedule had not been announced. He was just trying to make as much as good a time as possible. It was just making his way back to New York. And so he would come into towns completely unannounced. And people would say, wow, that’s general Washington and make their way out to the tavern where he might be stopping for a meal or something like that. And so the level of informality is kind of astonishing when you look at it today. There would often be local militia who would volunteer to lead his retinue into town. Washington tried to convince people they didn’t need to do that. They didn’t need the formality and that he didn’t need the protection because what he really irritated him was with clouds of dust. The cavalry would kick up in front of him. And so often he would, in the morning, claim that he would be leaving about 10 o’clock or so, for example, and actually leave several hours earlier than that just to avoid having an escort. And so this was a level of informality that is just kind of unimaginable today. And remember, this is Washington was famous during the Revolutionary War for his personal bravery for his unwillingness to really take any kind of precautions during a battle and it almost seems natural that he would take this attitude during his tour of America. And I know that from what you were able to recount, Washington’s diaries or sparse at this time period. So in terms of forensic studies to try to piece together what it was that he said and what it was that he did during the strip, what is your sense of how he engaged with people, what sort of speech did he give and how did he try to exert political will and achieve his objectives on this trip? Well, one of the things he made a point of is that he wanted to talk with leaders in each community about the issues that were affecting the community, what their attitude was towards the emerging policies of his administration. He was making conscious efforts to talk with people during his tour. He would also often stop and talk to farmers about their crops, planting techniques. These kinds of things. And what we have, we have his diaries in which he doesn’t tell us much detail, but he does outline pretty specifically each stop along the way and those kinds of things. But he also there were recorded the addresses he would get. This would be, for example, coming into Philadelphia would be receive an address from the society of the Cincinnati from the collective group of religious leaders in the community from, in the case of Philadelphia, from what’s now the University of Pennsylvania. These kinds of things. And then that he would respond in writing to those, often they were ghost written by his aides, so there was this kind of formal back and forth. And then often at night, there would be or in the middle of the day, which was more common just given other times people ate in the late 18th century.

There would be lavish dinners, often including a series of toast followed by a volleys of cannon fire. And this was before tweets, but you can look to these toast as there’s information embedded there in which the community is expressing at one point, for example, Rhode Island had not yet ratified the constitution when Washington went on his New England tour. And in Worcester, there is a toast looking ahead to the inclusion of Vermont, hoping that before that happens, Rhode Island will choose to include themselves in the union. And so you have those kinds of messages being sort of formalized through the toes, which might seem very laborious and repetitive to us, but I’m sure Washington was paying distinct attention to what each toast was saying because they were in many cases very important messages being conveyed. And approximately, how long did this tour last in about how many different locations did he visit? Well, when it came to the New England tour, he visited 60 towns and villages alone. And that took a month. The longest one would be the southern tour, which would be three months. And the towns were much more spread out in the south. So somewhere in the neighborhood of the New England number. And so this was, you know, it’s a joke today, Washington slept here. All the sleeping around. But what he was doing was by visiting all these towns and staying in these public cameras. This was hard work for him. This was part of him enjoyed the travel, but the other part it was extremely repetitive, arduous, physical way, and took a lot of time, particularly when we think of our schedules today, taking three months off tour the south is kind of extraordinary. Yeah, this is interesting to see how politics and persuasion could stand in the 18th century. My mental map was thinking that, well, it wouldn’t make sense for Washington to travel because presidents largely, if I’m using the algae of a presidential election, which is different here, but they largely didn’t campaign personally. Something like a whistle stop tour where you travel across a nation doesn’t really come around to like a William Jennings Bryant in 1896, travel is extraordinarily difficult at this time the 18th century and many of the early projects of America were infrastructure projects of canals, and other things to be able to push people along faster later on railroads because the biggest challenge of all this new land in America was being able to successfully traverse it because travel was very slow at this time. But obviously what Washington did made sense and it worked and with this political calculus he was able to influence the right people and leverage them. So from a purely political standpoint, how was he able to be successful did he target? All right, I’m going to go to these particular cities which are influential in these states or in other cases colonies to the nodes of influence are going to be tripped at these different places. So did you get a sense of what the overall strategy was and how he chose different locations? Well, it varied with each tour. When it was the New England tour, it was early in his first term. And he hadn’t even finished creating his cabinet. It wouldn’t be until the following March that Thomas Jefferson would become Secretary of State. And Hamilton would begin to come forward with the financial policies that would, in many cases, be very controversial. So the New England tour was more here I am. There’s this new government in the country and I am your leader. By the southern tour, which was more than a year later, many of Hamilton’s economic plans such as the tax on whisky, which was very controversial in the south, had come into focus. And also the south tended to be comprised of anti federalists, those who distrusted the whole notion of the constitution’s creation of a strong federal government. And before he even headed south, word came to him that a former governor of North Carolina said he would be happy and honored to meet the general who won us our revolution, but he would not allow president Washington into his home. So there was a dividing line, and clearly this wasn’t all going to be a celebration. He had some selling to do. And so when it came to that southern tour, the first leg was following the coast to the south, all the way to Savannah. And he knew that in the large ports of Charleston and Savannah. These were unusual for the south. These were federalist pockets because these were rice planters who needed the infrastructure of a city who recognized the importance of taxation to maintain the systems they needed to get their produce to market. And so that was okay. He knew that was going to go. All right. But then he headed inland to Augusta, Georgia, and then up through Camden, South Carolina, into Charlotte, and Salzburg, Salem, and then eventually back into Virginia. And he knew already there, there had been discontent voice about the tax on whisky. So he knew he was going into a very different political environment. And as he would know when he encountered people who had problems with his policies, he said, once he explained the necessity of them, they seemed reconciled to that. He may have been whistling in the dark and here as president Washington, you’re only going to tell him what he wants to hear. But the fact of the matter is, while western Pennsylvania would erupt in violence over the whisky tax, a place that Washington did not go to in these presidential tours, the south there would be pockets of violence when it came to the whisky tax, but none of what happened in the western Pennsylvania and perhaps this was evidence that his tour had some beneficial effects when it came to people reconciling themselves to the policies of his government. Hey everyone, Scott here. We’re going to take a very short break for a word from our sponsors.

Well, you note that in some areas he’s received very well and then there are other places like the interior of Georgia, the Carolinas that are almost considered enemy territory, but before getting into the regionality and how strong it was at this time period. I’m curious viscerally about the trip because you retraced Washington step. So can you describe where you went and what sense do you think you gleaned from that of what his trip was like by actually going on part of it? Yeah, it was interesting. The very different between the New England tour and the southern tour. Going to New England, if many of these New England villages still have their greens so that and just about it seemed like every one of these towns had their Washington elm, where during his tour, Washington supposedly paused underneath this the outspread branches of an elm and viewed the beauty of this town and refreshed themselves before continuing on. Those were traditions that were a dubious authenticity. But the fact is you could see the landscape in large part that Washington would have seen when it came to these town greens. The roads were obviously very different, often following one or one a in many cases miracle miles where they would have been small country lanes to our reckoning. But still, you could sense the historical fabric of the late 18th century. You could see visual elements of it today. And then going south was very different in terms of depending on where we were. In following the coast down, particularly on our way to Charleston after leaving Georgetown South Carolina. We were able to find some of the roads Washington actually traveled that because other highways were built remain pretty much the way they were when he was there. Dirt roads through pine forests for miles. And that was pretty incredible to be driving down those and you’re not seeing exactly what Washington was seeing because in large part, the longleaf pines that once dominated the south have been completely replaced by la lolli pines that are a different tree. And yet you still had that sense of these little roads through the pine forests that are still there. And you talked about the regionality of it. It was in the south outside. You go to Charleston, it’s still quite a historic town. There’s tour guide historic tour guides everywhere in Savannah. The squares still exude a sense of the past. So that’s there, but it was really in the rural south where we would see there’d be plaques every now and then. And then there were so few public taverns in the south that Washington was forced in many instances to stay at the homes of private individuals. And in several instances, those were really nice plantations in South Carolina. But all of those had been destroyed by Sherman’s march, and many of them still are lay in the rubble that were there with the live, the live oaks that once lined their roads in still there. But they are not the magisterial places that Washington visited and yet you get a sense of it. And then when we went inland, the forests are different in all of that. And yet you still, in some instances in north of Camden, South Carolina, where the battle of Camden was fought, which ratio Gates was humiliated by cornwallis, they have planted longleaf pines in the long lead in the area of the longleaf forest that was the battlefield of that battle. It’s very evocative of not only what Washington would have seen as he came through on his tour, but of the battlefield that he was carefully studying because he was absolutely curious about because of what had been fought in the south while he was stuck at large part in the Hudson River area. And so it was the landscapes were very different, but in many cases you could find traces whiffs of the past that were very helpful, particularly when you consulted his diary and put the two together. I’m curious to going back to regionality of how different the locations were. I mean, you note that with these trips, he’s in essence going on to 13 independent states and trying to unite them into a single nation. And that’s incredibly strongly felt at this time period because Virginia, for example, is a colony that is really set up in the 17th century and its most prominent members are English royalists who during the English Civil War support the monarchy. A lot of the class division and essentially a cast system with slaves at the bottom and then poorer white laborers higher up and then wealthy landowners at the top is distinctly different from colonies set up in Massachusetts by Puritans who would be considered religious dissidents and they would be the parliamentarians during the English Civil War, so there are different branches torn asunder by different classes in English society that form different colonies in America, Catholics elsewhere. And then they have to be these different branches have to be tied back in together. And we understand that with regionality and we understand that the phraseology of the United States changes over time in the 19th century from the United States are to the United States is, but I think it’s easy to lose sight of how that changes over time and how it’s something that’s always evolving and it’s organic. So at this time in Washington’s journey, can you give a sense of that regionality and how different one state or colony can be from another one? Yeah. Well, particularly in Washington comments on the differences. And one thing to remember is we think of them as the southerner, yet was born and lived in Virginia.

But he had never traveled really south of his own state. He had just made it touched North Carolina prior to the revolution, but had not been to the South Carolina or Georgia. And so it was all new to him when he was on the southern tour. And he actually knew New England a much better because of his experiences during the revolution. But he’s observing what he’s seeing and what strikes him as he’s in Connecticut following the Connecticut river up into Massachusetts. He talks about the equality of the houses. The egalitarian nature of New England is striking to him. How each farm is that typical New England farmhouse with about a hundred acres, a few oxen and everyone seems to be about there’s no real wealthy people. There’s no real poor people. It’s the sameness of the culture is striking to him. He goes south, it’s obviously very different. As you were describing, the hierarchy of Virginia and the rest of the south is very much in place. The planters have these huge, huge homes, Hampton plantation in South Carolina still stands. It’s now owned by the state and Washington visited there and it looks pretty much as it did when Washington was there. And this was a home of close to a hundred enslaved people, and then there were the poor whites around as well. And Washington comments on there are these plantations, but then there’s really the houses that are in between are very humble. Mud docked shacks in many instances, particularly when he goes inlet. And there just aren’t those big plantations up there because there isn’t the agriculture for it. And so he comments on New England to him is very striking and it’s egalitarian nature. And in the south, he is when he goes to South Carolina and Georgia. It’s different from Virginia, but it’s in many ways. It’s kind of more of the same. And so it is striking to him. But I think what really surprised him as a virginian was how once he got into the inland of Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina, how terrible the roads were and how as he would say miserable the houses were. It was striking to him something that he comments on several times. And so he was learning firsthand how the country varied region by region. And we think of today we are the United States of America and we think of ourselves as Americans, but that really wasn’t the case before Washington set out on these journeys. You know, as you said, if you were the governor of Virginia, your country was Virginia. It wasn’t this thing called America. And Washington’s labor in making these journeys was to convince people to start thinking of themselves as something beyond their town or state as part of the United States of America. And it’s good to just not allow our 21st century ideas to infiltrate our idea of the past and a counterpoint to regionality. I heard recently really stuck out to me and it wasn’t a history description, but it was Alton Brown, who hosts a show on the Food Network called good eats, and he made a point that at least from a culinary perspective, regionality doesn’t really exist anymore in America, that the best Cuban sandwich she ever had was in California, and he went to Tampa, Florida, where the Cuban sandwich was invented by the qubit immigrant community, and he said he couldn’t find a good one there. In fact, regionality can hurt food because the food industry might rest on its reputation or laurels and not try to innovate anymore, which as a Kansas City and I’m worried about her barbecue scene here that we might just get a little bit too complacent. But good to remember, I mean, in distinction to how utterly different, one region could be for another one. In the 18th century. Well, with that challenge that Washington had, one thing that you know with your book is that he was worried that a future president might have the priority of dividing rather than uniting the American people because he could see that that could be quite easy to do with how different and varied people’s interests were. So what was his concern then and how do you think that speaks to the challenges of today? Yeah. In his farewell address, which was ghost written by Alexander Hamilton. It literally is his farewell address. What he’s proud of, what he’s worried about. And he does speak to Washington, the focus of his life, the focus of his presidencies, was creating the union. The sense of a nation of states, not dominated by any one state, but all under a federal government. And so the union was paramount. And if this republic was going to last in his view, the leader, the president, had to work to do everything he could. To unite these disparate states with all their regional differences and he had the unite them. But he talks about what if the president works the other way and actually exacerbates those divisions as partisanship, how devastating that will be pretty much predicts a lot of the things we’ve seen over the last 5 years of how the civility of discourse deteriorates to the point where people are basically each shouting at each other and where he says passions have no place in a republic when it comes to discourse if we are going to talk about our differences in an intelligent way. It creates divisions, he says that a foreign power will inevitably attempt to utilize to their advantage in getting a foothold in our country. One thing we’ve seen with tampering in our elections. And so watching this really concerned Washington. You know, I think if he came here today, he would not be surprised by the partisan divide by the stridency of our political divisions by the end of his second term, it was just as bad in many ways as it is today when it comes to the discourse and Washington was really disillusioned by it.

But I think what would trouble him are contemporary attempts to undercut the people’s faith in the federal government in the legitimacy of a government of laws to undermine those laws because he had spent 8 years attempting to establish a people’s faith in that government in those laws. And if the president and a good portion of the people begin to take a cynical skepticism towards the that undercuts the very principle of a republic. And so I think there is a message from Washington from 230 plus years ago, it comes to that. Yeah, very good point. And the elections after Washington, especially the election of 1800, was very ugly, too. So if there’s any optimism in the fact that bitter partisanship is by no means new America has been tested by that before, although Jefferson Adams were far more eloquent in their insults than they are today. That’s anything we can try to rise to. Although a lot of their hatcher men weren’t, so maybe that hasn’t changed as well. Yeah. It really got ugly, especially of that election, Washington had shuffled off the mortal coil. But on the other side of the war of 1812, with the demise of the Federalist Party, there was the era of good feelings under Monroe. And once again, the fires of partisanship would emerge, but it seems to be cyclical. And it gets bad and then it gets a little, you know, so it’s kind of goes with being a republic, I think. Well, something to tighten a lot of these themes that you saw both of Washington’s story and then your own as you experience it for yourself. During your trip, you met tour guides reenactors and what you call keepers of history’s flame. So what do you think were the best sites that if people who read your book also want to experience for themselves can also get a sense of the story if they see it with their own eyes? Yeah. Oh, there’s just so many places we went to. It’s hard to choose favorites, but you’ve got to start with Mount Vernon. The level of the interpretation, it’s Washington, the person, but of course something larger than that. And that’s where our journey symbolically began and ended. And that’s good in New England, sturbridge village is not a place Washington stopped in, but he basically walked right by that area. And those it’s a historic early 19th century, late 18th century New England village, and you can see exactly the kind of architectural details that Washington’s talking about when he’s talking about the egalitarian notion of things.

In the south, old Salem in what’s now Winston Salem is a moravian village that pacifists from Austria who wanted to trade, but also wanted religious freedom Washington visited there. Here he is, the commander of the Continental Army. And he instead of dressing in his military uniform, he’s in his drab brown coat and he spent two days at old Salem and the inn where he stayed is still there, and whilst sitting on the porch that’s still there, he was serenaded by the moravian brass band. And so that’s amazing. Hampton plantation, which I mentioned earlier, Washington visited there. He was actually apparently the first to go up the new steps of the porch that’s been there ever since, built very close to this huge live oak where the owner suggested to Washington that she chopped that tree down. It was just so close to the porch and Washington says, the supposed slayer of his father’s cherry tree says, no, do not cut that tree down. It’s too beautiful to be taken away. And it’s still there today. A kind of living monument to Washington’s visit. And so Charleston Savannah, they exude history, they’re full of plaques that speak to Washington’s visit. And you put them all together. It’s just was an amazing year and a half for my wife and I as we toured the country, but felt the presence of our first president. All right, well, there’s a lot to take in and for those who want to retrace that too. Your book can be a good guide for them. They undertake it, and the name is travels with George in search of Washington and his legacy. Now thank you for joining us. Oh, it’s great to talk. That’s all for today’s episode. If you like to see show notes with sources, maps, links, anything else related to this episode, and all my other ones as well. Go to Parthenon podcast dot com. That’s the name of the podcast network this show is a part of, along with James early’s key battles of American history, Steve Guerra is beyond the big screen in the history of the papacy and other great history shows as well. If you like to support this show, the two easiest ways to do so are to subscribe to it on the podcast player of your choice and leave a review. The second thing is to join the membership program for history unplugged. If you do so, you’ll get completely ad free episodes for the entire back catalog, which is about 600 episodes in growing, and all you have to do is go to Patreon dot com slash unplug. Thanks for listening and see you next time.

Cite This Article
"George Washington’s 1789 Road Trip Across the New United States" History on the Net
© 2000-2023, Salem Media.
September 30, 2023 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/george-washingtons-1789-road-trip-across-the-new-united-states>
More Citation Information.