The social science division. He received his masters and phd in history from the university of south carolina. Around, he is an avid fan. He has been a member of the faculty since 2005. He previously taught history at Jefferson DavisCommunity College. Some do not associate the Community College with scholarly production of writing and research. He proves the addition to the academic discussion of history and events is alive and well in Community College. This is his third book to be published. He has appeared on syndicated programs in support of those works. He has published Opinion Pieces on current events. While doing all that, he and his wife have found time to raise a family. They have a son and three daughters. I know they are very busy. We need to get on with the reason we are here tonight. I am pleased to introduce the author of the Founding Fathers guide to the contribution constitution, brion mcclanahan. [applause] brion how are you doing . Great. Thank you for coming, i appreciate it. It is great to see my students and friends from the community and faculty. Your support is welcome. I would also like to thank you for letting me do this year and also dr. Cannon, kelly williams, karen kelly, all the people that helps me put together helps me put together. And also cspan is your recording the event. I would be remiss if i didnt think my family, who cannot be here. They are the backbone in all of this. Start, i would like to tell each one of my students that this book is dedicated to you. It is dedicated to my children, the reason being every semester here i teach the constitution. As you are aware, i asked question, how many have ever read the constitution . Usually one hand goes up, maybe two, sometimes none. Factconfronted with the that i go into a blank slate, it is unfortunate. Governeditution is the document for the United States. We hear about the constitution and what it means, but there isnt much information out there in the American Public about it. That is a relatively recent phenomenon. People used to talk about the constitution a lot, whether in congress when they debated a bill in question, whether it was in the public through discourse commentaries, this is this was a big topic. Not so much anymore. Hear thees, you constitution is too old, archaic. It wasnt written in old english, it is not shakespearean. There are no thousand and please in it. Yous easy to understand if read it, but most dont take the time, i think because they are scared. They dont know what it means. They say here is article one, . Rticle two, what do they mean my job in writing this was to give people a readable story of the constitution. I went through applause clause by clause so students, whether at california or, maine, hawaii, across the country, would know what it meant to read the constitution and what the founding generation says this meant. I was also motivated to write the book because of the charge in the constitution itself. The founding generation left this constitution to their posterity. That is often a word we dont use. Trust to knowed what that constitution means, to understand it. To digest it. In doing this, i hoped the American People would do that if they were students of the constitution. Often times you hear different ideas. Some will say the constitution is an elastic document, you can read into it. It has words, you can read these words. We have to go beyond that. That is what this Supreme Court judge or this constitution a scholar says it means. Those that say the constitution is limiting. It is what it says, you cant go beyond that. We should interpret the constitution literally. There is this big debate. People get confused, which one is it . Is it loosely interpreted, is it elastic, or is it a limiting document . I actually wanted to cut through all of that. I didnt care what modern scholars said about the constitution. I didnt care what the Supreme Court said. I cared what the Founding Fathers said about the constitution. My journey began there. Book, conceptualized this most of you dont know that publishing process, you take an idea and are told yes or no. If you are told yes, you go from there. When i pitched the idea, i was going to focus on the component of the constitution. I was going to focus on what they thought. The publisher came back and said that wouldnt be good. It might turn out to be an anticonstitution book. I said how can we work with this . We brainstormed and decided to write a book on the constitution based on what the founding generation said about the constitution. Both for and against the constitution. I have read a lot of material about this. As i started digging through the research, i realized i have only scratched the surface. Much of what i knew was going to be change, or at least in some ways, it was going to be more involved. As i got the material, i said this is deeper than i thought. What i had often thought about the constitution is there, but there is more to it. It is more complex than what i had said about it in my first book. When you are looking at this document, it is the Founding Fathers guide to the constitution. Not just the Founding Fathers you are familiar with, it is all of the founding generations. It is a generational book for the american generation. Not just three or four people and what they said. I looked at what everybody said about it that i can put my hands on. This had to be sold to people. The Founding Fathers are important because they wrote it. I thought what about what a better source than going to the people who wrote it and had to present this to 13 sometimes tile ratifying convictions conventions and tell people this is what it means . You might be saying the constitution will do this, but be reassured, this is what it means. Thats the constitution we should be looking at, that is their constitution. That process is very important. The ratification process, the constitution meant nothing until the state decided to ratify it. That is the overall subject of the book. Im going to read you a quote from a founding father of North Carolina. I will refer back to it quite a bit. Often times, you get this statement, the Founding Fathers were a combative root of people group of people that didnt agree on anything. Who are you talking about . We know the big names, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, john jay, they are the authors of the federalist papers. Thatssays against formed the constitution. Most people read it and think they understand it. Look at the federalist papers and say that it. It is deeper than that. It goes much deeper. I would argue in the book that the federalist papers are not as important as you think. ,hey were written in new york and they didnt have much of an impact in new york itself. The state only ratified the constitution by three votes. It was gone over and over in the philadelphia connection convention and modified by important people. Some of these people you probably never heard of before like John Dickinson of delaware. Called a guy that was the 10 men of the resolution. Revolution. He was one of the most apportionment of the founding generation. When he went to the Philadelphia Convention, he looked at this constitution and said we are not having that. That is not going to work in these United States. You have someone like Roger Sherman, a man that thomas said aon once said never stupid thing in his life. This was also his constitution because he was a conservative, moderating influence. When he got to the Philadelphia Convention and saw James Madison, he said we are not having that. The people of connecticut will never agree to this. Or John Rutledge of south carolina. Another very important founding father, he would serve on the Supreme Court. He helped win the american war for independence from the saddle as governor. He said this constitution that you have written is not going to work in south carolina. We need to modify this thing. That is what happens in philadelphia. One historian calls it the miracle in philadelphia. No one was sure if this was going to get out of philadelphia. There were so many different ideas floating around that it appeared the constitution was going to die before the middle of the summer of 1787. The story you often hear about the constitution is it is the large states against the small states. Madison is from a very large state. That is not the real issue. The real issue was what type of government were we going to have . A National Government, or a federal government . Today, we have the federal government. The founding generation didnt call it that. Like dickinson, sherman, and rutledge said we dont want a National Government, we want a federal government. James madison wanted it wanted a National Government. Eight federal government only had general purposes in mind. Everything else was left to the states. Thats what the majority of the founding generation argued for. Not a National Government which put all powered authority. When you Start Talking about general versus federal and National Versus general, these are important terms. You still hear the term the United States is a nation today, it is still thrown around. The founding generation would face the general government for general purposes. When the constitution came out of philadelphia in september of 1787, no one was even sure it would get ratified. They have written it, talked about it, sweated over and poured their hearts out into it. No one was sure if this would make it out of nine states, which is what they required to ratify it. Be sold, that sales job is what i talk about more than anything else. The Philadelphia Convention, because sometimes you cant understand the constitution without understanding what they said it meant in philadelphia. Often times, you cant understand the constitution and what it meant all throughout the United States. This isdison agreed what he said. Constitution was brought to life and only found its meaning because of the state conventions which gave it all the validity and authority it possesses. Int we presented philadelphia means nothing. What the state ratifying convention said it meant means everything. We dont often hear about these things. Perhaps the most famous Supreme Court justice ever, John Marshall, never onetime referenced the state ratifying conventions in any decisions. They earlier never referenced. Those conventions is where everything was discussed and hammered out. These states, many wavering in support, were sold the constitution on the basis of what the constitution meant at the time. Thats what i said i was going to write a book based on what they said it meant. I bring in those proponents. Proponents and opponents of the document. You often hear there are two groups, the federalists and the antifederalists. Those terms are wrong. Eldridge gerry of massachusetts said it best. They werent federalist and antifederalists, they were rats and antirats. Have these federalists, what you are talking about are nationalists. They believe in a strong, central authority. They thought more power should be in the central government. Federalists, the often called the antifederalists. They believed in a federal government were states have much of the authority. This is today, how much authority is it going to have and how much are the State Governments going to have that is what we get out of this process. That is the main point in the book, to go through these opinions. Shocked me. I expected to write a book and say there are a lot of different , so you have to bring this out yourself and which one was thet what i found opponents of the constitution who said the government was z, it waso x y and wrong. They are arguing on the same positions in the same way. The consensus was there, there was an interpretation. What you have essentially is a general government for general concerns. Thats it. I will talk about how that worked and why they thought it was important. When we get to the discussion of the bill of rights. Be as not going to National Government and was not going to abolish the states, which some feared. As i went through these declarations and speeches, and pamphlets, all of these things, a multitude of volumes. The general consensus began to appear. I put as much of that as i can in the book. I wanted people to see that. The other thing i have often heard is i use a lot of quotations. Sometimes that can make it dry. I didnt want to be i didnt wanted to be brion mcclanahans guide to the constitution, i wanted to be the Founding Fathers guide to the constitution. They were better at saint what they meant than i am. At saying what they meant than i am. The quotes were important to me. I wanted to put as many as i could. There are two dependencies in the book that are nothing but quotations, stuff i thought was great, but i couldnt put in the book because i had. I think those sections are the most fun, because you can read what they said. Some of it is meaty, you just want to sit there and read for hours. What we have is a written constitution for the United States of america. Not of,is important, for. I want to read you a quote. Johnson said by samuel of North Carolina. He said this in the first North Carolina ratifying convention. North carolina essentially refused to ratify the document. They had to have two ratifying conventions. He said a parallel has been drawn between the British Parliament and congress. The powers of congress are also prescribed, defined, and clearly laid down so far they may go, but no farther. What are the powers of the British Parliament . They have no written constitution in britain. The power of parliament is unbounded. That is an important distinction to make. We have a written constitution in the United States, that was done for a reason. The founding generation wanted this to be permanent. Not that it couldnt be changed, they thought it could be changed. What they didnt want happening, this is how it was sold, they didnt want people going in and changing it without amending it. Through judicial opinions, or legislative decisions, bills, executive orders, whatever we do now. They didnt want it changed in that way. You start looking at how the founding generations sold this, it becomes clear. I often have debates about this. You say the constitution says what it means and means what it says, that is true. They intended it to be specific. That is how they sold it. People said it wouldnt be interpreted that way, but that is neither here nor there. It was sold in 1877 that it would be interpreted, not the other way around. Lets start with a preamble. The most famous 52 words in the constitution. We the people of the United States. There are a lot of misconceptions about it. These are things i am going to talk about that may surprise people or you may not know. One thing is it says the be setution is going to down for prosperity posterity. They intended it to be longlasting. S is the longest electing lasting written constitution in the world today. I thought through the amendment process it could be that way. Otherwise, you have a new constitution. They intended it to last for a long time. There are members of the founding generation that said that. What most people dont know about the preamble is the original preamble, probably nobody has ever read it. The constitution was first presented in philadelphia, this is what it said. Ofthe people of the states new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, connecticut, new york, and new jersey, pennsylvania, delaware, North Carolina, south carolina, and georgia. Established the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. That was the original preamble. You might wonder why they changed it. Its very simple. The man in charge of changing the preamble was gouverneur morris. He was thinking along the same lines as James Madison. They were afraid of some things. Didntone, rhode island send a delegation to the convention. How could they list in the preamble when they are not there . Number two, would all 13 states ratify it . If they didnt, and he listed them, that could cause problems. The constitution was only binding on the states that ratified it. If not everyone ratified it, it wouldnt be binding on them. It was a union of states, not people, which was pointed out over and over again. Times, we read into this preamble and think this is what the constitution means. Thats what it says, thats what the constitution is. Let me tell you what James Madison said. This is something most people never heard before. This is a quote from James Madison. The general terms or phrases used in the introductory propositions, and now a source of so much constructive ingenuity, were never meant to be inserted in their loose form in the text of the constitution. Like resolutions preliminary to legal enactments, it was understood by all that they were to be reduced by proper limitations and specifications into the form in which they were to be final and operative. That is it. Phrase, anreliminary introduction, nothing more. It just tells you they will have a constitution for the United States of america. Often times, list things out of it. One of the most faces is the term the general welfare. The constitution the preamble, even though every school child is required to recite it, means nothing. It is a beautiful 52 words, but thats it. It sets up the constitution, and thats all it is therefore. I think that shocks people, they think i know the preamble, i know the constitution. It goes deeper than that. The other thing i think individuals find shocking is the executive branch. We are up on a president ial election season, everything is fine around, we have our favorite candidate. Maybe you support the president , maybe you support his opponents. We are focused on the executive branch. Realizericans dont its the exact opposite of what the founding generation wanted us to do. In history, we are guilty of this. Washingtonth the administration, john adams, jefferson, we focus on these administrations throughout history. All the way up to the president. That is not necessarily how the Founding Fathers wanted to have the constitution interpreted. They had just broken away from a powerful executive in king george the third, over 10 years before this was written. Under the articles of confederation, the president was nonexistent. The president was the president of congress and they had a committee set up so the executive branch didnt factor in because there was no executive branch. When we got to philadelphia, they wanted one. The founding generation thought we needed a strong leader, but how strong . That was always the question. President is not taking is not a king, sometimes we dont think that way. The founding generation, to a man, feared executive power over all else. They didnt care about legislative power or the power of the states, they cared about executive power because they had seen in the time leading up to the american war for independence what that executive could do. They also had history on their side. I will talk about that with a great book from John Dickinson. Let me give you a couple of quotes about executive power. It is better to put it in their words. The governor of new york at this time was a man named george clinton, no relation to bill and hillary. The constitution when it was going through the revocation process. Ratification process. He said this. Compared your past opinions and sentiments with the present proposed establishment and you will find if you adopt it, it will lead you into a system which you are pervaded as odious. Every american with, not long since, poured his emphatic sympathy against the nonmonocle government because of the dangerous equalities where in does this president invested with his powers and Program Problems differ from the king of Great Britain . There was concer that th executive there was concerned the executiv was going to be too powerful that they were creating another king. Of the opponent constitution asked this. He wrote under the pen name an old wig. There were a number of people who thought could have been the author. He said if we are not prepared to receive aching, let us call another convention to revise the proposed constitution and form a new one on the principles of the confederacy of frees republics. Dont ratify the constitution, thats what we are going to get. This had a great effect on the founding generation. Now people who were in support had to defend it. They would say you are out of line, we are not creating aching a king. We dont want a strong executive, we do, but not really. It will only go so far. The proponents of the constitution began to and so, the proponents of the constitution began to write in support of the executive. John dickinson who is for the constitution said this. He wrote, the president will be no dictator because he is removable and punishable for misbehavior. And their definition of misbehavior was very loose and if they were abusing their authority, that was misbehavior. You can get rid of a president. You cant get rid of the king. The president is not hereditary. One of the most interesting arguments for the president , for the executive branch, came from south carolina. Charles pinckney, who was an Ardent Supporter of the constitution in fact, he wrote one of the original drafts said you dont have to worry about the president because his powers are so circumscribed, he cant go beyond them. If it does not say the president can do it in the constitution, he cant do it. There are no powers beyond what it says. But thats not how we think of the president today. It does not matter which Political Party you are talking about, president s tend to think of their powers as more expansive than that. But perhaps the final exclamation point came from Alexander Hamilton himself. Of course, Alexander Hamilton is one of the most ardent nationalist in the United States. Famously ind, very federalist number 69, about the powers of the president , and im going to read this to you , because he essentially said this is what the president is, and you dont have to worry about the president , because it cant do all the things youre afraid of. So he said this. That thewrote president served a four your term, while the king was a hereditary monarch. The president could be impeached, while the king of Great Britain was sacred and in voluble. The president had a qualified veto, while the king has an absolute negative. The president has a concurrent power with the senate over appointments and treaties while the king was the fountain of honor, and the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. The president can command the army and navy, but the king can declare war and praise and regulate fleets and armies, by his own authority. The president can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation, the king is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets, regulate weights and measures, lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit circulation of foreign coin. One is the supreme head and governor of the national church. So in essence, the president is , dont worry. But when you read what he said and think about executive powers today, we look to the president for many of those things, but that is not what the founders designed the constitution to do. That is the general consensus. So the executive was much less powerful under the constitution, the Founding Fathers constitution, than our own, at least how we think its interpreted today. But what about the other branches of government . We, of course, have a legislative branch and a judicial branch. The legislative branch was actually intended to be the most powerful branch of government because, for two reasons. One, the house of representatives, which is as close to the people as you can get, theoretically, and the senate was a representative of the states. That was the federal part of the constitution, meaning that these dates were represented in. Ashington, d. C. Eventually at the time, of course, when the constitution was ratified, in new york or philadelphia. So thats the branch of government that has the most power. If you read the document itself, article i lays out the congress, and its the longest part of the constitution. It has the most enumerated or delegated powers. And im going to talk about that term delegated for a second. And i mentioned this in class and, of course, this is very important, how you look at a delegated power. A delegated power is a power thats given because you have the authority to give it. By delegating it, you can always take it back. And so the idea was, as we were writing this constitution, the states and the people of the states are delegating authority to the central government, and if we want it back, we can always take it back. You dont have it forever. We can take it back ourselves. That, of course, is the crux of the 10th amendment, which i will briefly mention at the end of the discussion. So you have this article i, and then, of course, you have an article i, section 7 and section 8, section 8 being the most important part because thats where all the enumerated powers lie. But why is this Senate Important . And i want to mention that for a second. I mentioned the senate as a representative of the states. And the founders were very concerned about having a government that was too far detached from the people and then, also, too far detached from the states to be operative, to really represent them. And think about this. In the constitution itself, it says that the representative ratio is 30,000 to one, meaning there are 30,000 people to every one representative in the house of representatives. That was in 1789. Today its 700,000 to one. And when they were discussing the constitution, they said, you know what . We are concerned. Originally it was 40,000 to one. Thats too high. We need to bring that down a little bit. Some people thought it should be closer to 20,000 to one, maybe even 10,000 to one. That was an appropriate representative ratio. So when you look at 700,000 to one, you think, my gosh, how far have we come from that . But that was no problem to the founders in a certain way. If we had a general government for general purposes, that would be a nonissue. But the opponents were quick to point this out. They said, thus, it appears that the liberties, happiness, and great concerns of the whole United States may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. How inadequate and unsafe a representation. Inadequate because the sense of views of three or four Million People over such a territory comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests, and opinions cannot be collected inside so small a body. So what theyre saying is unless you have a fair representative ratio, these people if theyre going to legislate for all of us in my new shop, in minute detail, they cant do it. Its physically impossible. So we need to have a general government for general concerns. James wilson of pennsylvania, who was one of the greatest proponents of the constitution, later served in the Supreme Court, said this to sport with vigor a single government over the whole United States would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremittent despotism. Again, you cant have one single government legislating for us all. It is impossible, they thought. And you are talking about 3 million or 4 Million People who are now 300 Million People. So thats why a general government was more important to them. Because a general government, again, can only do general things, and in that way it wouldnt matter if you only had 535 representatives. Because the people could be better represented in their states. So we often hear this general welfare clause, and ive mentioned general a number of times. What does general welfare mean . What is the general welfare of the union . Well, Roger Sherman wrote the clause he essentially lifted it from the articles of the confederation, and this is what he said it meant. The objects of the union were few. First, defense against foreign danger, second against internal disputes and a resort to force, thirdly treaties with foreign nations, fourthly regulating commerce and drawing revenue from it. All other matters, civil and criminal, will be much better in the hands of the states. That was the general welfare. For commerce and defense. If government handled commerce and defense, and thats all they did, then the states or the people of the states would be guarded in their liberty. Another member of pennsylvania listed all the things that the general government could do and what the State Governments could do. This is interesting, and i had never seen this before when i wrote the book. But as i went through all this stuff, i found this, and i thought, wow, thats important because if we are going to say im going to argue in the book they favored a general government, well, heres exactly what they meant by that. This was written by a guy named cox. Was a political philosopher, a very important man in pennsylvania during the war for independence and, of course, served in a variety of elected positions. But this is what he wrote about the constitution and the general government. He said, the general government cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals, the making or regulation of roads except post roads, building bridges, erecting fairies, establishment of state seminaries of learning, libraries, religious, frightening or manufacturing societies, erecting or regulating the police of cities, boroughs, creating new state offices, building lighthouses, public wharves, nor can they do any other matter or thing pertaining to the internal affairs of any date, whether legislative, judicial, civil, or ecclesiastical. So, in essence, they cant really do anything. And then he said this about the states. The states can create corporations, civil and religious, prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves into their own ports, establish seminaries of learning, erect boroughs, cities, counties, promote and establish manufacturers, clear rivers, cut canals, regulate dissents and marriages, license taverns, establish ferries, erect public buildings, establish poorhouses, hospitals, houses of employment, etc. Basically, everything of a domestic nature can be done by them. So there you have it. Thats what the founding generation meant by general and federal. So hes arguing for the constitution, saying the general government cant do all these things, the State Government does all these things. But weve kind of looked at it the other way here in the modern era. The State Governments still do all this stuff. I often ask of all the levels of government go way tomorrow, which would you miss most, most people point out that State Governments would be the first they would miss, or the local business government, because that is where most business is done in the United States, but we seem to put more focus on the general government or the federal government than any other. So i found that very interesting. When i was going through this, i didnt realize the depth of that and how in depth they had gone to explain these things. Because you see this phrase general welfare and people talk about this, but the founding generation explained it. In detail. And there are several other quotes about the legislative that if i had time, i could go through. And of course, they are found in the appendices. But the fact is this general government that the founders designed was for general purposes. Now, last but not least, the judicial branch. We often put our faith today in the Supreme Court, and, of course, the problem with the Supreme Court, as we see over time, it does not matter which side of the political spectrum youre on, they might agree with your opinion in one case and disagree with another. They can change their mind over and over again. This happens throughout history. So which decision is correct . This is a problem. And the founding generation actually dealt with the judicial branch, and what they didnt want to do there was a general consensus that the Supreme Court may, in fact, declare federal laws unconstitutional. In fact, the opponents of the constitution hoped that could happen. But what they didnt want to happen was the federal court system declaring state laws unconstitutional, which now they do over and over again. So that was the real concern. Again, this was people like John Rutledge and John Dickenson and Roger Sherman brought this stuff up. We dont want the federal court system killing the state courts. That was a real fear. And so oftentimes you here, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of everything, but that was not so clear in the founding generation, and they werent necessarily sold on that. They werent necessarily certain about what they could do about it, but the idea the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of every legal decision was not set in stone in 1787 and 1788. And coupled with the fact that you have the bill of rights. We often talk about the bill of rights. The bill of rights were restricting clauses, as the preamble to them said, so these were restricting on the federal power. And the most important of the bill of rights was, actually, the 10th amendment. People dont realize that. It was number one coming out of the state ratifying conventions when they said, we want a bill of rights. To ratify this thing, you have to give it to us. So they were promised a bill of rights so theyd ratify the document. So as we look at the bill of rights and the 10th amendment, it says all powers not delegated to the central authority, and im paraphrasing, are reserved to the people and the states respectively. And this was to go straight after what Patrick Henry called the sweeping clauses in the virginia ratifying convention, and b is were the general clause, the supremacy clause and the necessary and proper clause , which i devote a lot of text in the book to. What they wanted to ensure with the 10th amendment is the way that the constitution is being sold to the states, that it was going to be a general government for general purposes, that it was going to be a limited government, that it was going to be what it said in the constitution was what it said, you cant go beyond that, was codified in the document itself. They didnt necessarily trust people like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison when they swore up and down, or james wilson, or pick your proponent, when they swore up and down this thing was not going to be abused. They didnt trust them, so they wanted that 10th amendment. And again, it was first in almost every proposed bill of rights. James madison made it 10th because he wanted to minimize it. But everyone knew that was the most important amendment of the bunch. So again, its a general government for general purposes. Now, i want to conclude with a quotation from John Dickenson. John dickenson, again, was this was his constitution in so many ways. And this actually gets back to the point i made before, that we have a written constitution rather than an on written constitution. And people ask me, well, why are the Founding Fathers important . Well, we have a written constitution, they wrote it, they ratified it, so we should listen to them, and this is why we should listen to them. During the Philadelphia Convention when things were get getting out of whack and John Dickenson thought we were going to far to the nationalist extreme, he said this experience must be our only guide, reason may mislead us. It was not reason that discovered the singular and admirable mechanism of the english constitution, it was not reason that discovered or even could have discovered the odd, the absurd mode of trial by jury. Accidents produced these discoveries, and experience has given us sanction to them. This, then, is our guide. So hes saying, look, we have a constitution what he would say now experience has proven through our understanding of history, whether it was roman history, greek history, british history, they all about this stuff. Experience proves that were trying to do here and this document they produced would be the best form of government, number one, the people of the states would accept but, number two, that it would last. Thats what they wanted to do. They didnt want something torn asunder and taken apart. They had just gone through a war with the british. They didnt want another. They didnt want to see another revolution in the United States. They hoped that a general government could absorb all the different people in the United States. And as we all know, even to this day, people are different from different parts of the United States. And so they hoped that this general government could say, oh, well, we have different people from the south or the north or the Midatlantic States or the west or wherever were talking about, but if government doesnt regulate their every move and it is a general government, they can be best served in the states with the laws they think need to be passed. And people often say, my gosh, the states arent very receptive to that. Actually, thats simply not true. If you look at the issue of, say, religious freedom, virginia was the first state to codify religious freedom, even before the bill of rights. Other issues of Civil Liberties that we often discuss today, you have more of those in states than you do at the federal level. So people can often be frustrated by the general government, but the states much more responsive to your wishes. You have a much more adequate representation here in the states. And this is the same thing the founders would say. Thats how they argued it. It was a general government , again. So the question is, where do we go from here . Why write a Founding Fathers guide to the constitution . Well, i wanted to start the discussion. I wanted people to be able to take the constitution and look at it, break it apart and say, well, this is what the founding generation meant. I wanted to start the education process, through things like this, through writing the book, through discussions, public discourse, through meetings. I want people to talk about the constitution again. And thankfully, thats happening. But they need to be armed with the words of the people who wrote it. Because if we dont do that, were failing in their charge of giving this constitution to their posterity, of the blessings of liberty to their posterity. So id like you to think about that. As you, hopefully, read the book, as you read the constitution, as you listen to candidates doesnt matter what party theyre from or where theyre from if you listen to them talk about things, ask questions about the constitution. Well, i want to know, what do you think about the constitution . They all swear to uphold and defend it, so ask them about it. If their opinion jibes with yours, if their opinion is in line with your opinion, then great. Lets start the discourse. I hope the Founding Fathers guide to the constitution is part of that discourse. And i thank you very much for your time this evening. I will take questions. Please come down to the microphone and ask. And i hope that you have some. [applause] collects yeah, brion, can you hear he . Mr. Mcclanahan most definitely. Thanks very much. I have been reading your book and i found it very important and well written. So thank you for that. [inaudible] alter your motive of the judiciary you mentioned state constitutions and what people thought about the Founding Fathers. Why do you think the judiciary early on seemed to ignore that . Was it a power trip . [inaudible] agoad a decision not long which i think is a horrible decision. Private property rights. Just goes to show you how the judiciary can be a tyranny. Mr. Mcclanahan sure, thanks. John marshalls an important guy, of course, a member of the founding generation. In fact, in the virginia ratifying convention, he swore up and down the Supreme Court may declare laws unconstitutional, but they would never do that to the states. And he lied, essentially. I mean, he was not being honest. So when he became chief justice, John Marshall was by this point, of course, you had politics infused in everything, and John Marshall was with what they would have called a federalist, and you had the jeffersonians who he called terrorists, so he was very concerned about this jeffersonian revolution that was in so many ways taking over the United States. Thomas jefferson had just been elected president in the 1800 election. He then was chief justice, put in power or put on the bench, i should say, by john adams, the outgoing president. So what John Marshall wanted to do was undo the entire jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. This was politics. So what he decided to do was use the bench to do it. Its that simple. Now, marshall was afraid of democracy. He was very much antidemocratic as well, and i think what he saw in jeffersonianism was this push towards more democracy, and he didnt like that. But, of course, marshall set the precedent that everyone followed , whether it was marbury v. Madison in 1803 or mcculloch v. Maryland, that set the stage for every Supreme Court decision that weve had from there on out. And he was being very disingenuous, but i think for marshall himself, he was playing politics more than anything else, and he really didnt like the jeffersonians, and he worked against them in any way he could. Other questions . Dont be shy. Come on down to the microphone so we can get you on tv. [inaudible] mr. Mcclanahan i have not, primarily because in a survey course, you know, you focus on the general things and move from there. But, yeah, i just, i havent. And were we have a textbook, and thats about it, you know . We try to stay in that, in that very general terms in a survey course. Other questions . [inaudible mr. Mcclanahan three. One hasnt been published. It will come out in may, but three. [inaudible] mr. Mcclanahan thanks. [inaudible] mr. Mcclanahan well, i mean, the mechanism was there to change it. I think, you know, the founding generation, of course, they wrote two constitutions. One was the articles of confederation, the other was the constitution. They would say, of course, the will of the people was determined to write a new constitution, then call conventions and do it. Or amend the current constitution. I mean, that was discussed. In fact, they openly discussed having another convention after the Philadelphia Convention to write another one. So that was a possibility. What they didnt want to have happen is essentially what has happened, where we dont write a new constitution, but we have a new constitution in that were reading between the lines so much and expanding it in ways they didnt see possible. And thats the way it was sold, they would never do that. No one would ever expand the constitution without amending it or getting a new constitution. So i think that they would be receptive if the people wanted to have a new constitution, they could call state conventions and do it. But dont go about it the way that americans have ultimately gone about it, and thats changing it without actually changing it. I think thats where the fear would be. Any other questions . All right. Well, i will be signing books in the lobby if yall want to if you have a book that youd like me to sign, ill also be selling books there, you can purchase one. But i do thank you all for coming out tonight and, you know, appreciate your support , and have a good evening. [applause] on history bookshelf, here from the countrys bestknown American History writers of the past decade, every saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. And you can watch any program at any time when you visit our website, cspan. Org history. You are watching American History tv, all weekend, every weekend on cspan3. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer sunday night on afterwards, black lives matter cofounder the trees with her book when they call you a terrorist. She is interviewed by an author and journalist. As we created black lives matter, we knew we had to get people on board. When peoplenterrupt try to coopt black lives matter. So we spent a significant amount of the first year ensuring it was not coopted, challenging people in our own movement sometimes to not say our lives matter, do not use it to say other communities matter, but to really focus on black people. To be allies and be in solidarity with black people. Then we took it out to the world. Announcer watch afterwards sunday night at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2s book tv. Sunday on American History tv, an oral history interview with a u. S. Military Academy Graduate and vietnam war veteran, Kenneth Carlsen. Here is a preview. I have got another mission for you. Evacuate the vehicles you need to evacuate, then i want you to continue down to a nine until you get to these coordinates and i want you to turn into the dmz. Thats north. Dont cross the river, obviously , which divides north and south vietnam. There is a big, huge, dry rice paddy there. I want you to set your troops up in a perimeter that guards that rice paddy. I want all the vehicles facing outward. He said, set up the perimeter, thats all i can tell you right now. So we did that. Why . Eutenant said, i said, standby, this is directly from the desk, so were going to do this one. In came the ch46, the marine version of the 47 helicopter. The back ramp comes down and outcomes six guys carrying cans. They set up along the paddy dike. They are standing there waiting and we are waiting. The lieutenant calls and said sir, what is going on . I said, standby. Out of the dmz comes a Marine Force Recon team of about 15 guys. They have not shaved in a month. They are dirtier than dogs and they come walking out. They meet with these guys and may make each one of them an ice cream sundae with soup to nuts, cherries, maraschino, whipped cream, cherry on top, nuts. These guys are standing there eating an ice cream sundae. Then they had the stuff back, they put it in the cans, walk back into the dmz, and the helicopter takes off. My lieutenant calls me and said, sir, what did we just see . I said, i think it was an ice cream social. I really dont know. All i know is where the order came from. Five minutes later from his helicopter, the ch46, sudden death 66 calls me up by the way, this is the way marines talk on the radio, they call you by your name lieutenant, that you wondered what you were doing. Sir, we were curious. Those guys have been in the dmz for a month and i figured they deserved an ice cream sundae. I said, that is an excellent idea. He said, in order to make that happen, i had to have absolute security. I said, ok. He said, because i was one of the guys in the cooks whites. The only way the Third Marine Amphibious force would allow me to be that close to the dmz, they made me promise that i would have absolute security, and you are the guys who did it. Semper fi. Thats all i could say. And they said,y thats one of the best missions we have you can watch the ente interview with Kenneth Carlsen sunday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on American History tv. Museum of african American History and culture recently opened an exhibit looking at the 1968 poor peoples campaign, which Martin Luther king jr. Organized to shift the focus of the civil issues. Ovement to he was assassinated before the campaign got underway in washington, d. C. A panel of activists and Smithsonian Museum staff look at this legacy. This is about one hour. It is our pleasure to welcome you to this meeting events for city of hope. You are in for a wonderful discussion from some brilliant people. It is my pleasure to be the Deputy Director of the National Museum of african American History and culture. We are going to get started in a moment. I