It used to be that people talked about the constitution quite a lot. ,hether it was in congress whether the bill in question was in constitution or not. Whether it was in the public through discourse, commentaries. For manya big topic years in the United States. Not so much anymore. People say you hear that the constitution is too old, it is archaic. It wast time i checked, not written in old english or shakespearean. Thee in it. Thou or i think people are scared. They dont really know what it means. They look at the document and what do those things actually mean . My job was to give people a readable story of the constitution. I went through clause by clause and wrote it down. Would know what it meant to read the constitution, what the founding generation said this constitution meant. It also i also was 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 that we dont use. That is us. We have a sacred trust. Constitution,the to read it. To judge just it. To digest it. I hope the American People would do that. Oftentimes, you hear different ideas about the constitution. Some will say that the constitution is an elastic document. You can read into it. It is stretchable. Can read theseou words, but we have to go beyond that. That is what this Supreme Court judge or this scholar says it means. And then you have those who say that this constitution is a limiting document. It says what it says and you cannot go beyond that. You should interpret the constitution literally. There is this big debate, and people get confused by the stuff. Loosely interpreted document, is it an elastic document, or is it a limited document. I had to cut through all that. I did not care what modern scholars said about the constitution. I dont care about what the Supreme Court said about has to show. I care about what the Founding Fathers said about the constitution. When i originally conceptualized this book, and those who dont know the publishing process, you are told yes or no and if youre told yes then you go from there. Ien i pitched the idea focused on the primarily the opponents of the constitution. What they thought about the constitution. The publisher came back and said that would not be good here it it might turn out to look like in anticonstitution book. So i said how can we work with write aat we decided to constitution based on what the founding generation said about the constitution. Both for the constitution and against the constitution. I have read a lot of material about this. I i started digging through, realized that i had only scratched the surface. Much of what i knew was going to be changed or, what i thought i knew was going to be more involved. As i got into the material i said my gosh, this is deeper than i thought. About theught constitution is there, but there is much more to it. Of course, when you are looking justis document, it is not the Founding Fathers that you are familiar with, but it is all the founding generation. For is a generational book the american generation. It is not just for people and what they said not just four people and what they said. This thing had to be sold to people. I will talk about that in a second. The Founding Fathers are important because they wrote it. Betterht wouldnt it be than going to the people who wrote the document itself. They had to go to the press and it is not going to do that, this is actually what it means. That is the constitution that we should be looking at. That is the Founding Fathers constitution. That process is very important. The whole ratification process, the constitution meant nothing until the state decided to ratify it. Overall subject of the book. I am going to read you a quote from a founding father of North Carolina. I will refer back to the quote quite a bit. Oftentimes, you will get this statement that the Founding Fathers were just a Combative Group of people who did not agree on anything. In what matters are you talking about . We all know some of the big names. Alexander hamilton. James madison. John jay. They are the authors of the federalist papers. Most people that read constitution and think that they understand the constitution will look at the document itself and look at the federalist papers and say that that is it. It is deeper than that. I would argue that the federalist papers are not as important as you think. They were written in new york, and they did not have much of an impact in new york itself. The state of new york only ratified the constitution by three votes. Three votes. These 85 essays that people say are the definitive source on the constitution did not have much impact at the time. There were others, and there were other members of the founding generation that were even more important. James madison was often called the father of the constitution, i would say that is a misnomer. The historical scholarship has come around to that. He did present the virginia plan, or at least wrote it. But the constitution that we have is not his. It was gone over and over in the Philadelphia Convention, and modified over and over by a number of different people. Some of these people you have probably never heard of before like john dickinson. Called a guy that was the penman of the revolution. He was one of the most important men of the founding generation. Bar none. When he went to the convention he looked at this constitution and said no, we are not having that. That is not going to work. You have someone like roger sherman, a man that Thomas Jefferson once said never said a a stupid thing in his life. His constitution because he was a conservative, moderating influence. When he got to the convention and saw James Madisons work he said we are not having that in these United States. It is not going to work. The people of connecticut will never agree to this. Carolina, another very important founding father. He would later serve on the Supreme Court. He helped win the american war in South Carolina from the saddle of governor. Issaid no, this constitution not going to work in South Carolina. We need to modify this thing. That is what happens in philadelphia. One historian called it a miracle in philadelphia because no one was sure that this was going to get out of philadelphia to begin with. So many different ideas and opinions floating around. It appeared that the constitution was going to die before the middle of the summer of 1787. The story that you hear is simple, 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 where we going to have. A national government, or a federal government . Today we have this term that we have a federal government. The founding generation did not call it that. They said we do not want a national government, we want a federal government. James madison wanted a national government. There is a difference. The federal government was a general government. Meaning that it only had general purpose in mind. Basically, Everything Else was left to the states themselves. That is what the majority of the founding generation argued for. Whichnational government, put all power in the Central Authority. They were not going to have that. When you Start Talking about general versus federal and National Versus federal, these are important terms. And they are not going away. The founding generation would say that the general government for general purposes. I will talk about that in a few minutes. Constitution, it came out of philadelphia in 1787. No one was sure that it would get ratified. They had written it, talked about it, sweated over it, poured their hearts out into it. But no one was sure if it was even if it would make it out of to the United States. Then it had to be sold. That sales job is actually what i talk about more in the book than anything else. I bring up the Philadelphia Convention because sometimes you cant understand the constitution without understanding what they said it meant in philadelphia. Oftentimes, you cant understand the constitution and what they said it meant without understanding what they said in the state ratifying conventions all throughout the United States. That theison agreed constitution was only brought to life, and only found its meaning, because of the state conventions which gave it all the validity and authority it possesses. In other words, what we presented in philadelphia means nothing, what the state ratifying conventions say it meant means everything. We dont often hear about these things. The most famous Supreme Court nevere, John Marshall, referenced the state ratifying conventions in any of his decisions. The state ratifying conventions is where everything was discussed, hammered out, and were sold the constitution. On the basis of what the constitution meant at the time. I bring in both opponents and components. You have heard that there are two groups. Federalists and antifederalists. Those terms are wrong. Said it best. They were not federalist and antifederalists, they were rats and antirats. Which is pretty funny. You have these federalists, but in reality you are talking about nationalists. They believe in a strong Central Authority. They thought more powers be in the Central Government. And then you have the federalists or antifederalists. That the states had much of the authority. This is the debate. How much authority does the Central Government have. What we get out of this entire process. That is the main point of the book. To go through these different opinions. What i found shocked me. I expected to write a book and say that there were a lot of different opinions, and so you have to bring this out yourself on which one was correct. What i found was this, over and over again of the opponents of the constitution were told by they wereents that arguing on the same positions in the same way. The general consensus was there, there is a founding father interpretation. Essentially, what you have is a general government for general concerns. That is it. I will talk about how that worked in a few minutes and why they thought that was important. It was not going to be a national government, and it was not going to abolish the state. As i dug through these declarations and speeches and pamphlets. There is a multitude of volumes on these this stuff. I put as much of that as i can in the book. I want people to see that. The other thing that i have often heard about this book is that i use a lot of quotations. Sometimes i can make it a little dry. But i wanted it to be the Founding Fathers got to the constitution. Sock i put as much of them in it as i could. At saying what they meant than i am. It is not hard to understand. Important to me. I wanted to put as many as i could in there. In fact, there are two appendices in the back of the book that are nothing but quotes. Stuff that i thought was great but i could not put in the book because i did not have space. I think those two sections of the book are in some ways the most fun because you can read what they said and some of that stuff is so meaty that you can just sit there and read it for hours. So, what we have is a written constitution for the United States of america. It is for the United States of america. I want to read you a quote. This was said by samuel johnson. One in the first North Carolina ratifying convention. North carolina refused to ratify the document. They had to have two ratifying conventions. He said this. A parallel has been drawn between the British Parliament and congress. The powers of congress are all circumscribed, defined, and clearly laid down. So far they may go, but no farther. But sir, what are the powers of the British Parliament . They have no written constitution in britain. The power of harlot is unbounded. That is an important distinction to make. Constitutiontten in the United States. They couldnt be changed, because the amendment process. This is how the thing is sold, what they did not want happening is people going in and changing it without amending it. Judicialit through opinions. S, they did not want it changed in that way. When you start looking at how the founding generation sold this thing, it becomes very clear. Is y the constitution says what it means, well that is true. But they intended it to be very specific, and that is how they sold it. People said it would not be interpreted that way, but that is neither here nor there. It was sold in 1788 that it would be literally interpreted. Lets start with the preamble. The most famous 52 words in the constitution. We do people of the United States, im sure many of you could recite it. These are some things that im going to talk about that may surprise people. One thing, the preamble says that the constitution is going to be set down for their posterity. In that way, they intended this thing to be longlasting. It is the longest lasting written constitution in the world. They wanted it to be that way. Through the amendment process, it could be that way. Otherwise, you have a new constitution. They intended it to last for a very long time. There are many founders who said that. Know, is people dont the original preamble, probably no one has ever read it. Or very few people have read it. When the constitution was first presented, this is what it said. Ofthe people of the states new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, providence plantations, new jersey, and georgia, do ordain and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity. That was the original preamble. You might wonder why did they change it. It is very simple. The man who was in charge of changing the preamble was a nationalist. He was thinking along the same lines of James Madison. They were afraid of some things. Rhode island did not send a delegation to the Philadelphia Convention. How can you list them in the preamble when they are not there . When all 13 states actually ratified this thing, and if they did not and you listed them in the preamble than that would cause problems. The constitution was only bonding on the states that ratified it. This was a union of states, not of people. Oftentimes, we read into this preamble and think this is what the constitution really means. Let me tell you what James Madison said about the preamble. This is a quote from James Madison. The general terms or phrases used in the introductory compositions are now a source of so much constructive ingenuity, were never meant to be inserted in their loose form in the text of the constitution. 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. This is a preliminary phrase. An introduction. Nothing more. It just tells you that they were going to have a constitution. The preamble, even though every required to recite it, it means nothing. It is a beautiful set of words, but that is it. It sets up the constitution and that is all it is therefore. I think that shocks people. It goes a lot deeper than that. Thing that i think individuals find shocking is the executive branch. We are coming up on a president ial election season. We all have our favorite candidate. You support the opponents of the president. We are focused on the executive branch. Most americans dont realize that the exact opposite is what the founding generation wanted us to do. Even in history we are guilty of this. We focus on administrations. We start with washington, john adams, we focus on these administrations. We do this all throughout history. Again, that is not necessarily how the Founding Fathers wanted it. They had just broken away from a very powerful executive in king george the third a little over 10 years before this thing was written. Under the articles of confederation, the president was nonexistent. The president was simply the president of congress. They had a committee set up. The executive branch did not even factor in. We got to philadelphia, they wanted one. The founding generation thought we needed a strong executive. At how strong . That was always the question. President is not a king. I think sometimes we dont think that way. Generation feared executive power over all else. They did not care about legislative power, the powers of the state, they cared about executive power because they had seen what that executive could do. L throughout history let me give you a couple of quotes. It is better to put it in their words than mine. The governor of new york was a man named george clinton. No relation to bill and hillary. He wrote about the constitution when it was going to the ratification process. He used a you will find that if you adopt it it will lead you into a system which you heretofore reprobated as odious. Whig bore his emphatic testimony against the government. The dangerous quality that it created among citizens. Wherein does this president essentially differ from the king of Great Britain . He was concerned that the executive and the constitution was going to be too powerful, that they were essentially creating another king. Another opponent of the constitution asked this. He wrote under another pen name. No one knows who it is. If we are not prepared to receive a king, let us call another convention to revise the proposed constitution and form a new one. If we are not ready to receive a king dont ratify the constitution because that is what we are going to get. This had a great effect on the founding generation. Now people who are supporting the constitution have to defend it. They say you are out of line here, we are not creating a king. We dont want a strong executive, we do, but not really. It is only going to go so far. The proponents of the constitution began to write in support. John dickinson, who was for the constitution said this. Will be nont dictator because he is removable and punishable for misbehavior. Their definition of misbehavior was very loose. You can get rid of the president , you cannot get rid of a king. President is not hereditary. One of the most interesting arguments for the president , for the executive branch came from South Carolina. , he wrote oneey of the original drafts, said that you do not have to worry about this president because his powers are so circumscribed that he cannot go beyond them. Does not sayf it the president can do it in the constitution than he cannot do it. There is no power beyond what it says. That is not how we think of the president today. I think the president s tent to think of their power as more expensive than that. Expansive than that. Perhaps the final came from Alexander Hamilton himself. Ardentne of the most nationalists in the United States. About the powers of the president. Im going to read this to you. He said that this is what the president is and you do not have to worry about president because he cannot do all the things that you are afraid of. He said this. Hamilton wrote that the president serve a fouryear term when the king was a hereditary monarch. The president can be impeached and removed while the king was sacred and the president had a qualified veto. The president had a concurrent power with the senate. The sole and absolute representative of the nation knowing the president can command the army and navy but a king can declare war by his own authority. Can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction. In essence, the president is no king, dont worry. Wen you read what he said look to the president for many of those things. That is not what the founders designed the constitution to do. That is the general consensus. Executive was much less powerful under the constitution than our own. At least how we think it is interpreted today. What about the other branches of government . We have a legislative and judicial branch. The legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch. First, the house of representatives is as close to the people as you can get. Was acond, it representative of the states, that was the federal part of the constitution. The states are presented in washington, d. C. That is the branch of government that has the most powerful the most power if you read the document excel for the document itself. It has the most numerate it or delegated powers. Important. Y delegated power. Is the powerer that is given because you have the authority to give it. By delegating it you can always take it back. The states and the people of the states are delegating authority to the Central Government and if we wanted back we can always take it back. You dont have it forever. Is the crux of the 10th amendment. You have the article one. You have section seven and eight. Section eight is the most important part. But, why is this senate important. I want to mention that for a second. I mentioned the senate as a representative of the United States. The founders were very concerned about having a government that attachedtached the detached from the people. There were 30,000 people to everyone representative. That was in 1789. Today is 700,000 to one. When they were discussing the constitution they said we are that 40,000 to one is too high. We need to bring that down a bit. Some people thought they should be closer to 20,000 to one or even 10,000 to one. That was an appropriate ribs and theyve ratio. When you look at 700,000 to one you think how far have we come from that. That was no problem. Government general for general purposes, that would be a nonissue. The opponents were quick to point this out. Concerns of the whole United States may be dependent on the integrity of 25 or 26 men. How inadequate and unsafe for representation. Cannot be collected and so small a body. What they are saying is that unless you have a fair representative ratio, these cannot do it. They physically cannot do it. It is impossible. We need to have a general government for general concerns. Pennsylvaniaof later served in the Supreme Court said this. To support a single government over the whole United States would demand a system of the most unqualified despotism. You cannot have one single government legislating for us all. Youre talking about three or 4 Million People we are now 300 Million People. That is why a general government was more important to them. A general government can only do general things. In that way, it would not matter if you only had 535 representatives. The people could be better represented in their states. So, we often hear this general welfare clause. What is general where phil general welfare mean . This is what he said it meant. The objects of the union were few. Defense against foreign danger, internal disputes, treaties with foreign nations, foreign commerce in revenue, all other matters will be much better in the hands of the state. That was the general welfare. If the government handled Congress Commerce and defense then that is all they did, then the states would be guarded in their liberty. Pennsylvaniar of listed all the things that the general government could do and what the State Government could do. This is interesting and i had never seen this before. When i went through all the stuff, i found this and i thought wow that is important because if im going to argue that they favored a general government, then here is exactly what they meant by that. Was a political philosopher, he was a very important man in pennsylvania and served in a variety of elected positions. This is what he wrote about the constitution and general government. He said the general government cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals, the regulation of roads except postroads, bridges, erecting the policetablishing of cities, new state offices, building lighthouses, county jails, markets, or other public pain things, nor could it do any where theer legislative, executive, or judicial, civil or ecclesiastical. So they cant really do anything. And then he said this about the states, the states can create corporations, prohibited duties on imports of slaves and their imports, establish seminaries of manufacturers,e open roads, clear rivers, cut canals, regulate marriages and license taverns, hospitals, houses of employment, etc. Everything of domestic nature can be done by them. There you have it. That is what they meant by general and federal. He is arguing for the constitution saying that the general government cannot do all these things. We have look at it the other way in the modern era. They still do all this stuff. That is where most business is done in the United States. We seem to put more focus on the general government or the federal government than any other. I found that very interesting. When i was going through this i did not realize the depth of that and how indepth they had gone to explain these things. You see this phrase general welfare and people talk about this but the founding generation explained it. In detail. There are several other quotes. If i had time i would go through it. Of course, they are found in the appendices. The fact is, this general government was for general purposes. Last, but not least, the judicial branch. We often put our faith in the Supreme Court. Of course, the problem with the they can change their mind. This happens throughout history. Which decision is correct . This is a problem. The founding generation dealt with the judicial print. Consensusa general that they may declare federal laws unconstitutional. The opponents of the constitution hoped that that could happen. The federal Court Systems declaring state laws unconstitutional. That was the real concern. This is people like john rutledge, john dickersons and that was a real fear. Oftentimes, you hear that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. That was not so clear in the founding generation. They werent necessarily sold on that. They were not certain about what they could do about it, but the idea that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter was not set in stone in 1787 and 1788. Coupled with the fact that you had the bill of rights, we often talked about the bill of rights. The bill of rights were restricting clauses. These were restricting on the federal power. The most important of the bill of rights is the 10th amendment. People do not realize that it was number one coming out of the state ratifying conventions. They were promised a bill of rights and they ratified the document. As we look at the bill of rights, it says that all powers not delegated to the Central Authority are reserved to the people in the states. This was to go straight after what Patrick Henry called the sweeping clause. These were the general welfare clause. The supremacy clause. The necessary and proper clause. Was they wanted to ensure the way that the constitution was being sold in the state, there would be a general government for general purposes. There would be a limited government. The constitution was what it said and you cannot go beyond that. They did not necessarily trust people like alexander emison hamilton. They swore that this thing was not going to be abused. They wanted the 10th amendment. Madison made it 10 because he wanted to minimize it. Everyone knew that that was the most important amendment of the book. Of the bunch. General government for general purposes. With a quoteclude from john dickinson. John dickinson was, this was his constitution in so many ways. This gets back to the point i made before that we have a written constitution rather than an unwritten constitution. People asked me why the Founding Fathers are important, we have Founding Fathers who wrote it and ratified it. This is why we should listen to them. During the philadelphia , he said this. Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us. It was not reason that discovered the mechanism of the english constitution. It was not reason that odd mode of trial by jury. This, then, is our guide. He is saying that we have a which experience has proven through understanding of history. Experience proves that what we are trying to do in this document would be the best form of government. That is what they wanted to do. They did not want something torn asunder and taken apart. They had just gone through a war with the british, they did not work they did not want another. They hoped that a general government could absorb all the different people in the United States, and even to this day, people are different from different parts of the United States. They hoped that this general government could say we have different people from the south or the north with a midatlantic or the west, but if the government does not regulate their every move they can be best served in their own states. With the laws that they think need to be passed. That theght to say states are not very receptive to that. Actually, that is not true. If you look at the issue of 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 then at federal level. People can be frustrated by the general government. The states are much more responsive to your wishes. This is the same thing the founders would say. That is how they argued it. It was a general government. The question is where do we go from here. Why write a Founding Fathers guide to the constitution . I wanted to start the discussion. I wanted people to be able to take the constitution and break it apart and say this is what the founding generation meant. I wanted to start the jet the education process. Public discourse. Meetings. I want people to talk about the constitution again. Thankfully, that is happening. But they need to be armed with the words of the people who wrote it. If we dont do that, we are failing their charge of giving this constitution to their posterity. Of bringing the blessings of liberty to their posterity. I would like you to think about that. , as youead the book read the constitution, listen to candidates, it is not matter where theyre from, listen to them talk about things, ask questions about constitution. I want to know what you think about the constitution, and i will swear to uphold and defend it. Ask them about it. If their opinion jives with their if theyre in if opinion is in line with your opinion, then great, start the discourse. I hope the Founding Fathers guide to the constitution is part of the discourse. Thank you very much for your time this evening. I will take questions. If you would like to ask questions please come down to the microphone and ask. I hope that you have some. [applause] can everyone hear me . [inaudible] John Marshall is an important guy. The virginia ratifying commission he swore up and down that the Supreme Court may declare laws unconstitutional, but they would never do that in the states. He lied, essentially. He was not being honest. When he became chief justice he was, by this point, you have politics infused in everything. He was what they called a federalist. You had the jeffersonians, who he called terrorists. He was concerned about the jeffersonian revolution that was taking over the United States. Jefferson has best had just been elected president. He was chief justice. Put on the bench by john adams. What John Marshall wanted to do was undo the entire jeffersonian revolution in any way he could. This was politics. What he decided to do was it is that simple. Marshall was afraid of democracy. He was very much antidemocratic. What he saw in jeffersonian is him was a push toward more democracy jeffersonianism was a push toward more democracy. For everyhe stage Supreme Court decision that we have had from there on out. He was being very disingenuous. For marshall, himself, he was playing politics more than anything else. He did not like the jeffersonians. Other questions . Come on down to the microphone. [inaudible] i have not. , in aily because of survey you focus on the general things and move from there. I have not. We have the textbook and that is about it. We tried to stay in that very general term in the survey course. Questions . [inaudible] three. One has not been published. [inaudible] thank you. [inaudible] the mechanism was there to change it. Wrote toing generation constitution. One was the articles of confederation and the other was the constitution. I think they would say that the will of the people was that was discussed. They openly discussed having another convention after the Philadelphia Convention to write another one. That was a possibility. What they did not want to have happened was what has happened where we dont write a new constitution but we have a new constitution in that we are reading between the lines so much and expanding it in ways that it is impossible. That was the way it was sold. No one would ever expand the constitution without amending it or getting a new constitution. I think that they would be receptive if the people wanted to have a new constitution they could call a state convention and do it. But dont go about it in the way that americans have ultimately gone about it. That is changing it without changing it. Any other questions . All right, well, i will be signing books in the lobby. If you have a book that you would like me to sign i will be selling books there. You can purchase them there. I appreciate your support. Have a good evening. [applause] announcer this is American History tv. 48 hours. All weekend, every weekend. Only on cspan. Sunday in American History tv, and interview with henry not a member of the student nonviolent cord naming committee. The program is from the west point center for oral History Collection. Here is a preview. You have some whites who came that whent realize you use the n word toward a black that you could have some serious problems. Some of them did that. The army saw that it had a problem, that it had to do something. And indeed they did. Onlythey found out was about 2 of the officers in vietnam were africanamerican. Of thathe first part war, lets say 6566. What he five to 25 25 to 26 of the k. I. A. Were africanamerican. That became a problem. Of word cannon fodder africanamericans being used as cannon fodder. That was not the situation. What it was was africanamericans generally preferred and went to the combat arms. That was where you got your rank. Whole rank came down first to the combat arms. You had a chance of making rank pretty fast. Second, those were the elite units of the army at that time. Lot of us were gung ho we were predominate in the airborne units. Another reason was we wanted the chance to prove that we were good and that we would fight for our country. And we did. The downside was, when it was time to give out the metals the medals, that is when we get in trouble. Whites were not getting the medals. An e4 now. 4 all of the medals were given to the whites. My town accused him. I had asked some black and ceos s why we were nco not getting medals we recommended these people for medals and nothing ever became of it. That was the beginning of my confrontation with the captain. I requested his permission to go to the ig. Once again, you just dont do that. You are saying that you have no faith in his particular leadership. That is when i began to have my problems. Announcer you can watch the entire interview from the west point center for oral History Collection sunday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Here on American History tv. We are in front of the world war i memorial in lynchburg, virginia. Learning more about local history. During world war i the city served as a Manufacturing Center and red cross station. Next, we go inside the lynchburg History Museum and learn more. Talk to i am going to you about our world war i exhibit called it was my privilege and by duty. Lynchburg in world war i