Transcripts For CSPAN3 Mayflower Compact Religious Liberty 20240711

President s it established and the legacies that left. There is a strong case to be made that november 11, the day that a battered square rigor called the mayflower made safe harbor in a place near what is today in massachusetts. That day should be one of the greatest moments in our national theory, comparable to fourth of july, independence day, and september 17, constitution day. But let me qualify that statement a little bit. As ourk of the pilgrims forebears and we are right to do so but it is important to remember they and the other new puritans that were selling new england at the time did not imagine they were settling establishing the United States of america. Nothing could have been further from their minds. They were doing something entirely different. They were about the business of establishing a place where they could enjoy a pure and uncorrupted church. The early settlers of virginia were motivated by material considerations they wanted, what the spaniards wanted from their colonies, gold, wealth, material wealth. The settlers of new england were driven in almost entirely by religious zeal. Most of them were puritans, men and women of a company spent who who believed the church of england had not gone far enough to purge itself of its corrupt aspects and who despaired of a cleansing renewal ever coming in lifetimes, hence their decision to emigrate to the new world for a new beginning. The plymouth colonists in particular were not only calvinists but also separatists, meaning they had separated themselves from the church of england as a hopelessly corrupted body and they preferred to worship an independent congregational , meaning selfgoverning, churches. After 11 years of living in exile in the netherlands they , secured the land patent that enabled them to establish an english colony where they could practice their faith freely. That was their dream. So across the ocean they came on the mayflower and made landfall at what is today cape cod. A place outside the jurisdiction virginia companys jurisdiction and indeed outside the jurisdiction of any known government. That was a problem. There were clear and present dangers in the circumstances which were unexpected, and at the groups leaders knew that. They were especially worried the colony might not be able to hold together as a lawabiding entity in the absence of some larger Controlling Authority. About half of those on board were not members of the separatists group. They were known as strangers, that was the pilgrims term for them. Nonseparating passengers who had various motives, mostly for makings motives the trip, but whose skill and labor were going to be essential to the success of the colony. Some of the strangers had indicated once it was known where the landing would be taking place that because the colony was going to be planted the of the Royal Charter they might feel free to go wherever they wanted, and as one of them said use their own liberty, for none had the power to command them. This was a frightening prospect to the leaders. What were they going to do about it . Well, what they did in response was drafted and signed on november 11 a short document they would come to call the plymouth combination. We call it the mayflower compact, although that was not is a name that was not applied until the 1790s. In that document, they committed themselves to covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, and committed themselves to obey any and all laws and authorities that would be established thereby. This would turn out to be one of the most primal constitutional moments in history. Once established, the principle of selfrule that would be the heartbeat of the American Republic and its free institutions. Over two centuries before the philosopher Jeanjacques Rousseau expressed the idea, these pilgrim settlers were living it. They had grasped that freedom means not lawlessness but living in accordance with the law that you dictate to yourself. So as inauspicious as this event was at the time taking place so far away from the known world, the centers of power and influence and population and civilization, it proved to be a crucial milestone in the development of self governing political institutions. The signatories were following the same pattern of selfgovernment that new englanders would use in organizing their churches. Just as in congregational churches, ordinary believers came together to create selfgoverning churches, so with the mayflower compact a group of ordinary people came together to create their own government and in doing so asserted their right to do so. What made these developments even more astonishing was that they amounted to a realworld dramatization of the theory that Civil Society was based on a social contract among its members. Here was a case where a group had actually done it. And they did it years before john locke and Thomas Hobbes had gotten around to formulating the idea. Not to mention doing it in a century and a half before the declaration of the independence , which proclaimed governments derive their just powers from the government. Famous words. In that it is the right of the people to Institute New government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them will seem most shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But now having made this amazing connection, let me qualify it in some ways, important ways. First and most importantly, this agreement aboard the mayflower was not something being fashioned in a prepolitical, precultural state of nature. Social the contract theorists would later posit. That we have to do is look close at the document to see that it very clearly the document begins with the words in the name of god. He proceeds to identify signatories as loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord king james. It identifies their voyage as having been undertaken for the glory of god and advancement of the Christian Faith and the honor of our king and country. It identifies the signatories as endorsing the agreement in the presence of god and one another. Not exactly the state of nature, and it proposes the goal of framing just and equal laws that promote the general good of the colony. In other words, this agreement was borrowing at every turn from the religious, political, legal, cultural, moral practices of contemporary england. It was not starting fresh, not at all. It was building on deep foundations, and even when the declaration of independence appeared on the scene, it drew not only on the theories of john locke, which it most assuredly did, but also on that same deep reservoir of experience and at the sum total of 150 subsequent years of american colonial experience of selfgovernance. Selfgovernment. Selfgovernment in massachusetts, in virginia, in pennsylvania, in all of the original colonies. And now i will make one other point. We should not forget in the telling of this story the sheer daring and courage of the pilgrims, the courage that they showed in undertaking this astonishing journey, the astonishing depth of their faith, their commitment to their faith. When they landed at cape cod they might as well have been landing on the surface of the moon. Surely there were those among them, and i do not think just a few, who must have quaked a bit silently and inwardly even at their joy of making landfall and wondered for a moment and maybe more than a moment if it had not all been an active madness that had brought them there away from everything that they had known, everything that was familiar into the terrors and uncertainties of a strange and very forbidding land. Some of what they must have been feeling was very well expressed by William Bradford their , leader, when they arrived at cape cod. Let me quote from him. Being now past the vast ocean and a sea of troubles before them in expectations they had no friends to welcome them or entertain their weatherbeaten bodies. No houses or much less towns to repair to. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness full of wild beasts and wild men. And what role do then they knew not. For whichever way they turned their eyes save upward to heaven they could have but little solace or content in respect of any outward object. All things stand in appearance with a weatherbeaten face. And the whole country full of woods and thickets represented a wild and savage view. Bradford continues, they look behind them. There was a mighty ocean which they had passed and which was reduced as a main bar or golf to separate them from all of the civil parts of the world. What could now sustain them but the spirit of god in his grace . What indeed but the religious faith that they possessed so strongly could have sustained them just as it had propelled him across the seas . And yet we should not forget that the mayflower compact did not establish a theocracy, a rule by religion. Yes, its language was ringed about by christian imagery and assumptions, and those images and assumptions are of central importance to the whole story. Yes, the pilgrims religious faith was the thing that drove them across the seas in search of a better and more faithful way of life, but the mayflower compact, in the mayflower compact the pilgrims widely wisely chose a government based on civil agreement, not on compulsory divine or Biblical Authority or edict. Such an arrangement was designed to embrace and include the strangers, those who are not members of the church but whose contributions to the life of the colony was understood to be essential to its success. Call it pragmatic. Call it inclusive. Whatever we call it, it is central to our understanding of what happened with the mayflower compact. Much would be learned in the nearly two centuries of british north american Colonial Life and much of what was learned came out of the same kind of interplay between high hopes and hard, pragmatic realities. Above all else what was being learned in the english colonies was the habit of selfrule developed in the lives of free colonists who were too distanced from their colonial masters to be governed from afar. The example of the mayflower compact will less serve as a model for all that was to come, including the american revolution. A free people coming together under god and by their own initiative establishing the institutions by which they would rule themselves. May we continue to look to that model and that example. Thank you. Thank you so much dr. Mcclay. ,that was incredible. And as always we think youre , the best qualified to have given us that spectacular presentation. You know, america was the first nation in history founded on a specific greed, a fundamental belief that liberty and equality for every human soul. It is a creed rooted in natural law and natural rights. Its political expression is in limited government, popular sovereignty, the separation of powers and a vibrant Civil Society, animated by private associations and communities of every kind. These ideas are central to americas identity and over time have entered into americas distinct political, social, and economic culture as a nation. Dr. Jeffrey morrison is here with us today to discuss the mayflower compact and religious liberty in the United States. He will reaffirm the importance of american institutions, particularly religious freedom and the freedom of speech, as well as Civil Society. We believe it is necessary to respond to the emerging narrative that aims to deconstruct american institutions and working Civil Society. Dr. Jeffrey morrison is professor of american studies at Christopher Newport university in virginia and director of academics at the federal governments James Madison foundation in alexandria, virginia. Dr. Morrison has held faculty positions from Princeton University to the u. S. Air force academy. He has published as an author or editor five books on american political culture, including the political philosophy of george washington. Ladies and gentlemen, let us give dr. Jeffrey morrison a warm welcome. Dr. Morrison thank you for that introduction and in the next 12 minutes i will talk about the mayflower compact and its relationship to religious liberty. Not mere toleration, but religious liberty. That is an American Innovation, and it begins with the people we call the pilgrims in 1620. It will continue in subsequent decades of the 17th century and then in the 18th century, especially in virginia. Thomas jefferson, James Madison, george washington, and others will continue to perfect that innovation of religious liberty. It is the pilgrims could begin it 1620. We call them pilgrims because that is what they call themselves. One of their leaders, William Bradford, wrote a book called of plymouth plantation, which he describes their life and motives and watch of what we know of them comes from that book, and in that book he describes why they went where they went, why did what they did, and why they took ship eventually in the mayflower and came to the new world. Incidentally, it was not the first time those pilgrims had left england. Them pilgrims. We also call them separatists. They were a subset of the puritans, that group of protestant christians who had become convinced that the church of england, the Anglican Church, was susceptible to corruption and had become overly catholic overly catholic in its liturgy and faith and practice. They hoped to purify it, to return the Anglican Church to a more pristine form of christianity, one that was more closely modeled on the new testament of primitive christianity. These pilgrims had concluded that noble as that work may have been that it was impossible to do, the Anglican Church had become irredeemably corrupted and they could no longer stay in the Anglican Church. They had to leave. So the first place they went was to holland to a bustling commercial city where for the most part they were tolerated and not persecuted as is commonly believed. But they did become concerned that their children and had they stayed, their grandchildren and subsequent generations would become corrupted or at least influenced by a too secular and commercial environment that they were , losing some of their zeal and first love. They made a decision. We will go back to england, apply for a charter to go to the new world, and hire a ship to take us there. They did apply to a charter from the crown, which was denied. In an effort to make their venture legal, they went to the virginia company. That corporation, which outfitted and backed the expedition headed by Christopher Newport, theain namesake of my university. , which settled eventually on Jamestown Island and thus planted the First Permanent british colony in north america. There is that legal tie between the pilgrims and settlers at jamestown. One could even say that there is commonality of purpose as well. If you look at a charter that is eventually given to the settlers in massachusetts, the first charter of 1629, and you look at the first charter of virginia, for instance, there are commercial purposes mentioned there, but there are religious purposes as well. In both virginia and massachusetts. One can see these two parallel missions at work in virginia as well as in new england. Bradford describes the reason that they went, and this was backed up by later preachers and public figures. The reason they went was not to create a tolerant regime or a plantation of religious liberty. They went to rule. They went to create what they considered godly commonwealth. Just several years later i will read a line or two from a sermon in 1629 by the reverend Samuel Willard in which he said i perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first planters, whose business was not toleration, but were professed enemies of it. Their business was to settle, to and as much as in them lay secure religion to prosperity according to that way which they believed was of god. You can verify this by looking at the first massachusetts charter of 1629, in which the the incitement of the natives of the country to the obedience knowledge and obedience of faith principle end theend o plantation. Religion was not necessarily toleration, much less religious liberty, which is a more robust concept than mere toleration. Religion in that instance is considered to be a natural right. We would say a human right, a godgiven right perhaps. Why did they draw up this document, these pilgrims on the mayflower . They set sail in september 1620 , crossed the tempestuous ocean. During that voyage the main mast cracks. They thought they would have to return back to england. They were able to repair it, continue on, but in the course of that journey they were blown off course. They were intending to go as we see from the text of the compact to the northern parts of virginia. That is where they had that patent for that land. So it becomes evident to them when they sight land, drop anchor off of what is now cape cod that they are not where they intended to go and the legal document they have is no longer valid. It is moot. The pilgrims of whom there were roughly are only part of the 35 human cargo of the mayflower. There were roughly 70 nonpilgrim passengers who had passage onught their the ship. , the retrofitted ship, and they are fleeing england, fleeing economic hardship, in some cases, they are fleeing creditors and others. In some cases they are fleeing of the law. They are a rough bunch of customers in some ways. The pilgrims overhear them talking once everyone realizes we are not where we intended to go and we have no legal Controlling Authority here. They overhear some of the rougher customers threatening to live without law once they go ashore. And so on the fly under the pressure of circumstances, they create the first written social contract which i am aware in the history of the western world. Certainly it is the first contract in the British American colonies, and that is a remarkable thing and it should not be undervalued. 1620, this is a full generation, nearly two generations before Thomas Hobbes, other political philosophers like john locke, Jeanjacques Rousseau will be writing about a social contract theorizing about individuals in , a socalled state of nature agreeing with one another to give up some of their rights in order to form a Civil Society. Here we see it happening in realtime time under the pressure of events, and it is a remarkable performance that they give there in the galley of the mayflower. It is a very compact document so perhaps it would be worth looking at a few lines of it and trying to parse them out. It begins, in the name of god, amen, we whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our sovereign king james by , defender ofgod the faith, etc. , the word etc. Is in there , they are invoking gods name. They could have said what perhaps would have been a more familiar formulation, in the name of the father, the son, the holy spirit, amen. But they do not do that because this is a mixed group of persons whose signatures they are keen to get on this document, the social contract. It is sometimes referred to as a , the mayflower compact as a , constitution, but it is not a constitution. It is at best a protoconstitution. It creates a Political Committee community consciously of equals, individuals, and perhaps of families who are willing to abide by they make a promise to one another, we will abide by the laws that we ourselves will write in the future so long as those laws are just. They could invest themselves to they contest themselves to be the loyal subjects of their red sovereign king james, the same king james who lent his name to the version of the bible still read today, the authorized version authorized by him. A group of puritans had been agitating him for a cleaner version of the bible. One that did not have commentaries and footnotes and so forth. He sort of begrudgingly gave in and authorized this new translation of the bible for them. The puritans bible, you might say. They are the loyal subjects of king james. They are not leaving england. They do not intend by leaving england to leave behind their subjecthood or renounce the two authority of the king over them. In a way it is a declaration of religious independence, isnt it . It is a statement of religious liberty, because it leaving they in leaving it they have left behind his church, the church of england, of which he is the titular head. They are saying religion we no longer accept, will not be governed by it but we do not , reject your authority and we are coming in essence for god and country. For the glory of god and advancement of the Christian Faith and the honor of their king and country. We are taking this voyage to plant the first colony and the in the northern parts of virginia. But here is the salient language in this, the operative mind as we say. In the presence of god and one another, we covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid. It is a lovely image, is not it . It is an organic, intimate image of civil body politic, a body as a unity. When one part of your body, your hurts your whole body hurts. When one part of the body feels good the whole body feels good. , this is a corporate endeavor upon which they are engaged and they are very keen to get and do get the signatures of every adult male head of household who signs as an equal. One signature is not more weighty than another. Signature. They are individuals before signing this, but after its signing they are now a committee. And that i think is one of the great legacies, and their actions in leaving england are a statement of religious independence, but by crafting the civil body politic they create the space for civil body religious liberty and laws in the future. Angela thank you so much dr. , morrison. What an incredible presentation. Again, we are going to march back to november 11, 1620, when the english settlers arrived in the new world seeking religious freedom. Lets remember when the pilgrims landed near cape cod, massachusetts, they quickly realized they needed something more, a document that would make possible a selfgoverning community. The result that we have been talking about all day was the mayflower compact, a social contract and covenant for a new political society. This remarkable document is an early example of democratic selfrule, and it became a model for our american founders, but often times overlooked is how the christian belief of these pilgrims, especially in their their commitment to freedom of conscience, laid the groundwork for later debates about religious freedom in american colonies. I would like you to join us now for our Panel Discussion about the origins of religious liberty in america and its enduring importance to our democracy. Our very own emily ghou, who is the director of the center for religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation and an attorney that has defended religious freedom for the last 14 years, will moderate our panel. She has worked on behalf of victims of religious Freedom Violations in east asia, the middle east, and south asia at the state Department Office of international freedom. Emily is a member of the Supreme Court bar and the bar associations of both california and the district of columbia. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome emily. Emily thank you very much to dr. Morrison for the excellent lecture. Now i would like to introduce ttison join us for this discussion. Dr. Pattison serves as the executive Vice President of the religious freedom is to do. He is dean of the Robertson School of government and a Research Fellow at Georgetown University Berkeley Center for religious peace and world affairs. Withnterests are informed work throughout africa and central asia and south asia. He has served in the government for more than 20 years as an officer and commander in the International Guard and as a white house fellow working for the director of u. S. Office of personnel management. He is the author and editor of numerous books on religion and Foreign Policy and ethics. He is published extensively on religious freedom and democratization. He received his phd in Political Science from the university of california at santa barbara. And a masters degree in International Politics from the university of wales. Delighted to introduce dr. Patterson and dr. Morrison to join us for this conversation. Thank you. Emily to pick up from where dr. Morrison left off in his presentation, the mayflower compact. By crafting a civil body politic, the Community Created a space for religious freedom in law in the future. Dr. Morrison, would you like to elaborate on that statement . Dr. Morrison yes i would be , happy to. Thank you. The mayflower compact is not a constitution. Hear itally, you might referred to as such. It is a protoconstitution though in that it creates that social contract, that civil body politic as they refer to themselves. That lovely and even intimate organic metaphor for a Political Community. It extracts a promise from the signatories. They promise they will abide by those laws that they will make themselves, whether they be religious laws, whether they be civil laws, but there are not any laws laid down. There are not institutions of government created by that compact. So that was my point of saying in saying it creates a space in the future for religious liberty and their actively leaving england, physically separating, and the church of england, particularly headed by the king as being an active independence. It is a declaration of religious independence, so that is what i meant by that. I fully agree that this is an act of religious independence , and it goes back to covenant theology in the reformation in the 1500s. As early as the mid1500s there are reformers that say we have to separate ourselves from government led constitutions, state churches, and by the 1580s in england, the predecessors of americas pilgrims, or the separatists set , up an independent congregation first in england and then in the netherlands. Part of that separatist movement and what they do is they make a commitment among themselves and before god to set up a religious community with a cold one another accountable and they hold each other together as a religious body. That is the basis for the mayflower compact and it is rooted in that type of theological commitment. Emily brought up the point of equality. Equality between passengers on the mayflower and the pilgrims, who are the pilgrims and then those who were not from the Pilgrim Community and how they were treated with a remarkable level of equality. Can you both elaborate on that further . Dr. Morrison, would you like to go first . Dr. Morrison yes, i would like to. Thank you. It is a remarkable thing when you look through signatories to that, and every adult male signed either for himself or as head of household. You see by their names, some of them you will see esquire, esq, afterwards, and one of them, my admitted to cambridge, for example. There are various classes represented among the passengers. As i mentioned in my remarks, many of the socalled strangers, the nonpilgrims, were rough customers fleeing the law or creditors, but they are all treated as equals in this civil body politic, and there is i guess some subtle acknowledgment that they might not be members of the religious community or choose to come under the laws written in the that would be written in the future and i think there is an implication that they can themselves separate from that community. It is a remarkable thing. I think. In 1620 when most of the world was a rigid class had rigid class system is the esquires and common folk and maybe even lawbreakers among criminals fleeing england, all had equal status civilly and that body politic that they are gritting. Creating. Dr. Patterson i agree that equality is very important that this comes from ideas of the reformation. These people took very seriously the reformation idea about equality or the priesthood of all believers. The equality of citizens, and this is rooted in other parts of english history as well. Go back to the magna carta. They took it very, very seriously. These are people who are seeking order and liberty so that they can orient their lives based on their faith commitments and they importantly they do not impose that on their fellow men. The mayflower compact is good in rooted in theological commitments but it is also a prudential document so there is not anarchy when they land in new england, but they do this in a way when they are not imposing a faith tradition, denomination, their beliefs on the others. They are recognizing the principle of citizenship equality with their fellow passengers. Dr. Morrison i would like to add just one thing quickly if i may. Plymouth is not philadelphia. It is not pennsylvania. It is not the radical egalitarianism of william penn, who will come just a few years later informed his own proprietary colony in pennsylvania. But still, as dr. Patterson has , the single equality we do not want to make too much , of it but it is a remarkable thing in an age where there is this fairly rigid class structure certainly throughout europe from which those folks come. Emily yes and you also make the , point in your lectures that religious freedom, not mere toleration, is an American Innovation. Do you want to elaborate on that and how the mayflower compact led to that . Dr. Morrison i will elaborate on it for certain. I think there is a rich legacy of the compact and american constitutionalism. Although there is not certainly religious liberty laid out in it. The difference between liberty religious liberty and toleration is the difference between the kinds of rights we believe people have. Religious liberty means that you have a natural, human rights to to freely exercise, to freely first to freely believe or not believe and to freely exercise , your faith so long as it does not harm anyone else. Toleration is different, and that is what was around the globe, the most liberal policy. Pretty much the most liberal policy. Toleration means the government will tolerate you so long as it sees fit, and it often implies as it did in england and established church, a state church as dr. Patterson alluded to and elsewhere. If there is a state church, you will pay some kind of penalty, you will suffer some kind of civil disability if you are not part of that National Church or state church. I will give an example. If you were jewish in england, no matter how bright you werent were you could not go to the two , statesponsored universities. , oxford and cambridge. You had to either convert and profess to be or perhaps sincerely be an anglican or you had to go to some dissenting academy. That is what toleration means. The government will tolerate you. It is more like a civil right, like a drivers license the government issues and the government can take back. Religious liberty is that natural human right that no government can take away from you. And i do think the compact and documents that follow in its train create a space for that but the compact does not explicitly guarantee that in a sort of natural right terms. We might even think of the declaration of independence as an inheritor of this space for freedom that the mayflower compact begins to sketch out. Emily excellent. Dr. Patterson, do you want to comment on the uniqueness of religious liberty as an American Innovation . Dr. Patterson yes. I would just make two points that relate to the mayflower compact in its era. They both have to do with statements earlier in the compact that are some of the language of the day that this is happening in the name of god to advance the gospel. These are important points from a religious liberty standpoint. The is this. First one the other type of colonies being placed in the new world, whether they were portuguese or especially spanish, impose christianity by the edge of the sword and what is so different in the english colonies, especially here in southern virginia is that there , is not the imposition of christianity by the sword. Plantation, or pennsylvania, virginia or elsewhere, most of , these religious entities set up in the colonial area have a right of exit. People who come into the community may have to follow the religious covenant of the community, but they can freely leave. No one forces them to stay there. They can go back to england. They can go someplace else. That is a big principal in this era where toleration was a considered a very liberal idea. The right to exit was a huge innovation that is rooted in what these pilgrims did. Emily thank you. Both of you have written about religious pluralism as well. And commented on it. Can you describe how the mayflower compact and the creation of the civil body politic is informative to those who are interested in religious pluralism today . Perhaps i wildr. Patterson i will start on that. The pilgrims were separatists from the church of england, as dr. Morrison said, and amazingly the right to civil document that organizes a civil body politic, it is a social compact decades before hobbes, locke, rousseau, so it is rooted in a set of sociological components that predate the social compact theory. That is because they had this notion rooted in covenant theology that individual believers in a community can make decisions about the faith, and that there should not be a level of interference in the conscientious religious commitments someone makes or that a committee makes. That religious communities, and this becomes the congregational theches and similarly presbyterian churches a high , level of decisionmaking at the autonomous level rooted in these types of theological commitments. Emily dr. Morrison, do you want to comment on the question of religious pearl i pluralism . Dr. Morrison yes. Certainly today we live in a religiously plural society. We live in a nation say. The plymouth plantation is not a state. It is not even formally a colony of england. They dont have a charter when they leave, like william penn will bring with him for example for his colony. All they have is a pact, a legal document they get from the virginia company, and it just gives them title to certain lands. They are on their own hook, if you will. So they are forced, as dr. Patterson mentioned, to be liberal and egalitarian through the pressure of circumstances. That is one thing i think that makes this document so remarkable. It was done on the fly. It was written literally i think in the galley of the mayflower before they set foot at plymouth rock. But is there religious plurality among them . There is. There is a great deal of religious plurality in pennsylvania as well. I think we can learn something from them about how to get along holding our deepest differences religiously, and i believe to this day polls indicate that 90 of us still believe in some kind of supreme being or higher power. Among the industrialized nations of the world, america is still uniquely religious, and can we learn something from this experiment in plymouth . I think we can. I think it has the legacy of constitutionalism passed down in subsequent documents hundreds of years later. Again i think it is a remarkable , production for its time and it s circumstances. Emily could you also comment on how signing of the compact , the social contract influenced , that community itself, its behaviors, its conduct to the members of that community and others . Dr. Morrison i will turn that to dr. Patterson first. Dr. Patterson i think this sets the groundwork for a level of cooperation that just has to happen. This is only about 100 people. They are facing winter off of cape cod. They had this long ship voyage. They missed the harvest and things and about half of them , die that winter. It is important to recognize the mayflower compact is rooted in a set of worldview assumptions, and at the same time it is a desperate commitment. We have to Work Together or we are not going to survive this. It lays the groundwork for the type of quality plymouth is over the next halfcentury, and that is a place where there is a lot of individual equality. A place where there are not the types of religious restrictions. That we see in the Massachusetts Bay colony. It is a place where Roger Rowlands goes when he needs to have a place to get away from the Massachusetts Bay colony. We know that there are efforts to share the gospel with the American Indians there, but they are noncoerced. So this really does set the groundwork for a model that is cooperative among citizens but not coercive. Dr. Morrison i think that is very well said. I will only add very briefly we once again have to keep in mind the Plymouth Colony is different from the Massachusetts Bay colony. Different leadership. They have a slightly different ethos. They have different ends, goals, and it is boston, what becomes the city of boston, and the Massachusetts Bay colony that is the sort of powerhouse, and what becomes the colony of massachusetts and later the state of massachusetts. That is led by john winthrop, a different sort of man than elder brewster, a different sort of man than William Bradford. He is a lawyer for one thing. He has a rather checkered career and Massachusetts Bay being elected governor, being deposed, and being elected again as his a literal fortunes go up and down and england. Massachusetts bay at the city of boston are kind of the powerhouse and literally tens of thousands of people come in waves from old england to new england. But they tend to settle there. The Plymouth Colony is a smaller enterprise. It is first, and i think that document, the compact is , responsive of things to come later. We should remember that. War, thingsk of the like that, there are different communities engaging the native americans and engaging themselves and the strangers among them in different ways. Emily in our closing section, would you like to comment on anything else we can learn as americans today from the mayflower compact that has perhaps has been overlooked . Dr. Morrison well, if im going to go i will try to be brief. First, i have alluded to this constitutional legacy of the mayflower compact and i do not want to make too much of it but when we look even at the structure of this document, with a preamble, if you will, not exactly we the people but we the undersigned, and then a statement of purposes of their journey, and then the creation of that civil body politic, and then a kind of pledge at the end, a sort of pledge of mutuality, and then the signatories, that should look familiar to americans even today, right . That looks like the declaration of independence in a sense. That looks like the federal constitution in a sense. And it might be a bit of a stretch to go from we the undersigned to we the people, but sections of the document, again with self identification, preamble, a statement of purposes, the Political Community and a pledge of signatories, that is part of our dna, i would say. The very first chromosome or whatever we want to call it is planted there at plymouth, and like physical dna in families, traits are inherited, arent they . Sometimes they lie dormant for a generation or two. And then resurfaced. Sometimes a grandchild is remarkably similar to a grandparent in features and things. That would be my parting remark about the mayflower compact. It is our political dna, and even though we are just a very small kind of selffunded and self generated community, religious and Political Community, that document as farreaching implications, vast has reaching implications for american constitutional history. Dr. Patterson emily, i agree with that point, with dr. Morrison. And we have to remember as we celebrate the 400 anniversary of the mayflower compact that the people who wrote the declaration of independence were about as far removed historically from the mayflower compact as you and i are from the civil war. It is a century and a half. This seed early on, one the framers of the declaration of independence and the constitution that they cite as important in the genealogy of ideas in the west it cannot be , overstated, and it is important for americans. By the way, great americans like abraham lincoln, Martin Luther king, junior, Ronald Reagan have done this. They have looked back in history and they have recognized how important the mayflower compact and the decisions early colonists made in setting the United States on a course that over time becomes expanded notions of rights, liberty, and the free exercise of religion. Think about how different again 1620 or the mayflower compact was than the setting up of spanish or portuguese colonies with high levels of slavery. Think of how different the experience was in plymouth but ino shortly in rhode island, the dutch colonies in new york and new jersey massachusetts, virginia. Think about how different the 1620s, 1630s, 1640s are, whether it is the english civil war which is about to commence or the 30 year war. There is a religious component to all of that violence. What a difference the mayflower compact has to allow these individuals to decide to set up a civil body politic and to freely express their Religion Without coercion. Is a very, very important seed in u. S. And in world history. Emily thank you both very much for helping us to understand the origins of the mayflower compact and its continuing influence on our body politic today. As americans continue to discuss what is happening in our country, it is important for us to look at Historical Documents like the mayflower compact to see the legacy of equality, the covenant we have with one another as we move forward. Thank you both very much. Thank you. You are watching American History tv all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. The Constitutional Convention began in 1787 philadelphia. In an event hosted by the Colonial Williamsburg condition, Founding Fathers James Madison and george mason debate issues from the bill of rights to slavery. Here is a preview. I will encourage this most wise body to contemplate these two questions over the course of our debate. First and foremost, how hot the articles of confederation failed in guaranteeing the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and second, how shall this proposed constitution perfect this system of government. I encourage you through these debates to hearken not to be a natural voice that tells you the people knit together like they are cannot be members of the same family, cannot be the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness, cannot be children of one flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice that tells you this system is a novelty in the political world and has no place in the wildness. Instead, ladies and gentlemen, i invite you over this course to bring your mind, bring your. Uriosity together as a single or people, we may yet find a proper course for america. Thank you, mr. Harris. Mr. Madison, i must say that they taught me in law school that you were a softspoken and intellectual speaker and now you give the lie to that characterization. You should see my writing. [laughter] mr. Mason, please. Gentlemen, mr. Harris, mr. Madison, people of virginia, people of america, i do not disagree with mr. Madison. The endeavor of this last year and a half have been combined our way forward. The written constitution that thepeople might debate is natural and best course for our future. However, this is where i counter. Document is in its way the one that must be ratified. I say nay. There are too many problems inherent. This is uncharted territory to be certain. For that reason, we must endeavor the revolt against Great Britain some years ago is nothing compared to what lies before us now. We have an opportunity to create government not in the time of war but in the time of peace. Those articles of confederation will woefully, woefully insufficient. However, we must recognize now that we have a system that is better than what was before. That does not make it close enough to what the people of america deserve. Watch the full Program Sunday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern, 6 00 p. M. Pacific, here on American History tv. Next, about American History tv, military historian geoff chineseues the communist movement was largely a consequence of world war i born in may of 1919 with student movements several issues over including what they saw as unfair terms and imperial bias in the treaty of versailles. In this talk babb traces this , history and the unintended consequences of western influence up until the 1949 founding of communist china. The National World war i Museum Memorial hosted this event and provided the video. We have the pleasure of welcoming back to our auditorium, dr. Geoff babb, for a lecture on world war i and the birth of communist china. We are probably presng