Substance of his arab spring lecture to the Wisconsin Historical society as part of their lecture series. This talk is just over one hour. It is a pleasure for us to welcome professor wood to madison. It has been 40 years since professor wood has been here. Every 40 years, we are going to have him back. Gordon wood is recognized as the premier historian of the early american era in when i say that, i do not mean only active historians, i mean of all historians. He is recognized as at the top of his profession. It is an honor to have him here in madison. Professor wood went to tufts and harvard and studied under bernard bailey. It is pretty difficult to top that. Just marvelous. Professor wood is noted for his productivity and the quality of his work. I had lunch with him today and i asked him how many books he had published. I told him, i counted 26. He said, that is far too many. He has so many books, he doesnt know how many that he has. Three of them stand out. The creation of the american republic, a seminal book that tied everything together in a discussion of the American Revolution. He won the bancroft prize for that. Then, the radicalism of the American Revolution. And then recently, empire of liberty. Many other volumes in between. The last five are documentary editions. Three volumes on john adams and two volumes of pamphlets from the revolutionary era. Professor wood is working on a book on john adams and thomas jefferson. What professor wood has done is he has taken all kinds of interpretations about the revolution and he has synthesized but also delved into the primary sources and has come up with an interpretation of what the revolution was and almost as important, what that revolution how the revolution transformed the American People and made us a unique people that others might look to. And so, that is what he is going to be talking about today and i think you will enjoy it. [applause] prof. Wood with an introduction like that, i have to reciprocate and tell you of that about what john is doing to historical research. What john and other editors do is longlasting. We historians, those books are very ephemeral. History is a quasiscience. What john is doing will last as long as the republic. Given what is happening, that may not be very long. [laughter] i want to emphasize how important it is. Collecting these needs to be at the sized interested in collecting these debate needs to be emphasized for anyone interested in political theory. John has already collected 25 volumes of these ratification debates. These debates that took place over whether the country should ratify the constitution contain every major issue of politics, anything you can think about in politics is included. They are the richest debates ever recorded. Maybe athens had richard debates but we do not have the maybe fifth century athens had richer debates but we do not have the documents. Maybe england had richer debates but we only have fragments of their discussion. Here we have in three dozen volumes and unbelievable collection by elites, ordinary people. It is incredible to know that it is all hours. All ours. Its american. And yet, i believe it is the greatest collection of discussions about politics that the world has. There may have been greater ones, but they did not get collected by people like john. So i want to pay tribute to all editors of documents for keeping these things alive. But i want to talk about is entitled, advice to the egyptians from the founding fathers. Three years ago in 2013, csis, a think tank in washington a stance for the center for strategic and international spring, they the egyptians, two years after the arab spring they invited 30 egyptians, journalists, politicians, academics, women, to members of two members of the freedom and justice party, the Muslim Brotherhood present among these. In that spring, president mohammed morsi, the Brotherhood Party had just been elected and probably the fairest election egypt had ever had and yet things were not working out in the streets. There was a good deal of fear. Democracy was not working out for the egyptians. Csis invited them to talk about the problems facing egypt could the arab spring survive . They thought it would be interesting to invite an american historian of the American Revolution to come and talk to tell these egyptians, how did we do it as if somehow lessens might be learned from the American Revolution. That is why i was there. When i am going to talk to you about is i am going to give you the lecture that i gave those egyptians. Before the arab spring, there was an atlantic spring, a series of democratic revolutions that spread from the Third Quarter of the 18th century and went on for 75 years, climaxing with the revolutions of 1848, intense by attempts in almost all of the european states to overthrow the monarchys and establish democracy. All of the revolutions failed and by the time you get to Abraham Lincoln he realized, and , this is the context for his speeches where he says the last best hope it looked like democracy was failing everywhere and Abraham Lincoln is saying, if we dont survive, then maybe the whole dream of democracy will fail. The American Revolution was the first of these revolutions. In 1776. It was no colonial rebellion like the algerians throwing off french rule in the 1960s. In american eyes, it was a world historical event. In the eyes of many radicals in europe at the time richard price, the unitarian minister, in 1785, said, the American Revolution is the second most important event in the history of the world. The first, of course was the , birth of jesus christ. That was the excitement among a lot of radicals, including french radicals. It was excitement over the American Revolution. The french revolution erupted 13 years later and because it was such a momentous of people, it upheaval, it tended to dominate western consciousness. But keep in mind, it followed the American Revolution in that havemething the french never forgiven us for. Many leaders believe the American Revolution was the stimulus for their revolution. Lafayette took the key from the best deal bastille and sent it to washington as a mark of your contribution. Of course, it hangs today in mount vernon. Revelation was not just colonial but the overthrowing of monarchy. It is a little confusing to use 18thcentury terms because we have a lot of monarchs in europe that we happen to like. You cannot think about monarchy in modern terms. The same way the 18thcentury did. Republics, Hosni Mubarak in egypt, cuba, china, Saddam Hussein in iraq to use republic in opposition to monarchy is confusing but if we think of monarchies in terms of authoritarian governments, we have a clearer understanding of what it meant to be opposed to monarchy. The americans did not intend to just to get rid of british tyranny, they wanted to end it tyranny for all time, they wanted to set an example for the rest of the world. They had a key responsibility, a responsibility to show the world theto become to show world a new libertarian democratic future. It is important to keep in mind that our experiment with democracy was not an immediate success. The United States was not a united country. There is over a decade between the declaration of independence and the constitution. Americans forget that. They tend to blur the two. Think the declaration of independence is in the constitution. They are separated by a decade and it was a very awesome decade. There was a real crisis in the 1780s. Many thought that the country would fall apart. The republican experiment seemed in peril. It was not an immediate success. Our experiment with republicanism. The United States constitution , which brought stability and unity to the country, was not something that anyone even imagined in 1776. There is not a single document that ive never been able to find where someone said this is the government we ought to have. Even those not happy never conceived of such a constitution. Something had to happen in that decade to change peoples minds. They had to think about this new Strong National government. In 1776, they established 13 independent democracies. Women, blacks, black slaves did not vote. Among the white population, three quarters of adult white males could vote, and extraordinary proportion, higher than anywhere in the world at the time. Even britain, only one out of six adult males could vote. The new United States has the most democratic policies in the world. The declaration of independence was a declaration of 13 independent states with their own constitution. They were writing the constitution before the declaration. There was no National Government. There was very little sense of nationhood. Jeffersons opening line, that is just a hope, not a reality. There is no sense of nationhood as of yet. When jefferson referred to my country, he meant virginia. When john adams said my country, immense massachusetts. The sense of being a United Nation is not yet clear. The United States, legally created with the declaration, was still a plural verb. That was true until the civil war the United States are. After the civil war, the united today,becomes as it is the United States is. Think about it. Most people do not think about the technical meaning of that. Separate states, united, but not until the civil war, not really united. These states eventually came together in a loose union called the articles of confederation. Keep in mind, the articles are not an early version of the constitution. They are a different thing altogether. They are a league. A treaty of these states coming together, like the e. U. That is the closest parallel in modern times to what they are doing. That clarifies what the articles were, instead of thinking them as an early version of the constitutions. They were not ratified for various reasons. People werent happy with this treaty. There were not ratified until march of 1781, six months before the battle of yorktown. 1781, the battle of yorktown ended the british will to continue the revolution and was the ending of the war. The new state constitutions ever that were drafted in 1776 were terribly important, more important than the federal constitution that followed. The federal constitution was derived from the experiments worked out. They were written documents and from that moment on, when people created new constitutions, everybody who wants a constitution wrote it down. That was not true earlier. If you are going to have a new constitution like in iraq, they wrote it down. That was a grand innovation. More important was the notion of separation of power. It does not mean just legislation, it is the prohibition on members simultaneously Holding Office in the legislature. By prohibiting that, you prohibit a rise of cabinet government, which has been more adopted by the world then our system so that when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she had to resign her senate seat. If she were in england, she would have to remain in the house of lords to get into the cabinet. That is the difference between our systems. The American Revolution created that separation of power. They thought that that was corruption, that the executive would corrupt the legislative. That barrier created our separation of power. In these constitutions, a great deal of power was given to popular state legislatures. Most of them maintained governors. Most of them had governors. The powers of these governors, the prerogatives were greatly reduced. They had no power of appointment to anybody in office. They had no power of veto. They were emasculated. Jeffersons proposal said, he is no longer a governor. Even the pardoning power which seems essentially magisterial was taken away in many states. That is how severe the stripping of power was. Almost immediately, the states began abusing their power. The state legislatures were acting minorities were being tyrannized by popular majority. That was not something the patriots expected. There was a debate between Daniel Leonard and john adams, who was defending the whig party. Leonard charged that the congresses would become tyrannical, abusing their power. John adams dismissed this. He said, it is impossible. The people cannot tyrannize themselves. He said that democratic despotism is a contradiction. 10 years later, he changed his tune. That was exactly what was happening. The legislatures were becoming despotic and it was a learning situation. An alarming situation. James madison summed it up in an unpublished essay. This is the most important document between the declaration and the federal constitution, the most important document written in that interval. He was region in early 1787. It is a working paper. He was always a clear thinker and he wanted to get, what is wrong with america . He wrote these ideas you can call it up on your ipads. The vices of the political system of United States. He outlines what is wrong with america and popular politics. These excesses of democracy. The popular state legislatures were being annually elected, which was an innovation in most states. The turnover in some states were 60 . 60 new people. Each legislature had new things to enact. The multiplicity he outlined three evils, mutability, multiplicity, and injustice. That is his main objection. Multiplicity comes from the numerous legislatures, the turnover. More laws enacted in the decades since the declaration then the entire colonial period. More laws then in 100 years. And the laws were constantly changing. In this flood of legislation with new people every year, all been acting their narrowminded Interest Group legislation. Most important was the injustice. He is concerned about minorities being oppressed by majorities. The principal is the same, how do you protect minorities in a democratic polity . What the legislatures were doing were passing all kinds of legislation and the printing of paper money which creates inflation so that people were getting paid back they might lend 100 pounds and they were getting back pieces of paper issued by the state which said 100 but they were not worth 100. Prices have been inflated. Many of the american elites, the aristocracy, and this includes slaveholders, they are learning a lot of their money not from what they sold, although, the southern planters were making money from rice and put tobacco wasnt quite what it used to be but many of them were acting as bankers, lending money. As you know, the english aristocracy lived off of rent and that was true until the 1920s if you watch downton abbey. The lord is still charging rent to succeed. That was not possible in america because there was very little tenantry. There is some in new york and some in virginia, but not much. Land is too plentiful. So the gentry are living off this interest paid from loans but that interest is been inflated so they have a vested interest in preventing this kind of paper money. All of these problems, said madison, and this is true for any minority , and themajority rule big problem in the middle east today, as you know. Im quoting madison, brought into question the fundamental principle of republican government that the majority that rule in such governments are the safest guardians of the public good and minority rights. That was a major problem. I cannot think of a more major problem. How do you curb majorities without doing violence to majority rule . That is still problem a problem. The theory going back to aristotle would be, if you have too much democracy, you have to bring some monarchy into play. Some authoritarian ruler. Give the authoritarian ruler more power, curb the democratic excesses. In 18thcentury terms, you would have to say that these governments needed monetary. Needed monarchy. Some americans in the 1780s suggested that. Barrett things they got to go the way were really keen on having a monarch. He says nothing else will work. Some thought washington himself should become the king or a dictator. These suggestions were made to him and he dismissed them out of hand. As you know, we came close to a military coup detat headed off only by a brilliant speech by washington to the military officers who were plotting to march on the continental congress. Madison did not want to go in that direction. What he wanted i want a republican remedy for republican ails. How do you do that . The creation of a new federal government becomes his solution. By the 1780s there was a consensus that the articles of confederation were not working out, Confederation Congress lacked the power to tax and regulate. The reason for that is because congress was a substitute for the crown. The crown could do a lot of things, wages war, appoint offices, and so on. What it cannot do, it cannot tax or regulate trade in that is why the congress which was supposed to be a substitute for the crown was deprived of those powers. Now people are thinking, this system is not working. By 1786, the entire political nation i dont think anybody objected to this was ready to add those two powers to the articles of confederation so there is a consensus building up. Rhode island was very cantankerous, turning down things. They came around to accept the idea of giving a 5 duty tariff duty tax power. Everyone is ready for those kinds of reforms. What happened is that madison and his followers, takes advantage of this consensus and hijacks this Reform Movement to create something entirely different. His virginia plan is much more than a couple of articles added to the articles of confederation. He scraps the articles and asserts a powerful government that is a real governments, not a league, not a treaty a government that reaches directly to the people. The government that we have, essentially. So he is going to solve two problems at once. He is going to take advantage of that consensus to create this new kind of government. He says this was caused by so many and these are the terms he uses code words for narrowminded people who are creating this kind of excessive democracy the parochial, illiberal, liberal arts they are narrow and uneducated. These are the kinds of people who are doing all this bad stuff. William mckinley, from pennsylvania, he is exactly the kind of person that madison dislikes. He had taken advantage of the revolution, now a politician in pennsylvania. He comes from the western part of the state and he is a fan of the farmers who want paper money and he is much hated by the elites. He is asked by the legislature there is a meeting that is going to take place to presumably reform the article. That is the way it is phrased. The legislature asks if he would like to go to this. He says what you pay my way . He says i cant afford to live in expensive city like philadelphia. He says, that these other guys do it. As it turns out, the pennsylvania delegation was made up of seven people who lived in philadelphia. Nobody from the rest of the state. One of the representatives wasnt even a resident, was not a citizen. Robert morris says, why dont you come along . Because he is the man actually wrote the constitution. Why dont you come to this meeting . Governor morris spoke for the pennsylvania delegation through the old convention. Finley had no idea that that was going to happen. They did not tell him in advance. It was a loaded convention. Made up of what you might call nationalists. Berry shrewdly called themselves the federalist. The opponents of the federalists are the nationalists. But they were very smart group of people. It is a loaded convention. The only supporters were lancing and yates. From new york. And as soon as they grasped the implication it takes them a little while. They see the virginia plan introduced. They begin to think about, what does this mean . They think, were supposed reform the articles. And they walk out, leaving the new york delegation alone with alexander hamilton. He hasnt got a quorum. They can never vote. But the time they leave, new york never votes on anything. For the rest of the convention. When you read the final letter that washington writes, he names all of the states that have supported this convention report. The states, new hampshire, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island does not even come to the convention. And he says, mr. Hamilton of new york. He has to name the single person. So, it is a loaded convention in and so madison and his colleagues are out to do more then just reform the articles. Rid ofe going to get them completely and create an entirely new government. Proposesvirginia plan a to house two House Legislature with both houses , have proportional representation. That was very important to madison. He wants both houses to be like the house of representatives. Not simply because he comes from the biggest state in the union but more importantly, he was to keep the state out of the system altogether. He sees that the states have a representation in the government, as states. They are so strong the loyalty is so strong that the federal government will never be able to stand up against them. And they will just destroy the system from within. He wants that is why he wants proportional representation. The other thing he wants is a veto. A negative power given to the congress which is a bicameral legislature. Both houses being proportionally representative. A veto power given to the congress over allstate bills. Now think about that. 50 states would have to send bills to washington. Through the capital. There would have to be hearings and they should decide, should we veto or not veto . I mean it is totally , impractical. The fact that it stays in the beforell into late june wiser heads finally prevail and say we cant do that. That would be an endless problem, having to send every piece of legislation passed by a state legislature to the capital to be okayed by the congress. What you have instead is article one section 10 of the constitution which, if you look at your constitution says, the states cannot do certain things. Prohibitions on the states. They cannot pass tariffs. They cannot pass ex post facto laws. They cannot violate contract or , most important, they cant print money. Can you imagine . Illinois would love to print money. Get rid of the pension problem overnight. It is probably a good thing that the state cannot print money. Of course, what happened this is an ad lib. , the states were prohibited, but they got around that in the early republic by chartering banks, which printed the paper money, because , by the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the paper money was the Generating Force behind the expansion of the american economy, particularly in the north. Internal trade, domestic trade. The paper money made it possible for the economy to grow. They got around that prohibition with all these banknotes. The paper money was so much needed that counterfeiting became a major sport and people accepted counterfeit money. They just sort of wing to their eyes. As long as everybody because paper money is so much needed even if its counterfeit as , somebody will accept it. Just as good as any other kind of money. He has these two things , that he wants. Absolutely necessary is the veto power. And the proportional representation. Now, he loses both of these. He loses the veto by article one, section 10. Of the constitution. Proportional representation, he fights longest four. The climax comes in the middle of where you have what everyone knows, every, schoolboy knows, the connecticut compromise. Two senators for each state, regardless of the size. And now we have, from our democratic point of view, the absurdity have wyoming with 600,000 people with two senators and california with 37 Million People with the same two senators. There is no changing that. That is the one thing that cannot be amended. According to article five. That was not a compromise for madison. That was a defeat. The next day, he meets with his virginia colleagues and other sympathizers to caucus. Shall we walk out . Well, if virginia walked out, that is the and of the convention. Because virginia is the most dominant state in the union by far. No state has ever dominated our country in the way the virginia did in these years. The biggest state and population, wealth, territory. And as virginia went, so did the nation. It is not surprising that four out of the first five president s were from virginia. The commanderinchief was a virginian. If virginia was the dominant state, if the virginia delegation had walked out that , would have been the end of the convention. There would have been no federal government. So, they caucused. They go backandforth. They dont want to destroy the effort, so they stay. But madison never got over that. He saw that as a defeat. He saw both of those things the , loss of the veto and proportional representation, also is defeats. Now the question many were , stunned when they saw the constitution published. In september of 1787. Not what we wanted. This is not what we expected. Hundreds of thousands of people are shocked who would never have thought that this was going to come out of the convention. They thought it was going to be an enhanced articles of confederation. So, this is immediately they go into opposition. This is where the antifederalist that is what as a name. Them the opponents of the constitution. That is not what they wanted at all. Now the question that was raised , by madison himself. He could not say anything to jefferson because they took a bow of secrecy. Jefferson is, of course, in paris, as minister to france. As close as friends could be in this time madison was to let , wanted to let jefferson know what has happened. He is a little bit anxious because he knows that jefferson isnt quite as sympathetic to the antidemocratic constitution as he is. So he says to jefferson, he actually raises this question that any historian or political scientist would what is different about the federal constitution that will keep it from doing the same kinds of evil things, vicious things, that the state legislature did . Why isnt it going to have the same multiplicity or mutability for unjust laws . Well you could say, they are in , for two years. At least. Senators are in for six. But still that is the question , that he raises. He actually says to Jefferson Madison was to think through everything. He does think through everything. He wants to explain. He has a long letter you can look it up which explains the thinking that went into the constitution. Now, it goes right by jefferson. Itont know if you read carefully or if he has a preconceived he is kind of a kneejerk liberal. He says if things dont fit his preconceived notion, he doesnt Pay Attention to it. It goes right by him. All he can see is a president who looks at a polish king. Polish kings were elected and served for life. When the king died, the aristocracy elected a new king. That is how jefferson season the president did other stuff that washington would serve until he died. And then the Vice President would take over. Anyways, he says, how is this going to work . He says, one thing, smallmatter, but it is still important at the end, he said the desirable the narrowing of representation means that there will be a better class of person in the congress. The First Congress has 65 members. I mean, that is very small for a population of some of the state 4 million. Legislatures, massachusetts was 350 something. North carolina was, i think, 232. This is how they thought it would work. North carolina was given five congressmen in the congress. Its got 232 members in the state legislature, but there are only five College Graduates in the state of north carolina. Madison assumes those five College Graduates have been liberally educated. Maybe at princeton. Unc had not been created, so they would have to go north. Maybe william and mary. But they would be liberal minded, and they would be the kind of people in the congress. Youre going to get a better class of person. He uses the term the purest and noblest characters into the congress because of this narrowing of representation. That was his hope. But more important, i think, people believe that the expanded sphere of the United States new government would work to prevent any one faction or interest from congealing with others to create a bad legislation. One of the problems the state had, there were these Interest Groups. It took a small amount, they would come together and promote their vicious legislation. Now they have so many Interest Groups because the expanded sphere, they will neutralize one another. And allow enlightened men to promote the public good. Now, he gets this insight from experience. He feels that nothing comes from reading books. That is probably true. That is probably true, when you read it when you pick out what you are reading something that jogs with your experience. There was a point in testing the conventional wisdom, and the public had to be smaller and homogenous. And then he comes along, he is a terribly eccentric taking on conventional wisdom all the time, bright guy. He said no, we can expand the society, they will not congeal. He made the point that madison sees, but he had experienced it firsthand with his shepherding the jeffersons bill for religious freedom through the legislature. Both of these insights that he has are expressed in his two famous federalist papers, if you want to look them up, federalist 10 and federalist 51. This comes from the 1785, 1786 experience in getting this bill to disestablish the applicable church, the church of england, that was dominating religious life in virginia. Madison came to realize the separation of church and state that jefferson wanted in his bill, and is a really radical bill, and true religious liberty, jefferson and madison both said, we are not going to go half way with this. This is not toleration. We are going to god be unlocked beyond the locke. There may be no place still where religious is kept out of the state. That was uniquely 18th century. Even holland is very liberal, did not have this kind of religious liberty. Toleration is one thing. Toleration is the kind of establishment you tolerate other groups. That is a far cry from what jefferson had in mind. Jefferson is the intellectual, he thinks this will combine rational argument. We will convince people this is the rational thing to do. Madison said, that is crazy. What is going to work, what really enables us to get this bill through is the multiplicity of sex and the jealousy sects and the jealousy of each other. You have the baptists and the quakers all frustrated with the legislature to adapt the bill. Now the presbyterians could have been assured that they would be the established church in place of the episcopal church, they would have taken that. The thing one of the wants to be except for the baptists is to be in charge, but they come to the realization that since none of them can make it, it is better to neutralize the state completely in religious matters. That is the basic insight of that is the basic that is the basic insight that madison reaches, only because of the jealousy of each. Jefferson never sees that. He sees people have become more real small more reasonable like me. They will believe in separation of church and state. I say this as a parenthetical remark, i was on a conference with, sponsored by monticello to discuss the separation of church and state with scholars from all over the world, including two muslims, one from indonesia, one from iran, and europeans and americans. We were all discussing jeffersons argument, separates four separation of church and state. The europeans and the americans understood, though they didnt but the two, muslims founded in comprehensive will. They said that if religion is important, the state must be involved in it. Ou start to see the problem anyway, madison sees this as an example, these different interests neutralizing one another. This is how the federal government is going to operate, allowing people like himself , enlightened puritans to , operate and promote the public good. So the lesson that came out of this american spirit that i told the egyptians, democracy is more than majority role. Rule. Though that is, of course prerequisite. , aessential. It also needs attention for minority rights and individual liberties. If it is to be a real democracy. Moreover, separation of church and state does not have to mean the loss of state. Loss of faith among the people. What was extraordinary over the next generation was the flourishing of religious life in america despite the first amendment. Now all of the states, the first , amendment did not apply to the states, massachusetts and connecticut kept their established churches, which were dissenting churches, not the church of england, until 1819 1833 and in the case of massachusetts, 1819. But the other states more or less went the way of virginia. It was an extraordinary moment in christendom, and people marveled at it having separation at it. Having separation of church and state, and yet the second great awakening, religious revivalism was flourishing without state control or state interference. So that was a lesson that might , have been taken by the egyptians and other arabs. Now of course, what i said as you know, had no effect whatsoever. Within four months the egyptians , had moved in a monarchical direction in a military coup. General cc took over and was elected president under an election that was not at all as fair as the other president had been elected by. President morsi was elected and thrown in jail where he sits , today. Many of the Muslim Brotherhood were outlawed, the Freedom Justice Party was outlawed, many arrested. That is the solution the egyptians reached, and it has been embarrassing because we were excited about the arab spring. We endorsed mubaraks overthrow without much hesitation even , though we had been allies for a long time, now we are stuck mubarak, if you will, who may be more oppressive than mubarak was. It is not a very happy solution. Despite recent shenanigans, the electoral process, we live in the western world and have been blessed for the last 200 years, and we can only watch with dismay as other people, especially in the middle east, struggle to establish some kind of populist based democracy. Thank you. [applause] gordon wood thank you very much. [applause] gordon wood be happy to take questions. You talk about madison as being a front runner to the conversation to the constitution but being disappointed with the constitutional compromise. Did that lead to his disinterest in advancing the constitution . Because he was diminished in his role related to the federalist papers and he had authored, perhaps 15 whereas hamilton offered as many as 50 . Gordon wood he did not desire to promote it. He is a politician first. He is not a john locke or a montesquieu. He doesnt sit in a closet and right. He is a working politician but a very intelligent thinking one. He quickly adjusts, i will do the best i can to get this thing through. So, he works. It is just that hamilton is such an extraordinary engine of energy that he organized the federalist papers. He wanted jay to help out, who got ill, only did five. Madison wrote as fast as he could, but who could keep up with hamilton . Hamilton was an unbelievable guy. He by any measure, he was the , smartest of the founders. In other words, he could read a paragraph quickly, absorb it, and write a paragraph quickly probably better than anyone else. It is not surprising that he wrote many more than madison did , but madison was very much in favor of the constitution. It wasnt exactly what he wanted. When he writes his ladders letters, it is not despair, this will not work, it will not fail, but he had a vested interest of emotion in those two measures. So he came around, but he certainly is in favor of it. There is a new book out by Mary Dillinger called madison at hand , and it seems that madison worried, she suggests, worried about jeffersons reading of his performances in the convention, dr. The notes to make them seem a little less antipopular, a little less antidemocratic. There is certainly evidence that he did change things. Exactly when is not clear, but it is possible, she writes. And she just won the bancroft prize last spring. There is a lot more to be found out about this whole business if she is right. But he he has to he is really much more antidemocratic than jefferson. What is interesting, in response to his letter, he talks about the evils of majority rule and how they are oppressing minorities, jefferson comes back as if he had not read that and says, the one thing i believe in is majority rule. They are not really meeting, yet they are very close friends. Madison has to adjust. He does, of course quite , radically in the 1790s because he is totally surprised hamiltons program, which is not what he has in mind. Yes, sir . That leads into my question. Can you explain how madison from being one of the architects of the constitution, the chief legislative lieutenant in the First Congress to working with jefferson on the kentucky and virginia resolutions . Gordon wood it is a great problem. Right, right. I call it the madison problem. In the 1780s, based on the he thinks the states other problem, the federal government is the solution. And then in the 1790s he says the federal government is a problem and the states are the solution. It is a major problem to explain what happened. I think it is best explained in his reaction to hamilton. That program. It is not what he had in mind. Read the 10th federalist carefully. His conception of the National Government is judicial. His image is adjudicatory. Its an empire umpire. The federal government will be an umpire by all of the vested interest. He does not have in mind the kind of fiscal military state, european type state that hamilton wants to build. Hamiltons image or his model is england. England had come out of the 17th century, and in the course of the 18th century, had emerged as the most powerful nation in the world. This Little Island where a third of the population of france had by its financial structure creating the bank of england, stock market, a host of financial reforms, had enabled its state to tax its people without impoverish ring impoverishing them. Thats the secret of any government. The french could not do this. Hamilton wants to copy that. He said, yes, that is how we are going to build. First, the dutch did it in a 17th century. The brits are actually following the dutch only on a bigger scale , and expanding on what they had done. Now hamilton wants the same thing. His model is what has been labeled a fiscal military state. He follows that the United States, within four decades, four or five decades, could take on the europeans in their own terms. We have democracy, standing army, navy, we would be powerful. It wasnt off i much. Off by much. By the civil war, the United States was a major power, only they were fighting each other. But it was capable of taking on european states if it had to. And it did. Later, it showed itself to be a world power. But that is what hamilton wanted. It is not at all what madison had in mind. He sees the implications of hamiltons program, he is stunned. Hamilton doesnt understand it. He thinks mr. Madison was with me. We wrote these papers together. He was surprised by madisons opposition. He i think that if understood that madison did not have the same vision and i think , that vision is a different kind of National Government. It is a umpire. The federalist paper is through with judicial imagery, and that explains the problem. Or that is the solution to this madison problem. [indiscernible] this one here. Well we got two questions. ,one more person down here. My question would be, what were your suggestions to the egyptians when they asked about their problems gordon wood i am not hearing you well. My hearing is not all that great. My question is, what were your suggestions to the egyptians . Gordon wood what was the reaction . Sorry, your suggestion. Gordon wood my suggestion, what do they think of my suggestion . What did i think of theirs . What were your suggestions . Gordon wood my suggestions were what i just told you. [laughter] im sorry but i forgot what , you said about your suggestions. I would like to reaffirm your point. Gordon wood their reaction was, you were lucky. You americans. It is true, we were blessed, we had all that experience. As englishmen. We had been electing legislation, legislators for hundreds of years in some colonies. We had trial by jury. We had essentially the bill of rights, magna carta, no taxation without representation within each of our states, but we had the experience, trials and elections, and no european country except england itself had elections. Even there, they were not comparable to what we were doing. We had enormous experience, and enormous advantage. When the french began their revolution, they had not had a meeting of these since 1614, so nobody alive had any experience. It is no wonder that the french revolution went crazy. So in that sense, we were blessed. And at was true of these egyptians. I had no experience, really. They had elected mubarak. But it was a phony election. The only election in egypts the one that was electedmorsi. Elected morsi. That was the fairest election they had, and it turned out to collect the guy they didnt like. He is a Muslim Brotherhood man. It was not a fair election, but that was the majority not treating the minority well. There were a lot of secular minded people that was frightened by that, and there was disorder in the streets and insecurity. It was an impossible situation. The arab spring was so hopeful in the west. We dumped mubarak it is actually kind of embarrassing. I think a lot of realistic political figures were embarrassed by the quickness with which the Obama Administration dumped mubarak, and now we have a second mubarak, and we are not worrying complaining about it. Because better stability than disorder. But they it was a kind of i dont know what i thought my part in the american resolution my little talk of the american was going to do, but i guess they thought it would be an interesting contrast. Look, if the people who were there the people, the 30 , egyptians that represented the country, they were fairly sophisticated. They all spoke english and they were at each others throats. The two people from the Muslim Brotherhood were very quiet and rarely spoke, which suggests something. They were uneasy. Their president was the one being talked about. Their man was being talked about. And they did not come to his defense. They were the most quiet of the 30 odd people there. But i was not privy to their private conversations. I dont know how they felt about each other. But there was a point where the school was business there. And a verytner sophisticated man, very hopeful for the arab spring. But i dont know what he thinks now. Just one more here. So you have all these brilliant men get together, they write the converse constitution about how government works, and they miss the bill of rights. How did that happen . I would like your thoughts and how they went about fixing it as they did. Seems like with their experience at the state level, they should have had that in mind. Gordon wood madison has a very sick sophisticated argument for why there is no bill of rights. It was included by george mason in the last few days. After four months of meeting, a groan goes through all of them, do we have to have a bill of rights . And they vote on it, and every delegation turns it down. They said it was about limited government power. What is the use of the bill of rights when you have delegated power . It isnt necessary. That is the sophisticated argument madison used to jefferson. But jefferson, thinking again in his ideological ways, he says my french friends, i am embarrassed that we dont have a bill of rights, because they expected. Expect to have a bill of rights. They were of course applauding. So in light of the world expecting us to have this, he is apologizing in embarrassment. Now, he sent that letter off to er. Aryland or maryland this acquaintance publishes the letter. Suddenly there are antifederalists everywhere. Saying mr. Jefferson wants a bill of rights. Madison is caught. Says, finally, if hes going to get into the house of representatives now you have , to go back to the state of virginia. Patrick henry is a powerful man. It is amazing the ratification got through virginia, because without virginia, there is no constitution. It got through only by a few votes, but henry is still in dominant. Madison. Ng to ice out madison wants to go into the senate. Henry said because the legislator elects the senate, in those days, and he says no you are out of the senate. ,he says this is my government, you know. So he runs for house seat. What henry does is redistrict his district. [laughter] in a way that cuts out some of his natural voters Orange County , voters, and puts up this young war hero against him, james monroe. Madison for the first time in his life, he hates to have to do this he has to give a speech. , gives you an idea of the difference of politics. He does not want to have to electioneer. It is the first time he has ever done this, and he promises them that if i am elected, i will get a bill of rights in two, to amend the constitution. And he takes the lead and his federalist friends say forget it, mr. Madison dont sign the , constitution before it is on its feet. Let it go. He says no, i promised my constituents. He called it a nauseous project that nonetheless, i promised my constituents. He is the major, he is the real father of the bill of rights. The rest of his colleagues are rolling their eyes they, what is going on with this guy . So, he deserves to be called he is called the father of the constitution even though he lost , two of the major things he wanted, but hes really the father of the bill of rights. Thank you, thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] watching American History tv. All weekend, every weeke