Constitutional convention in philadelphia during the spring and summer that year and profiles the men who wrote and signed it that september day. His book is titled plain, honest men. The National Constitution center in philadelphia hosted this hourlong event in 2009. I guess were ready. I want to first of all thank steve for that wonderful introduction and especially for not comparing us to bonnie and clyde or abbott and costello. Which if you had been at some of the original conversations, you could have easily concluded. I also want to say to steve and stefan and all of the trustees here and real linch in the audience who are part of the National Constitutional center extended family it is just wonderful to be back here but even more than that, its wonderful to be back here without any real responsibilities whatsoever. If you have any complaints about tonights program or acoustics or parking or accommodations, i can give you linda johnsons email at the end of the program and urge you to be in touch with her. Most of although, its great to be here but its an extraordinary honor and privilege to be here with rick. Rick really was the intellectual Guiding Light behind the creation of the exhibits which as magnificent as the architecture of this place, the exhibits are its heart and soul. Over those conversations in his college hall office over many, many months the story of we the people took shape. The unsung hero of that, by the way, was ricks then dog named chief justice john marshmallow. If you buy and read the book, as steve urges, i also urge, you will see that Abigail Adams is the new plays that role now. But rick has a hero isk interelect and written a remarkable and compelling and wonderful book. Im looking forward to the conversation. I hope you enjoy it and i hope you enjoy the conversation you will have with rick as you read through those pages. The first question i think, rick, is really the dog that didnt bark, why hasnt there been a book since Katherine Rinker wrote miracle in philadelphia 40 years ago . 43 years ago. Was she a philadelphiaen . She was a philadelphiaen. Im going to answer that question and i promise this is not going to be a love fest between bonnie and clyde or whomever. What i do have to echo what steve frank said about joe and terrific relationship we have had over the years and all you need to do is look out that window at that spectacular vista and look at this amazing institution that joe built. He is the founding father of the constitution center. I do count it as the greatest thrill of my life to be part of it. [applause] thank you. So youre going to go easy on me now. I was going to go easy on you before that. Now its going to be [laughter] 40some years have elapsed since there was a full narrative history of the Constitutional Convention. I think that time elapsed because katherine drinker bones book was a really terrific book. In fact, i was first inspired to love the Constitutional Convention by reading an earlier book by carl van doron, the great rehearsal as a school child. But as a firstyear graduate student i read katherine drinker bones book and although in fact the academic reviewers were a little hard on it, as academic reviewers are inclined to be, i thought it was a wonderful book. It inspired me. I have gone back to it over the years. But over the years i have learned more about the Constitutional Convention. I think scholarship on the Constitutional Convention has changed. And i decided that it was perhaps time to take those wonderful bronze statues over there in signers hall, and they are perfect likenesses. You will never see a better rendering of the found fathers than the bronze statues in signers hall but i decided i wanted to take those bronze statues and bring them to life, not as mythic figures but as real men. The title of the book plain, honest men comes from one of he convention dell gets, governor morris of pennsylvania. And morris was acting against attendance which was a few months after the convention adjourned to make these folks larger than life. There are two very important letters that contribute to this. The first was from Thomas Jefferson to john adams. While the convention was going on, adams was serving in paris ambassador to france and he wrote adams and he said, im given to understand that an assembly of demiigods has gathered in philadelphia. I actually think jefferson meant that somehow sarcastically because he wasnt the kind of demiigod orlieve in much in divine inspiration. The other letter is the famous letter from George Washington to lafayette written in february of 1788 in which he said he believed it was a standing miracle that the founders could create a constitution so little liable to wellfounded objections and katherine drinker bone began her book with those words and went on to add the miracles did not happen by accident. They are prayed for. And that was a very compelling otion that i think in fact governor morris came close to the truth when he said although some ascribed the constitution to heavenly origins, im inclined to give it a more earthly explanation. I believe it was the work of plain, honest men. They werent so plain. They were mostly wealthy, white, privileged, 18th century americans. And young. And remarkably young. Average age of 44. And you have to remember Benjamin Franklin at 81 brought that average age way up. So i wanted to tell the story of the making of the constitution through the eyes and actions and thoughts not of largerthanlife gods but real men. Its very important to understand them in their historical context. By the way, i cant resist saying that im trying in one sense demystify them but in every way i come away from my years writing this book with greater and greater respect for them. I frequently joked to my students and my courses, and i know many of them are actually out in the audience, which im gave rateful, that if you me the choice between the very best 55 members of our Current Congress and 55 guys who were gathered in the Assembly Room of the pennsylvania statehouse, and mind you, there were a few losers among that 55 in the statehouse, but on average, i would take 55 in the statehouse any day. Rick in his book says, he says he spent 40 years thinking about this book, which by the way, by my calculation works out to about page a month. We will leave that. We have a problem . Can we mic this up a bit . Joe and i have never been accused of failing to project. The email i was going to give you, i give you now. Take that one off. Can people hear me . They seem much happier about that. Is this on yet . Is it on now . Can i just try projecting . Rick in the book talked about how long he lived with these founders and talked about how happy he would be to take still not. All right. Joe and i have the same attitude towards technology. Its and highly adversarial one. Of the founders you lived with 40 years, we know you take the best of them but what about what you viewed to be the worst of them . For all of you who have not read the book yet, i will say rick is pretty hard on Alexander Hamilton, who i grew up thinking was one of the great heroes of the convention. Talk about hamilton but also talk rick about over time who did you grow to like less and who did you grow to like more . Ok, fair enough. I know theres hamilton buffs out there in the audience, so i know i run the risk of provoking hostile questions later in the program. Hamilton i think is deservedly praised for his work as secretary treasury during the 1790s. If youre going to rank the Founding Fathers in terms of i. Q. , hamilton would be up there at the very top. But if you were going to rank the men in the convention in 1777 in terms of e. Q. , i think hamilton would be pretty close to the bottom. He was just fundamentally out of step with the direction in which the nation was moving. He was at a disadvantage because he was part of a new york delegation which included two other delegates who were bitterly opposed to any efforts to strengthen the Central Government. He was outvoted in this delegation in every single issue. And perhaps it provoked him to the extremes to which he went but on june 18, he stands up in the convention and gives a sixhour speech in which he basically argues that we should recreate the british constitution. That we should install a president for life. That we should elect a United States senators or actually that the National Legislature should elect United States senators for life. Think about that, folks is, would you like harry reid and Mitch Mcconnell to be your senators for life . [laughter] youre going to get me in trouble. Joes a democrat so at least one half of that will be all right. In any case, he was just entirely out of step. He gives this overlong speech at the end of the speech, one of the delegates William Samuel johnson of connecticut comments that Alexander Hamiltons speech was admired by everyone and agreed to by no one. Really at every stage in the convention from that time forward he was marginalized. He disappeared from the convention for about a month, although he did come back and its not clear even whether he was authorized to sign the constitution since the new york delegation had already left in protest, but hamilton did add his signature. I think he was not a big contributor. If hes the one who sunk the most in your estimation, who rose the most . A man named james wilson. This might get boring, because ames wilson was pretty boring. Educated in scotland at st. Andrews university. A brilliant man. He was the only and a very strong nationalist. Somebody who truly thought it was essential that the powers of the Central Government be strengthened. He was the only man in the convention to argue consistently for direct popular election of the president. He understood that a government based on we, the will of we the people, had to have a strong xecutive who could speak unequivocally in the name of we the people. Of course, all of the jockeying back and forth that results in thatlectoral college meant wilson alas was a minority of one in the convention on that issue. By the way, when Prince Charles visited the constitution center, wilson was the found he he took a picture standing next to. As far as we tried to get him over next to George Washington, we thought that would be 200 years later a great photo, he took a fancy to wilson. What fascinated me and the sort of color and character for these guys whom i think we here thought we knew pretty well, just astonished me in the book. Just wonderful little anecdotes that bring each of them to life in a way they sort of seem distance. The one that sticks in my mind the most, rick describe Luther Martin as a better debater drunk than most of the delegates sober. [laughter] which i thought was very funny. But really was arresting was rick puts forth a pretty good argument in the book for why Charles Pinckney could be considered almost madisonen. Could be a claimant to the title father of the constitution. Can you talk a little about his history . Charles pinckney certainly would have wished he would have thought of his father of the constitution. Its a peculiar fact of history that so much of our understanding of the Constitutional Convention depends on the diligent notetaking and indeed integrity of one man, James Madison, who sat there day after day after day taking detailed notes. On the first major day of business at the convention, may 29, Edmond Randolph presented really for James Madison the plan that madison, governor morris and james wilson had cooked up in the weeks before the convention opened, the virginia plan. Which we often think of as forming the essential basis of much stronger Central Government that emerged from the convention. And madison reports that plan and debates on that plan in minute detail. But towards the end of the day Charles Pinckney rises and presents a very detailed plan which bears, if anything, a greater resemblance to the finished constitution thans the virginia plan. He also, it is known, gave a long speech. We know not what he said in this speech because madison failed to record it in his notes that speech. And in the middle of the convention, pinckney gave another long speech defending his version of the plan. Did anyone give short speeches back then . Some mercifully did but pinckney didnt. Madison actually spoke more frequently than anyone in the convention but he actually was able to be concise at times. So i think there are two facts operating here. I actually do believe in the end madison was the brains behind our conception of the constitution. But pinckney deserves much more credit than he has received. I think there are a couple of reasons he hasnt received it. One is that he, along with his South Carolina colleagues John Rutledge and Pierce Butler are more responsible than any of the other delegates for enshrining flavor in the constitution. The other reason is hes really not a very popular person. Among other things, after the convention adjourned, he lied about his age. He was 29 years old. The youngest member of the convention was Jonathan Dayton of new jersey at 26. But pinckney wanted to go down in history as kind of boy wonder of the Constitutional Convention. He claimed he was the youngest member of the convention. So there was a tendency towards selfpromotion on pinckneys part that hasnt sat well with his torians. 29 wasnt young enough for him. Thats right. Got to go lower. Anyone else remember tom laird, musical comedian had a line, when mozart was my age, he would have been dead five years. When you read this about 44yearolds, its sort of astonishing. I want to come back you mentioned one of the key subjects in the book and thats the way that the delegates treated or did not treat the subject of the slavery. I want to come back to some of the personalities. In some ways when you read is the book, the slines is kind of striking and you even quote dickinson writing in his journal the debate on representation that essentially they should feel ashamed they had to use a ,uphemism or leave the word out but other parts of the book i thought made the subject of slavery more central than even some of the things we think of as main dynamics, north versus south, small versus by, that they were less relevant than slave versus nonslave, and even setting the stage in philadelphia talking about if you went down to the docks in philadelphia, youre very likely to encounter slaveship. Take about how you in the end placed what they did and didnt do. First, one of the i guess the reasons why i think you should read my book, even if you read katherine drinker bones book and loved it, was that you do think this is the first fullscale skt of the Convention Account of the convention which accords the issue of slavery its appropriate place. The issue of slavery was omni present in the convention. It ultimately did not fully shape the constitution but we cant understand the debates, we cant understand the convention without understanding what one historian called the paradox of nations for this extraordinary american dilemma. The one tragic failure of the Founding Fathers is their failure to grapple constructively with the future of the institution of slavery in this land. Almost all of the men in that room, Assembly Room of the pennsylvania statehouse, believed that slavery was wrong. And also believe that its days were numbered because they were operating at a time when the tobacco kingdom was in decline. Cotton had not yet become major export crop. This was a moment when americas founders could at least have done something modest to weaken the institution. Abolishing slavery was off the table. There was no way you could form a union when half of the states in that union were still committed to maintaining at least the institution as it exists at that time. And in that sense the threefifths compromise, which i think most people are most familiar with, was a tragic but predictable one. But there were other compromises that were harder to sanction, at least through our 21st century lenses. Theres an agonizing debate over the continuation of the International Slave trade. There were only two states in the convention, South Carolina and georgia, who want to continue the slave trade. The most eloquent speech against the International Slave trade was made by george mason of virginia. A man who ironically owned 300 slaves himself. But he said slavery makes every man a tyrant. And as a nations are blessed for their virtues, they will be punished for their sins and slavery is a sin. But basically the South Carolina and georgia delegates said if you dont allow to continue slave trade, compromise for another 20 years, were walking. We will not be part of this union. Looking back with 20 20 hindsight, which is always perfect, perhaps the Founding Fathers should have let them walk. I think the National Fabric would have been stronger. As a consequence of that compromise, more than 100,000 new slaves entered american shores during the period from 1788 through 1808. And then finally and this is harder for me to explain, although i attempt to do so in the book, with fairen objection, the framers agreed to what i think are the most iniquitous clause in the constitution, fugitive slave clause. The clause which doesnt mention the word slave or slavery, refers to all other persons who escape from service to another state, unless by the law of the land be returned to their masters in the south. This was a provision of the constitution which made those states which had already moved to abolish slavery complicit with the institution of this slave trade. So the Founding Fathers really did leave us still with that paradox at the nations core. Rick, you mentioned in talking about this, the representation compromise, which in most accounts if slavery was the great failure, compromise was threatened to the Convention Part was the great success. But you make the great point in the book in some ways the compromise in the house and senate representing the people and states kind of set the table for competing interpretations that led up to the civil war. Can you elaborate on that a little bit. Again, the quote great compromise, which involved this agonizing and tedious debate between the large states and small states, which goes on for seven weeks. Its actually not a very edifying debate, i must say. Its basically about the interests of small states, which want as much weight in the legislature as they could get, and interests of the large states, which want as much weight as they can get and either side, they just wear each other down and finally they do adopt what is the obvious compromise proposed by Roger Sherman of connecticut. Who by the way was a broker of the threefifths compromise. These two are inextricably linked. And theyre all about interests. These are the two debates in the convention. Debates on the threefifths compromise and debate on the large state small state compromise, which leads us to our present structure of government in the house and senate. Which really have their origins in hard bargains among 18th century politicians. There is i think a fascinating footnote though to the large state small state debate. James madison hated the connecticut compromise. He was convinced that a truly National Government had to rest on we the people and that meant proportional representation in the house and senate. He voted against the connecticut compromise and he was seriously considering walking from the convention on the morning of july 17th after the compromise passed. When he realized and i have a feeling George Washington had something to do with talking him into sort of settling down a bit, so he accepted the compromise. Then the remarkable thing is when the convention adjourns and madison has to go out and sell the constitution to a dubious american public, in federalist 39 he goes on to write, the genius of this constitution is this bicamera legislature which representation in the house is according to population in the Senate Equality of representation, our government is not a consolidated National Government as our opponents are claiming it is. It is Part National and part federal. As a politician, i just have to say bravo. So the genius of american federalism, which is which has been turned into kind of highflown theoretical concept, comes out of hard bargaining between large states and small states. Why when you read it though, this idea is on the table pretty early and you read through the seven weeks and its like when you know the solution to a murder mystery, you keep wondering why does it take them several weeks to circle around and around . Did they just need to get exhaust the alternatives . Or was there that is exactly it, although at a key moment in the vote, two delegates from georgia, who had been voting with the large states, and we dont think of georgia as a large state. In fact, at that time georgias total population could easily fit into the wachovia center, but they thought of themselves as a future large state because of the importation of slaves and adongs of the threefifths compromise. But at a crucial moment those delegates were absent that day allowing the majority of the georgia delegations to swing the vote in favor of the connecticut compromise, five in favor, four opposed, massachusetts divided. And we still dont know quite why, right . I believe they wanted this union to go forward. And i will say that if there is single achievement of this convention, and if theres a single virtue of the collect tivety of men who gathered in the Assembly Room, is that ultimately with a few exceptions these were men who checked their egos at the door. These were men who ultimately re able to put their own personal and often strongly held convictions aside for the sake of union. Benjamin franklin, who plays an odd role in the convention. Hes 81. Sort of moves in and out of lucidity. I cant resist this one anecdote. Theyre debating how you should appoint or elect members of the supreme court. And franklin gets up and gives a long speech that we should follow the scottish example, which is that all of the lawyers in the country will cast ballots and they will elect from among their number the ablist men and they will comprise the supreme court. And his reasoning was the lawyers would want to get rid of the best and most talented lawyers and open up for themselves. The delegates just kind of rolled their eyes heavenly at this solution. Thank god they did, right . Can you imagine, can you imagine what would happen anklin franklin in the book, you have him in these moments making these speeches and were in philadelphia and we love dr. Franklin, but almost like a crazy uncle at thanksgiving. But you listen as one of the indispensable men. And the reason i do is the at l speech that he gives the convention and probably the final speech of his life in which the goal is to get every state to sign on to this document, to get the unanimous approval of the delegation and president. Truly they had been bickering over details, sometimes franklin doesnt deliver this speech. He hands it to james wilson. Franklin makes the observation which is so true, and members of congress, if you are listening, please heed the wisdom of these words. Says, whenever you gather a group of men together for their you gather with them all of their different ideologies, their different interests, their prejudices, and their selfish views. To i ask you, i beg you doubt a little bit your infallibility in this case. Many features of this of which i do not approve. But if you can accept a small sense of your own fallibility and a fix your signatures to this document, i guarantee you that in the long run if there are errors, we shall fix them. Really was a speech that not only moved delegates to get in a more agreeable frame of mind, but it is a lesson for politicians in time and mario. And memorial. The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure it is right. That is the real spirit behind the constitution. Talk about the other indispensable man. Washington, who comes across as more human than many accounts we may have seen. At times angry. Once or twice nervous. Surprisingly accessible, i think. Washington is the father of our country, and every survey ever given, washington comes out as the most reviewed american. He is hard to get a handle on because he knows hes always on stage. Its easy to pass washington off as a figurehead, and sitting up at the front of the room is the president of the convention. He gives only one short and relatively insignificant speech over the whole of the vention, but he is the guy he is the president of the convention and the president presides. He presided over that convention, did not miss a day. When the argument gets to heated, he knows when to call on someone else to diffuse the tension. Glance to just with a silence and obstreperous elegant. Delegate. All of the character of personality that washington has are on display in a gathering like that. Important, but it isnt the only thing. The other piece of washington i will just give you a hint of it, and ask you to please read more about it in the book washington spent the whole summer in philadelphia at the home of robert morris, the distinguished but controversial [inaudible] of the american revolution. The president s house when it opens in 2010. Washington did not want to come to the convention in the first but duty called and he came. But martha wasnt coming. Martha stayed home. Washington was deceased with the social invitations every night. He went out almost every night of the convention to tea or dinner at someones home, but he was most frequently entertained by samuel and elizabeth powell. More by elizabeth. Samuel powell was philadelphias most influential businessmen. Elizabeth powell was philadelphias most vivacious and fiercely intelligent woman. Just looking at his diary, he spent 16 evenings in her company. I know he spent many more evenings and afternoons in her Company Riding around in his carriage, going into the country. Every chance he got, he rode out in the country with elizabeth. They developed without question a deep and intimate im not suggesting impropriety [indiscernible] [laughter] washington was an 18th century man, not a 21stcentury man. Hard for me to conceive of an impropriety, but he deeply cherished elizabeth poss company. Continuedpondence long after the convention. President ing as philadelphia, so he saw elizabeth frequently then. After he retired from the presidency, he moved back to mount vernon. Himself compose it he had his secretary right out tos elaborate love poem elizabeth on her 50th birthday. One really does get a sense of washington the human being from these experiences, in ways we dont often see him. Questions here, then we will go to questions from all of you. Word revolution a lot in this book. It seems to me you could have had an alternate title. Not just in what you suggest the effects work, but suggesting and cohorts there was a fascinating virginiapennsylvania alliance, almost deliberately came, came in advance, made a plan. Almost like a cub also have way. Set the way you see it . Absolutely. The working title which did not survive the editorial process it is a fact that James Madison,dmund randolph, james wilson Benjamin Franklin arrived in philadelphia before the convention got under way. Theook 14 days for convention to comprise a quorum. They had an extra 14 days to concoct this plan. They really did concoct a plan to overthrow the articles of confederation. Americansence of during the revolution was a revolution against strong Central Government, against consolidated authority. That was still the inclination of most americans. Butuld not call it a cabal, it was a group of likeminded men who got together. They got together their first night they are in town, which is the night of may 16, ron. Enjamin franklins dinnertable it was the pennsylvanians and the virginians. For the most part, these folks did not know each other at that time. This is another reason why franklin is such a key figure. Even though he said wacky things during the debate and the convention, he is the guy who provides the social lubricant that gets these things done. Talk about the suppers. We were at a root an event recently which talks about how americans were shorting themselves of what the author calls communities of like mindedness. He talks about how we end up to peopleore and more who think just as we do. When we think of the supper gatherings they had and the delegates coming from different geographies but also wildly different points of political view, seemingly able to be civil and to hash it out. I think the difference between 18th century politics in the early 21st century politics these men lived in small boarding houses together. James madison lived in the same boarding house on the corner of sixth and market. They went into dinner together every night. Whatever differences they may have had on the floor of the Assembly Room that day, they were able to talk them out and work them out over dinner and i should say ample drinks. I cant resist one more anecdote. Before september 17, by may 15 that was a monday. A was the day they knew had unanimous agreement. The delegates went to the city tavern and had a total blowout. On the bill that night is a bill for Something Like 12 pounds for breakage. [laughter] they really were able, in spite of their differences, to develop a level of cordiality and civility among themselves, which is a very important part of constructive policy. Memo to congress. We have time for some questions from all of you. There is a microphone here in the center aisle. I want to ask you all to keep your questions as brief as you can so we can get as many in as we can. Hi. Just how much of each member delegates really represented the state they represented . [inaudible] good question. Each state voted as a unit. In all of the votes on the convention, individual votes dont count. It was the majority of the state delegation which would count. Before any important vote, the state usually sitting at the same table in that room would figure out how the votes lay. They did consult with one another in that sense and certainly as many points at many points in the convention you can see state interests come into play. Hand, one of the astonishing facts is the Constitutional Convention as it turned out was a pretty big , but the politicians in the states before may 25, when they finally got a quorum together, did not think it was a big deal. Did notthe delegates even show up on time. It took maryland about two months to elect a proper delegation. The delegation for New Hampshire did not show up until july 23. The only reason they showed up was one of their delegates [inaudible] to pay their expenses. The question asked about changing their minds. Say a quick word about the way and what you think that may have meant in the moment. In the discussion of the rules of the convention, they decided they would on most occasions proceed as a committee as a whole, which meant they would not have formal parliamentary votes, they would take a series of straw votes. The straw vote might come out one way one day, but if you came out 54 or 65 and it would clear the five in the negative, were not going to agree to the ultimate constitution. They have this ability to go back and revisit the question. Men were not likeminded in that they did not all share the same opinions. They did have a gentlemanly code that they really would listen to one another as long as they needed to do so. Thanks. My question deals with the 3 5 compromise. Why 3 5 . What was the debate in the committee . Is a wholly arbitrary number i have described the 3 5 compromise as a moral, mechanistic, but also predictable there needs to be some number which would compromise the interests of slave states and free states in the apportionment of representation. Proposedumber had been during the Confederation Period in the Continental Congress as a means of apportioning the financial obligations of the state to finance the revolutionary war. In fact, that proposal never passed. For some reason, that 3 5 ratio stuck. There was a little more than half. Three fourths was too much. One fourths was too little. That is not a very good explanation. Thats the best i think anybody can do. Question, what is your response to the claim that the constitution is compromised the declaration of independence . 200 years from the writing of the constitution, has the . Onstitution served its purpose wow. I do believe that the United States constitution as drafted in 1787 was a partial fulfillment of the ideals of the declaration of independence, but plainly, both in its this trust of democracy distrust of democracy we still do not have a provision to direct popular election of a president , for example. In itscourse, sanctioning of slavery was an imperfect realization of the ideals of the declaration of independence. Those imperfections were not settled by constitutional debate. They were settled in the most horrific war in American History, but through the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, move the constitution closer. Enables me to answer that i think through the amendment process the constitution has endured. The answer is in the exhibit. Articulated iere imperfect men and have never been perfectly achieved, but the story continues. Its not just to the process of amendment. It is true the process of citizenship that we continue to reach for in this more than 200year journey. At thepredicted beginning that there might be admirers of Alexander Hamilton in the audience who might protest. Im here to fulfill your prediction. [laughter] yes, he made a pathetically embarrassing speech at the convention. What you did not mention is that after the convention, he conceived the idea of the federalist papers, which is the by which wesuggests understand the constitution now. It was a superhuman achievement for him, a practicing lawyer the whole five months during the writing of the federalist papers, to have managed that accomplishment. The number of words he wrote lessred to the much prolific output of the two columnists in the new york times. Effectively but only partially rebutted. Hamiltonr defense to posta fender, the last two goes intof the book the Federalist Administration and gives hamilton more of a [inaudible] hamilton does organize the effort to write the papers. He gets medicine on board. One interesting fact i will not yield 100 on this. While it is true that hamilton wrote a majority of the essay and they were brilliant essays he was always confining to provisions in the constitution, ably defending them. The essays written by madison which deal with general principles of government those were the areas in which hamilton was more out of sync with popular opinion. Hamilton had the wisdom to leave that to madison, but i could not agree with you more hamiltons contribution to the papers was superb. For the record, that was about as slick as medicines [inaudible] on federalism madisons [inaudible] on federalism. Would the Founding Fathers think of the role of government is taking now in this meltdown of buying majority interest in box banks . I had not thought about it, and my opinions on the subject are probably no more legitimate than anyone elses, but im never short of opinions and never afraid to express them. Answer is thathe they wouldve had widely varying opinions. Robert morris, the financial wheeler and dealer of the Confederation Period and of the revolution and a strong advocate of a vastly strengthened Central Government, would almost certainly approve of a really strong Central Government role in these matters. Genia of of for virginia a tobacco planter, hated cities, hated takes banks, hated anything touching on commerce. It would be spinning in his grave. He probably is right now. It really does depend on who you ask, which gives me one more segue. The question i thought you were going to ask me was what the Founding Fathers would have thought about the current controversy over how we should interpret our constitutional should wenstitutional be bound by the original intent of the framers or in Justice Scalias words, the plain meaning of the words on the page. While i dont embrace the living ,onstitution position entirely with all due respect to justice , who is a very smart man and if he were sitting in joe in troubleould be because he would have a response , the variation of opinions of these folks who drafted the constitution on virtually every issue and especially on the to which theextent Central Government should involve itself in the affairs of the state and the affairs of the economy, on the very meaning of the word federalism was enormous. I find it very difficult as a historian to find that ordinary meaning or plain meaning of the constitution, which Justice Scalia refers to so often. Do you want to speak for the founders on aig bonuses . [laughter] luster chance. They are all dead. Lost your chance. They are all dead. This is a question about the constitution centered in your book. There is a controversy between history and prehistory. The building of this building destroyed 6000 years of prehistory. Why they didnt wait for them to do the complete archaeology of the square. It was one of the richest archaeological finds in north america, and they were recovering all kinds of wonderful stuff. You wait to let them finish the archaeology . I just want to know. The answer is that we did. The project was delayed by more than a year and once completed to the satisfaction of the archaeologists, we excavated about 6 million individual artifacts, only a small percentage of which have been processed and some of which are on display in the opening gallery to the exhibit. The professional archaeologists believe in a block like this that there are representative sites that literally not every feature is excavated [inaudible] in the spirit of the 18th century, we have a disagreement then. In addition to the great compromise, there were many discussions on how we would elect our president. Withwere uncomfortable hamiltons monarchical approach, but also with the states and the people. How did we get to the Electoral College . [indiscernible] i describe it as pure torment. One obvious way of doing this was wilsons way, direct, popular election of the president. Wilson was a minority of one. One notinority of because the framers thought the people were too stupid, although was a Aldridge Gary bona fide curmudgeon of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Did not believe the people were too stupid to make the right choice. But how in the world could a voter in georgian know the merits of a candidate in new york, and vice versa . Of the american landscape, the rudimentary nature of communication seemed to the framers to make direct popular elections not a viable alternative. What they were worried about it they were appropriately worried about this was not voter stupidity. I do want to say this before we end, some going to say it right now. The framers greatest creating a was nation in a country which did not yet have a National Identity , in which peoples primary identity was as georgians or new yorkers or pennsylvanians, and so on. Justt popular election isnt going to work in the concept of the early 18th century. What is the most knowledgeable this isoup of men another 18th century shortcoming, because they were talking about men who are the best and brightest and most knowledgeable . Obviously, the members of the national congress. That was madisons original proposal. He endorsed it pretty much up till the end. There you run into the problem of separation of powers. They just went back and forth on those issues. The Electoral College nobody liked it then, nobody likes it now. They debated versions of the Electoral College. Wilson it was actually who first introduces the idea of a kind of Electoral College. Roger sherman does as well, of connecticut in july. They dont like that much either. As august moves into september, they kind of throw up their arms and say, this is probably the best we can do. They were still worried about the provincialism of these elect doors, which is why they have if nobody received a majority of electoral votes, then the election would go into the house of representatives, where the more knowledgeable people would make the choice. Dilemman irresolvable which produced an imperfect amazinglyhich has worked most of the time. Two more quick questions. Which one of the Founding Fathers would have been best adapted to our modern society . Great question. Wow. Might have me stumped, too. Not madison. Im sorry to give you arcane constitutional trivia. The most cosmopolitan of the educated ins scotland in new track at the university of pennsylvania, traveled all over the world. He had a remarkably cosmopolitan understanding of americas place in the world. That is answer number one, which is the arcane, trivially one. Answer number two is easy Benjamin Franklin. He really does have a remarkably modern sensibility, not to mention that sits that sense of humor which we badly needed at this time. Final question. Our constitution has been in place, been functioning for over 200 years. How much longer do you think that we have before we find a better form of government to abide by . You set me up for a longer answer than im sure that the sponsors of this event want. Fact, im going back equivocal stance towards the doctrine of original is him originalism. These folks who drafted this constitution were extraordinarily humble about what they were doing. They knew they were trying to create a more perfect union, but they knew don well darn well they had not created a perfect union. Its remarkable how many times the speaker will preface his remarks by saying, if this constitution lasts 50 years, then maybe we will have to do this or that. Very fascinating conversation about extending the right of statehood to western territories. Most of them are saying, when the country is even bigger than it is now, it will be impossible to hold this union together. We will obviously have to have some new form or several forms of constitutions. In theally believed highly contingent nature of what they were doing, so the fact that it has lasted nearly 222 years is absolutely remarkable. As i sit here, i actually do think its got a pretty good shot of lasting another 222. I will not predict beyond that. I think the Constitutional Center will say that if we all do our part, it surely will. [applause] that is a perfect note to end on, and i will not spoil it, except to say that this book, in which rick describes his reasons of writing it as an act patriotism, and i think it is an extraordinary act of patriotism written by an extraordinary patriot. It deserves a place on all of your shelves, and you can do that by purchasing a copy of the book right over there, signed by the author. Thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] here history bookshelf, from the countrys bestknown American History writers of the past decade every saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. To watch these programs anytime, visit our website, www. Cspan. Org history. You are watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. We are excited to announce that it is launch week for the 11th annual studentcam documentary contest. 100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded this year to middle and High School Contest winners. This years theme is the broadest ever the three branches and you. We would like you to tell a story that demonstrates how a policy, a law, or an action by the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the federal government has affected you and your life or your community. The competition is open to students in grades six through 12. Students may work alone or in groups of up to three. Contestants are asked to produce a five to sevenminute video documentary supporting their chosen topic and to include some cspan programming. That 100,000 in cash prizes will go to 150 students and 253 teachers. The best the grand prize winner with the best overall entry will win 5,000. The deadline for entries this year is january 20, 2015, and winners will be announced in march. Org forw. Studentcam more information on this years contest. On sunday at 8 30 a. M. Eastern here on American History tv, we will take you live to fort mchenry in baltimore for a ceremony to member rating the 200th anniversary of the arspangled and are starspangled banner. The moment inspired key to compose what would later become the u. S. National anthem. Thank you very much, jennifer, and