Program guide or at cspan. Org history. As you know from being here before in the time before the as you know from having been here before in the midst of time, before the pandemic we have to begin our shows by reciting together the National Constitution inspiring congressional mission. I know some of you remember it by heart. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america charted by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the American People, on a nonpartisan basis. Beautiful. There we go. Increasing awareness and understanding of the constitution on a nonpartisan basis is exactly what we have been doing all day today on Constitution Day. We started this morning at 9 30 in this room, with the most inspiring naturalization ceremony. I have screened for the first time, watching 29 new citizens from, 39 new countries, it was extraordinarily moving. We had an amazing panel with leaders of Civic Education from professors martha jones, robert george, Hassan Jeffries spreading a lot of light, then we had three judges from the Third Circuit talk about the cases that they had decided before the Supreme Court decided, involving School Free Speech and religious liberty and the election cases. And now, i have the extraordinary honor of bringing together gordon wood and his colleagues to talk about his new book, so i will introduce them and then i will ask gordon wood to put on the table the central arguments of this book, which iran with rapt attention. You know ladies and gentlemen gordon wood, the dean of american historians, all of us had learned from his pathbreaking work on the ideas of the center of the american founding and he is still instilling a lifetime of wisdom in his new book which you could not do better on constitution they van to read. He will be joined in talking about the book, by colleagues that i need to put on my constitutional reading glasses in order to get their titles right. I will introduce them and then we will jump right in. Gordon wood is the although Way University professor. Recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. To the americanization of benjamin franklin, transforming the field. The book that we will be talking about tonights power and liberty, constitutionalism and the american revolution. Its so wonderful that he is joined here in person by another towering american historian and great friend of the constitution, edward larsen, professor larsen holds the heel and hazel darling chair in law and is the professor of history, also a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in history and author of superb books from the return of george washington, to most recently, franklin and washington, a Founding Partnership between discussed not too long ago, it was such a great discussion. We are joined remotely, im so glad to see you, the monitors are working, you look great, i hope you can see us as well as we can see you but its so great to welcome here to the Constitution Center, lucas e. Morel, the john k board mint professor of politics in washington lee, author of lincolns sacred effort, and most recently lincoln and the american founding. A frequent guest on the Constitution Center podcast and programs and we always learn from your wonderful light. And emily, its wonderful to welcome you to our table of learning, emily pears is assistant professor of Clairemont Mckenna College where she teaches about political thought. Constructing Constitutional Union in the American History that will be released in november. It looks fascinating, cant wait to read it. Welcome to all our great panelists, congratulations on the book, i do many things on kindle so i have it right here. The first chapter about the imperial debate starts in 1765 or so, although it looks back earlier and talks about the central declaration of the snap back congress and is essentially that no taxes should be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives. What was the imperial debate . I dont want to tell you the whole debate but it starts over the issue of representation. The colonists instinctively know that they cannot allow this parliament, 3000 miles away, to make decisions on such importance as taxation. On them, without theyre having a say. And they dismiss out of hand, although franklin throws out the notion, while he is over in london, out of touch with american opinion, that maybe we can have some representatives from the colonies. Maybe 100. The way the scots do in the way that they did in 1707 when they became great britain, when england and scotland came together as great britain. The americans want no part of that notion. They know that they would be swamped by the british, and no one ever seriously considers having membership in the house of commons as a solution to the problem. So right from the outset in the snap back congress, which meets in reaction to the stamp back, which is a halt on all Paper Products in america, they know instinctively that their colonial assemblies will be the legislature that will determine taxation. Now they have an awkward position, because they had accepted parliamentary regulation as a trade, and so that is always a problem for them. But they make it very clear that they wont never have representation be outside of their own colonial legislatures, although they are willing to recognize the supremacy of parliament in the empire. That concession uses the english, because the english look at parliament as a sovereign body, in fact it is the protector of liberty. It is the instrument that they have honored. It is white curbs the crown, which is a sort of tyranny. So they are confusedthe argument starts overrepresentation, the english say, you, the americans say they are not represented and they say yes you are, you are virtually represented. But they refused to accept that notion, even though the english say, we have towns like dunwich, slipped into the north sea and nevertheless, the people in manchester and birmingham with 50,000 people have no representation in the house of commerce but they are nevertheless represented because the criterion of representation is not a process but a consideration of the welfare as a whole. The americans, having a different experience over 200 years of colonial history, have come up with a different notion. For them, the electoral process itself becomes the determinant of representation. And that has its own consequences. In some sense, you could probably make an argument that virtual representation accounts for the majority rule. Whereas the notion that you have to vote for somebody, actually vote for somebody to represent you really opens up the problem of, why should you defer to a candidate you didnt vote for . The english have a solution to that problem. The americans really dont have a solution. Where the notion of actual representation, which says you must actually vote for the person if you are going to be represented. It starts with representation, but by the late 60s, it shifts into a question of sovereignty because the english come back with this doctrine of sovereignty which runs through the whole revolutionary area and comes back to haunt the federalists later in 17871788. They say there must be in every state, one final supreme lawmaking authority and for the english, that is parliament. Kingdom parliament. The americans cannot accept that because if they do, you cant be, as the english pamphleteers say, you cant be half in on parliament sovereignty, if you accept one iota of parliament authority then you must accept all. And since the americans have already accepted parliaments right to regulate their trade, they must be under parliaments authority. And if you are outside of parliaments authority, even in one little respect, then you must be totally outside of all parliaments authority, which to a good wig, seems absurd, no one would choose to be outside of parliaments authority, that is how the debate goes. The americans confronted with that alternative decide, okay, if that is our choice we are outside of parliaments authority completely. And by 1774, all the leading intellectuals, jefferson, franklin, wilson, all concede that they are tied, totally, only, to the king. And that they have no recognition whatsoever of parliament authority over them. It is not a very accurate portrayal of their experience. But they are forced into it by this doctrine of sovereignty. So that when you come to the declaration of independence, these lawyers, in the continental congress, are scrupulous in trying to avoid any mention of parliament in the declaration. Even though parliament was the source of the stamp back, the coercive acts, parliament is not mentioned accept you, the king, king george is the source of all tyranny so they say, you have done this, that, and you have conspired with others, meaning parliament. So this is the argument, it is very legally minded and the break comes solely from the crown at that point, because we americans have ceased recognizing any authority of parliament over us. Thats a brief summary of that first chapter. Fascinating and crucial and you have introduced us to this idea that for colonists, the idea of two sovereignties is with a state within a state, imperium within imperium. And they struggled to relocate sovereignty from parliament where it was not written to allegiance to the king, and then eventually as you tell us and other chapters, the the genius of james wilson, in the people themselves. So edward j. Larson, help us take the story that gordon has layed out, in the 1760,s to the declaration. Youre describing your wonderful book, franklin and washington the Founding Partnership, franklins own gyrations about sovereignty is located, maybe taxes are okay if they are imports but not exports, trying to split the difference. But eventually, he came around to independents and he liked the others, decided that sovereignty was in the people. Building on what gordon has already said, there was a struggle to understand how to draw these lines. Of virtual representation. Because they understood the terms representation, and the british were using them, and they could say, and some did, well, we are virtually represented, just like women our virtually represented, and they would use that of women being represented by their husbands by not voting, we are like manchester. Manchester had grown to be the second or Third Largest city in england and it had no representations in parliament because it did not exist to them, they divided up the seats. You are represented like manchester, as long as we are treated the same. So if its regulatory, they can look back, if its a regulatory law, its tariffs on something coming into the empire, english people are paying that as well as english people in america. Therefore, you are virtually represented like the people in manchester. But if its attack solely on the colonies, as the stamp back was, then how could we be virtually represented . They would use this terminology which was as extreme then as it is today. He said, we are slaves, Nothing Better than slaves. If you could impose attacks just on us, only on us, you are not posing it on other people in england and therefore we are not virtually represented for that tax. Now, i agree with gordon, absolutely, then they carried on to the point that, well, they are pushed to the point to say, well then we are not represented in parliament for anything. But their original stopping point, if you look at the writings from delaware, or the writings of maryland, wherever delaney was from, and dickinson, from here or delaware, depending on when and where he was representing, they couldnt draw those lines. But if you pushed him beyond, and thats where franklin was trying to draw a line very trying to draw a line not very successfully, i would agree with gordon on that as well. Then we get to the point, okay, if we are not parliament, wheres sovereignty . Now you can go way back in the colonial tradition. The original model, as gordon probably knows and you probably know, the original motto of virginia and i hope we get it right, was, it was in latin. [speaking foreign language] virginia the fourth. The point was, virginia was the first colony and therefore, it was equivalent to scotland. It was an independent domain like scotland, and thats what was their motto. Virginia makes for, if you translated. And the other one is scotland, and i think the other one is whales. And the point was, we are just under the king. And our assembly should be equivalent to parliament. And that is where the other place they tried to come down at one point wouldbe franklins argument, lets have representation in tht england, that i agree in that British Parliament that did not fly for quite a few reasons. We are each equivalent of england, just as scotland was, and this would be the analogy they would use, just like scotland before the union in 1787. That scotland has its own parliament, under the king. The king was the electoral hand hanover and he was a ruler there. Lets be like that. And that is why, as you are pointing out, when they have to transfer sovereignty, and they have a very difficult idea of splitting sovereignty, that is going to be a problem on the constitution. How do you split sovereignty between the states and the Central Government . The idea is, the only thing, if we already conceptually view ourselves as the equivalent of scotland before 1707, or as hanover, we are only under the king, the only person we have to break from is the king. And that is why jefferson very artfully, wrote the declaration of independence. If you read pamphlets much before this, they were all directed against parliament. If you read the pamphlets of dickinson, finance papers or any other pamphlets, writings by hamilton or jefferson earlier, they were all directed towards the parliament. Then they dont have the sovereignty problem. But now, if they are breaking with the king, suddenly, whos sovereign . Because they have this history of each colony, slash state, having sovereignty through its assembly to the king. Versus the idea of, if we dont have a king, wheres sovereignty . Is the sovereignty, as washington like to say in the circular letter to the states, for example, which i view as the most important document between the which was in 17, i think 1782 he wrote that, 1783, i think that was the most important political document between the declaration of independence and the constitution. He was pointing to that the Central Government has to have all power over everything that is common to all the colonies of the states. Well, if thats the case, if the argument of the circular letter to the states is correct and other people who were following that line of thinking, that washington was a spouseing, and you can find it in franklin as well you can find it and wilson. Then, well, whats sovereign . Madison is already playing with ideas where we can have joint sovereignty but they didnt think that way. And so, ultimately, if youre reading it is, and i think they go into the Constitutional Convention with this puzzle and thats where Roger Sherman is saying no, weve got to keep the states sovereign, or wilson thinking, no, and thats why hes pushing for the people, pushing on the people and pushing the direct election. , no we have to have the Central Government sovereign. And thats a funny thing floating around washington circular letter to the states. Where, ultimately, once we break from the king, who is independent . Washington repeatedly makes that argument. We werent granted independence under the peace treaty with england, we werent granted independence as 13 individual states granted independents. We were granted independence as a whole union. In contrast, at the declaration of independence, you could make a possible argument that some states did, that each state was declaring independence in a corporate fashion. And that each state had to separately deal with it. So, the question is, who is independent and who isnt . And if its the United States, is the United States a singular noun or plural noun, when it comes down to it, in a way. And that is an issue that continues beyond the constitution. But its an issue of, where does a sovereignty lie if it no longer lives with the king . Perfectly phrased. Lucas, you have written so passionately about lincoln and the founders. Lincoln quoted james wilson for the proposition that secession was unconstitutional because we the people of the United States, as a whole, having made the union, you would need the consent of we the people as a whole to alter it. Is it fair to say that wilson deserves credit for redefining sovereignty and placing it in we the people of the United States . And how would you rate his contribution to american constitutional history . Well, i agree that james wilson was the legal mind at the Constitutional Convention, theres no doubt about it. His lectures are still read to this day, as has been said. But my reading of lincoln, of course, whether its a gloss on wilson or others that he read, its unclear to me at least, in all my time reading lincoln, that he ever read the federalist papers. I dont think he ever did. But what lincoln argues in his first inaugural address, when he talks about secession, he only grants it arguendo. That is why he only grants the idea of it having to be an agreement among the states to deny that any particular stay can unilaterally leave the union. He only grants that in order to show that, even if you were to believe in the theory of states where the cells at a state by state level didnt have the right to secede, the American People, as lincoln understood it, where the source. As madison puts it, the true fountain of all authority, true sovereignty lies with the people. Not with any government. The government is, as it were, borrowed powers. They had delegated their authority, whether at the state are at the federal level. So, lincoln was trying to reinforce the conviction among American People that they are the true masters of their government and not the other way around. He saw secession as anarchy and he meant it. You cannot participate in an election and then say thatwe ruined and all events if you participate in an election. The viability of republics depends on being good winners and good losers. Just as republicans were good losers in 1856, all of the democrats, or those who vote for democrats, needed to be good losers and 1860. Of course, secession was the exhibit day in terms of resistance and not my president and all that. My understanding of lincolns drawing from the founders, the legacy of the founders, is his understanding that sovereignty, true sovereignty, lives with the people. Everyone has a natural right to rule himself and can only be told what to do if he gives his consent to government. That is both a question of establishing the government, the founding as we call it, as well as the operative principle. We the people, owned and operated by the American People. So, voting or elections is the way that we remind our rulers in particular, every now and then, that they have delegated authority. Thank you very much for that. Emily, in your forthcoming book, you argue that there were three conceptions of attachment at the time of the founding, political attachment. A utilitarian theory, a cultural theory and a participatory theory. All three of them sound really interesting and i think are relevant to this question of sovereignty. So, tell us about these three theories of attachment are and how they relate to sovereignty. Sure. So, i think the connection to sovereignty is really that, if the people are ultimately sovereign, in order for the institutions to survive the people have to buy into them. Most people arent actually born loving the constitution or willing to support the institutions of government. And so, with the founders recognized is there would have to be an ongoing effort to attach people to the institutions and to the constitution. So that they would be legitimate. And so that the people sovereignty could be transferred to those institutions. What i argue is they sort of depict these three different ways that future statesman might go about trying to you upkeep attachments or to keep people connected to the constitution. The cultural is sort of turning the constitution, the institutions, into a part of our shared cultural heritage. A sort of version of a shared nationalism that would make us all feel as though the constitution is something that we have have inherited, something thats a part of ourselves. The participatory approach is that actually people are very invested in things that they have a hand in making. And so, if you can allow people to participate in the processes of political decisionmaking, not just allow them to vote but allow them to really have a say in the outcome of elections and in the outcome of the policy making process, they will be more inclined to see the benefits of those institutions. Feel like the policies they create are things that they had a hand then. It makes our sovereignty feel more real to them. Utilitarian is the idea that people feel more attached to, and are more willing to support a government that seems to do good things for them. So, the more the government can serve the Public Interest and make clear that they are serving the Public Interest, claimed credit for what theyre doing, the more likely the people will be to continue to legitimize those institutions and uphold them. So that they can survive challenges and the kinds of pushback that the civil war, obviously, made prominent. Wonderful. So powerful and so great that you cite wilson as support for the participatory theory and that all three of those theories have supporters among different people in the founding era. Gordon wood, my only regret is i dont think were going to be able to go chapter by chapter. I think your discussion has provoked such great id like to clarify something on sovereignty. If theres a little confusion, when we talk about the sovereignty of the people were not talking about all power derived from the people. Oh wigs, on both side of the atlantic, believe there is nobody leftist a believes in the divine right of kings. So, even the english believe that the king, ultimately, derived his authority from the people. Thats not what the americans mean by placing sovereignty, which is a lawmaking authority, the ultimate lawmaking authority, lies with the people. Now, as this was worked out in our own this was what allowed for the recall election in california. The ultimate, the people in the middle of the persons term, recalling or attempting to recall an elected official. Its the ultimate lawmaking authority thats meant by sovereignty. Thats not the notion of power being derived from the people, which is a kind of conventional wisdom, i think at this point. I think that needed to be clarified. Crucially important. Power is not only derived from the conventional, as you say, but remains on the people. Right, exactly. So, your next chapter is on state constitutions and then the crisis of the 1780s. Take us up to the federal constitution, which you discuss both the debates over National Power a and slavery. And among the many fresh and arresting learnings from your chapters about the path to the constitution, you reject the view that it was all a question of economic self interest on the part of the framers and stress that, really, it was a fear of democracy. In particular a fear of paper money and massachusetts and ches rebellion that led to the calling of the convention in your superb epilogue. You say it all comes back to rhode island, and rhode island is sort of a pygmy or synecdoche, less fancy, word and example of this rage for paper money that represented the future and with the founders were trying to fight against. Tell us as much of that story as you can, take us up to the federal convention. Look, its a revolution of 13 independent states. Start with that. And the articles of confederation are a treaty among these states. Its like the eu today. Virginia to jefferson is my country. So, if you think of it in those, terms you can understand the articles of confederation. It is a treaty just like the treaty of lisbon which is the basis for the eu. Something has to happen. In 1776, nobody in his wildest dreams, and i mean no one, even conceived of a Strong National government of the kind that we finally got ten years later. No one even imagined it, now and throw that out as a possibility, its not anyones consciousness. So, something awful had to happen in those ten years to change a lot of peoples minds in order for them to create this federal government. It ran against all of their experience, they had the distant government and one that was trying to dictate to them. Why would they create another Long Distance government . And all the theories of the time, being the most important, said republics have to be small and homogeneous in size. They cant be large. So, why . Why would they create this National Government . You dont want to think of the National Government, or the articles, as an early version of the National Government. As i say, its a treaty. So, they throw out the articles and create this entirely new government. Much to the, i think, shock and amazement of the bulk of the population. When these 55 guys meet in philadelphia, here, down the street here, they are not really representative of the people as a whole. Its a loaded convention and its loaded with nationalists, people who quite shrewdly call themselves federalists but theyre really nationalists. They want to create a Strong National government, madison is a crucial figure. He draws up a working paper that helps him clarify his own ideas. And he essentially writes a virginia plan which is the model for the convention. But madison is most upset by is not the weaknesses of the articles, everyone accepted that there were weaknesses in the articles. We need a taxing power and we need the power to regulate trade. And, by 1786, i would say that the bulk if not everyone in the political nation, including later anti federalists, were in agreement that those two amendments ought to be added to the articles. What madison and his colleagues do, these nationalists, is essentially hijack that movement and use it as a cover if you will, or an excuse, to do something much bigger. Not to amend the articles, but to scrap them entirely and create this new government. And it comes as a shock when, on this day, september 17th, how many years ago . I think its 234. Is announced to the world, to the American World and the world, and most people are shocked and stunned, this is not what we bargained for, we thought you guys were meeting to amend the articles and all of a sudden, you come up with this great big, powerful nation. This government. Unbelievable, and i think that it had been a fair modern election, the new constitution would have been defeated, but given the politics of it in each state, the ratifying conventions finally pass it. Ultimately, because its either this, as Richard Henry lee who was an opponent, said its either this or nothing, and most people dont want nothing. The thing that they are worried about, madison and others, are the behavior of the state legislatures, with their passing, madison outlined this in his essay which is unpublished which i think is the most important constitutional document between the articles and the constitution. He writes it out, its very short, you could call it up on your ipad, vices of the political system of the United States. It comes down to essentially three things. That state legislation has a proliferation of legislation. More passed in the ten years since the declaration than the entire colonial period. State legislation has quadrupled in some cases. Sometimes, 30 or 40 people, now suddenly they have two or 300. And they are passing all kind of legislation. Annually elected, which is a one the legislatures, the turnover rate in this annual election is close to 60 , so you have new people coming in every year and theyll have interests to promote. So the result is a change ability of the legislation. The laws are so confused, and if they get it straight than the next year there is a whole new set of laws. Ultimately, the injustice of the laws, mainly he is thinking of paper money and other beneficial laws that are hurting creditors. And this is too complicated to explain, you have to read the book and explain why many of the dominant people are frightened by inflation, and the depreciation of money. Because they are essentially bankers. There are almost no banks, there is a bank created, the bank of north america created in pennsylvania, but they dont have any, most of the states have no banks. Individuals acted as banks. They are lending money out to their neighbors. That is how they got political clout. And this money is coming about to them, they lend it out and it comes back with this paper which says i promise to pay in gold and silver. But it appreciates. So that is what madison is concerned about. As a consequence, the central element in his virginia plan is the veto. Given over to congress over all state legislation. Before, a state bill could become law, it would have to go to the Central Government and become approved. The thing is so impractical that you cant imagine an intelligent man like madison clinging to this, and yet he did. Wiser heads prevailed and said, that is crazy, can you imagine the state of the constitution . All 50 states, sending over the hills to washington, hearings, deciding should we veto this bill or not . Its so impractical, that it gets thrown out and transformed into article one section ten of the constitution. Which is a series of prohibitions on what the states can do. If you look at up in your constitution, they cant past tariffs, they cant coin money, they cant print paper money as legal tender. Those are crucial things. Madison is still disillusioned. He comes out, he tells jefferson, i lost my veto, my negative overall the state laws, this thing wont work, that was so central to my vision, but he has to accept it. That in short, is how the constitution gets created. Listen to the significance of gordon woods distillation that really was this fear of democracy, of non violence, of rage for paper money. Weve experienced democracy with president trump. Social media is the ultimate democratic instrument. It is democratizing our society in a way that we could have never imagined. One individual can have an effect by linking up through social media with hundreds if not thousands of others. This is a scary process. Democracy has its problems and we are experiencing it. And madison had his. Democracy has that kind of side to it and therefore needed to be controlled and registered. The reason they give so much authority to the court, to the courts, back then, and now we have, them in spades, is because the court was seen as the most important, impressive check on democracy. We dont talk about it in those terms today, but we have nine unelected people making decisions about the United States that affect us. Its the most undemocratic process you could ever imagine. And the fact that we have allowed it shows us that, i think beneath the surface we have our own misgivings about democracy, if it is carried too far or misused. So i think its an interesting fact that madison was so concerned about what we would call democracy. Thank you for putting it so clearly and powerfully. I will ask each of your colleagues this question, first of all, did you agree with gordon woods analysis that it was this fear of democracy which was the central motivating factor for calling the constitution . And in what ways, if you do agree, this fair democracy was embodied in the constitution they created . I do think as we were talking before, that they went into philadelphia without a clear concept, as gordon said, that the people of national sovereignty, and the people being ultimately sovereign, that is why you get, and its captured in the constitution, as we the people. Which is the idea of wilson and governor morris, with this preamble. And it becomes a target. So you have Patrick Henry at the virginia ratifying conventions, but also in public statements before it, saying how dare you say we the people grieve. You should say we the states. The virginia plan had that. That you list the states, and the states create this. It isnt the people of the whole country, its the creation of the states. But as long as its creation of the states, and this is wilson thinking again, then in some way, it more or less comes back to this league of friendship, which is what the treaty, as gordon calls it, or the league of friendship as they called it at that time, the articles of confederation created a league of friendship, that there were 13 sovereign states linked together. But if you go back to the document i keep hammering on, the circular letter of the states, washington says we need a Central Government that is the final say in everything that is common to all of us. Common to all of the states, which wouldnt be slavery, education, you can think of things it wouldnt be. But it would be international and interstate commerce, he makes that clear. He also says, this is in the visible, once you join you cannot get out. He says that in 1783, we need a Central Government which you cant leave. Once you are in its a oneway interaction. So by saying that commerce is it wasnt just taxation. Certainly, everyone would agree with the Central Government. Even the anti federalists would agree that the Central Government needed more power to impose a tariff that would affect everybody. So that power was agreed to. But then the question was, and i do think people saw it coming in. I think madison did and washington. Washington very clearly said, i am not going unless i am confident, im not going to that convention, even though i have been picked by virginia to go, i am not going unless i am confident they have power to make radical decisions. That was a phrase he used. He is not a radical man. He made clear and he had proposals in, that he had received, he had asked the people that he trusted most, john j knox, madison, all sent him drafts of the type of Central Government they wanted. The Central Government always had a two house legislation, like a un. Everybody sends a representative. They are not by each state. And the states retain sovereignty. He says i will only go if it can be a fundamental transformation. And madison spent most of the months before going in philadelphia, living at mount vernon. He did not have a wife then. And he stayed at mount vernon. He worked on these ideas at mount vernon. Talking with washington. And so they went in with a pretty clear idea. It was not just madison. Washington, franklin, the first person he visits is franklin because he says we have to be on the same wavelength. We are the two most respected people nationally. The national heroes. We have to be working in the same wave length. So they came and wilson was a lawmaker and franklin as you know had met and had regular weekly meetings in his house and they had talked about all these things. So they came prepared and so when no one else showed up on time, the pennsylvania delegation and the virginians who were there, and at first it was only two, but then mason and some others begin to roll in. And they finalize madisons thinking into the virginia plan, which is called the virginia plan not because it had anything to do with madison, but because it was offered by the governor of virginia, randolph, they offer really the plan for a National Government. And if you read the virginia plan it doesnt say, gordon was very clever to pick up, but when they offer the virginia plan it says National Government. And that is what they really did create. A National Government. And that, so they were already thinking, it took the whole convention for them to fully understand it. But this movement of sovereignty and of we the people, and where it would all come from, they had to bring along people like Roger Sherman kicking and screaming, and they could never bring along others, and they could never have brought along Patrick Henry. I would argue that they couldve never pulled it off, going one step further than gordon. Gordon said it was 55 people who werent truly representative. I think if it had been in secret, if what they were coming up with had been made public, and the newspapers have been reporting it, people like Patrick Henry, who was chosen as a delegate to virginia but didnt come because he thought it was a waste of time, he would have, he claims it was because he smelled a rat. I think that was later. He didnt smell a rat was the problem, he would have showed up. All these people wouldnt have come and the whole thing would have been derailed. Which is why gordon was suggesting. And im just sort of underscoring what he was saying. So, really, we were talking about, and wilson as much as anyone but i do think madison and washington and governor morris and others and franklin were right on board with a kick like these lines, we are going to have a National Government here. And that was a shift of sovereignty that was enormous. And thats why Patrick Henry could so clearly come back and say how dare you say we the people. We should say, we the states. And that shift, certainly there were concessions to the states, like the senate, giving equal representation to the senate. But the key, change the key change from the articles of confederation is that the senate is not like the articles of confederation. Because the articles of confederation, each delegate, yes, they each day got one vote. But their delegates were recallable at will. Not by the people but by the state legislature. So, thats why its different than california. There, youre what youre talking about in saying the governors recallable by the people. In his opening speech, Roger Sherman made a major point. No, the reason why the articles of confederation work is those delegates are recallable at will by the states, meaning the state legislature. They werent going to have any of that. No, the way they set up was the senators, sure, each state gets two, that gives some power to the states, but they are not recallable at will. They have six year terms. Governor morris said they will become creatures of the nation because they will live in this new National Capital with a six year terms. By that time, and recallable by the states, they wont really represent the states they will represent themselves. Lucas, you quote lincoln at springfield, warning of mob violence and saying when reason rather than passion prevails, passion rather than reason prevails, that democracy was threatened, hes challenging madisons fears at shades rebellion. Hes responding to violence against editors where African Americans were being lynched and murdered through terrorism. To what degree do you agree with gordons analysis that it was this fear of mob violence and democracy that led to the constitution . And does the lincoln experience suggest that it was mob action in particular, rather than democracy in general, that made the founders afraid . And how does that reflect on the constitution . I hope is not just a question of semantics here but i would phrase it differently. Democracy impact is not aware that lincoln used very much at all but that doesnt mean he was against democracy. If i would not be a slave, so i would not be a master. That is his definition of democracy, one of the few times he used that word. But id phrase it differently, its not so much that lincoln was afraid of democracy per se or direct rule by the American People. But he feared was something that the founders tried mightily to try to establish, what we call the rule of law. That ultimately derives from the principle of consent. And that what we are trying to do with consent is not simply move the direct will of the people. With consent, and ultimately i would say constitutionalism, we are trying to create space for people to live according to an informed consent, if you will. We want to make space, we want to give time before reason to prevail over the passions. If you want to use the word democracy, we want democracy to be deliberative. Thats why our constitution, thats why you have representation. So, when i was going to try to add quickly on the senate and terms of why the Constitutional Convention was called, on the senate we have to remember their two senators. They dont have to act as a block under the United States constitution. They are voting by their own judgment as to whats the best interest of their state is, in light of the collective good of the United States. So, that is a huge difference from the articles of confederation, where the delegation had about as a block. It wasnt just that they were recallable, they had to vote, the state had to speak with one voice under the United States constitution. States are not constitutionally bound to speak with one voice. It is up to each of the two senators to decide. Of course, overtime, they arent voted on at the same time. They arent appointed by the state legislature at the same time, we have staggered elections. So, what youre seeing is actual mechanisms in the new constitution to promote deliberation. But to make consent not simply self determination, not simply a mirror of the people. But, as madison put it in federalist ten, to refine and enlarge the public views. To do the best good on behalf of the people. That meant you had to create space and time for consent to work that out. I would say that shaysrebellion had something, clearly, to do with the Constitutional Convention ultimately in 1787, but especially if you bring up washington washington did have an idea of the United States as a country. That was a gleam in his eye, long before it was in most americans i. I would say that the need for, professor lies about this, of the need for a stronger Central Government, a stronger National Government, that was clear. Washington would have nothing to do with the convention if he didnt think there is a reasonable chance for the Central Government to be equipped with power. Perhaps the most mundane but most pivotal change made at the Constitutional Convention, which makes it not like the, as you are calling, it leak of friendship as the articles of perpetual union where, was that congress would actually now have the power to pass laws. They did not have that authority under the articles of confederation. The states, if you will, interposed themselves between their citizens and the authority of the articles confederation congress. Under the proposed constitution, one of the biggest changes i would think, i think the most fundamental, is now you actually have a National Government that circumvents the states, if you will. The states are involved, we did mention the senate. But now, you have laws acting not upon state legislatures but acting directly upon the American People themselves. Who are represented in the house of, proportionally, and expressed through the political organizations through the states. The fact that the United States constitution now is a quick to pass actual laws, that is a sea change in terms of how the American People were governing themselves previously, under the articles. Thank you so much for that crucial distinction. Series of distinctions you are making, but between a mirroring of the people and a reflection that enlarged and refined their views. The distinction between ordinary law make a constitutional law making is one that you brought up so well, as gordon would elucidate so powerfully in his discussion of jefferson and the other founders understanding of the rise of conventions as bodies that would reflect the slow and deliberate sense of the people. And its crucial to american constitutionalism. Emily, the founders thought that virtue was necessary for the republic to survive. And they defined virtue as a personal and political act. Personally, citizens have to use their powers of reason to master their unreasonable passions like anger, jealousy and fear. And politically, they needed to do that so they could choose wise representatives who would deliberate for them to serve the common good rather than self interest and partisanship. Sounds kind of a rarefied nowadays, in light of some of the changes that gordon flagged. Including social media, the rise of Political Parties on the rest of it. Is the founders notion of virtue as crucial to constitutionalism, is it still relevant . I think its still relevant. I would say though that the founders view of virtue, at least the federalist view of virtue, its a little bit different than the sort of peer, civic virtue that Many Political theorists before the founders thought of. So, we see the anti federalists in the debates over the ratification really pushing for the need for virtue, the need for the constitution to cultivate virtue in the citizens. But the federalists, i think, have is a little more faith that the institutions of government could do more of the work to get as the good laws that we needed. , so you can rely on the individual citizenss virtue to get good laws that are then able to maintain or keep us from the anarchy that gordon pointed out, that were trying to avoid. You can rely on the citizens virtue to get you those good laws, but i think the federalists thought that there were ways that we could design institutions to help that process along. So, the institutions could encourage good lawmaking, could encourage that kind of virtue in the citizen. So, youre not wholly dependent on the citizens to produce at themselves. The problem is that you have to, then, maintain this relationship between the institutions and the public. If the institutions are going to encourage virtue, if theyre going to cultivate a sense among the citizens that the rule of law is worth upholding and the common good is worth pursuing, that relationship has to be cultivated. It has to be tended to. Im not sure that we really dont that. There is a sense that with the federalists had done was created institutions that would work in perpetuity. The constitution could just stand on its own ground once it had been ratified, and weve lost sight, i think, of the work that has to be done to make sure that the citizenry understands the constitution, oppose the constitution and is committed to it. That cultivation of Something Like civic virtue or at least a sort of constitutionalism among the people is something we dont do very much anymore. In the smallest way, we dont teach Civic Education anymore in america very much. And in broader ways, we draw attention to things other than the cultivation of virtue that might be important to upholding those institutions. Absolutely. Yes so powerfully put both the federalist notion of institutions doing some of the work and the crucial importance of teaching the constitution for the cultivation of virtue. And thats exactly what were doing tonight in this great discussion thats with the National Constitution center was created to do, and thats when we are doing every day. And im thrilled to share, i just got the numbers, 25,000 people tuned in today to watch our Constitution Day programs. So, we are making some headway in the cultivation of civic knowledge. But thank you for putting the problem so well. The one thing we do a Constitutional Center programs is and on time and were going to end in about ten minutes. So, gordon, this is the chance for you to put the rest of the book on the table. There is so much in the chapters on the federal constitution, on slavery and in the emergence of the judiciary. So much of it is surprising a new discussion of slavery, including the prevalence of indentured white servants, which a change the way the founding generation thought about enslavement. And the brief moments when it looked like even virginia and other Southern States were going to eradicate it. To the transformation of the judiciary, from a body that was supposed to rarely exercised judicial review, only when the people themselves would have been mobilized to find an act unconstitutional, to the more regularization of striking down laws that we see today. And this incredible chapter about the emergence of a private sphere. And then you say it all goes back to and looks forward to rhode island. , please take what time to discuss what you can. Let me Say Something about the founders. We talk about the founders, but you have to understand that for most people in america, in the antebellum period, the period going up to the civil war, the founders were not the people we refer to. Not the revolutionary leaders, not james madison, not george washington. Their founders were john winthrop, william brad foot, william penn, john smith. That is the 17th century founders. When bancroft wrote his great history in this period, he had ten volumes on the colonial period. He thought the colonial period was the founding of america. Its almost in, fact at 18, 20 at the Constitutional Convention in new york, they were revising the constitution. Martin van buren, who becomes i think the First American politician as a president. He did nothing, he never had any great speech, he never won a battle, never negotiated a great treaty. He was simply the most astute politician that america had ever seen up to that point. He organized a new york party that brought him in the prominence. Hes, in that convention, he says look, these guys back there. What did at jefferson. He says, forget about them, theyre aristocrats, they have nothing to do with us, we are democrats. And of course, that was one of the great arguments of the anti federalists, that the whole system is aristocratic, creating a government which the few will benefit at the expense of the many. Martin van buren just dismisses them, almost singlehandedly. Its link who makes the founders, the founders that we talk about, hes the one who says, the man on the group that created the declaration of independence, the document that makes the blood of the blood and the flesh of the flesh of all of these immigrants that are coming to america with the founders, the blood and flesh of the flesh and the people who threw up that document and others by implication, including the constitution, our wet hold us together as a people. That is lincolns great contribution, and he really brings the founders into prominence. If you are interested theres a book about this, he was a professor of early American History at princeton. And it gets neglected. I dont know why, because its so important to realize that the founders that they believed in were not the founders that we believe in. And its really lincoln that created this. Its not in my book, but it needs to be mentioned. Do you want to say, give us one more burst of learning from your book because there is so much in it. I think on the slavery thing, this is the central issue that is obsessing us now, we have to understand two things, more than two things but one, they all thought that slavery was on its last legs. Maybe people in South Carolina and georgia didnt think that, but certainly that northerners did. That slavery was dying. And in virginia, washington had more slaves than what he knew what to do with and tobacco was no longer being grown because it exhausts the soil, they are turning to wheat, wheat does not require great labor, people Like Washington are renting out their slaves in norfolk or richmond and the idea of renting out the slaves, suddenly that is one step towards wage labor. So slavery is somehow on its last legs. I can give you dozens of quotations from many figures saying, and 30 years, 40 years there will be no slavery in america. They could not have been more wrong, it was one of the many illusions they lived with. Dont get cocky, we have a lot of illusions as well, we just dont know what they are. Some story will tell us, 200 years from now, how could they think that . They thought that slavery was dying, virginia was ready to abolish it. The trustees, the board of visitors, the wealthy slave holders, in 1791, they gave an Honorary Degree to granville sharp, the leading british abolitionist at the time. That is the kind of question you want to ask a graduate student. Why would the college of william and mary trustees, why would they give an Honorary Degree to an abolitionist . This undercuts the 1619 project right out from under them. Thats the kind of issue that should provoke a lot of graduate students into thinking freshly about these issues. At any rate, they did have to accommodate the deep south, some of the people from virginia, washington and jefferson thought of themselves as middle states, not southern. The south is South Carolina, and georgia, and they want slaves and there are compromises made in the convention. Compromises that are more easily made because they think slavery will die, and as i say, they couldnt have been more wrong, but you have to account for that. But there are compromises. And the south, of course, wants slaves to be counted fully, for representation purposes, and the north says, no, not at all. So they reach a compromise three fifths, which becomes a source of southern strength, political strength. So it allows the south to dominate the government throughout the whole antebellum period. And then the fugitive slave, so there are provisions in the constitution which are, to some, like garrison, are seen to turn the document into a document of hell. But madison and others are crucially important in keeping the word slave out of the constitution. Because this document is supposed to last forever, hopefully. And we dont want to taint it with even the word slavery. So there is no recognition of property in man, as madison puts it, in the constitution. They see the future as being the end of slavery. Now, they had no realization that there would be more slaves at the end of the revolution than there were at the beginning, even though the north abolishes slavery. Thats another important thing. These are the first slave Holding States in the world, in the history of the world, that had legal slavery, that abolish it. The greeks never abolished slavery, the romans didnt abolish slavery, but the american states in the north abolished slavery. They dont have the number of slaves that the south has, they have 50, 000, maybe. Whereas there are hundreds of thousands in the south, and its easy for them to do it, but nonetheless they did it. And way before any other place abolishes slavery, that should be emphasized. And there is the expectation that this will spread, this is part of the enlightenment program. They have a whole series of reforms, each state, from virginia northward, they will redo the criminal system, do away with inheritance laws. They will have public educational systems. They will abolish the anglican church, and they will abolish slavery. Now, they dont always succeed in those things, they didnt in virginia with this public education, but they did abolish the church of england. And create a separation of church and state. And traverse and tries to abolish slavery. He puts forth a bill that gets defeated, but they dont wipe jefferson out, he still becomes a major figure in the state. So a lot of people are thinking about getting rid of slavery. What changes things his the rebellion in what becomes haiti. Scaring the jesus out of southerners. From that moment on there is a reaction, and by the early 19th century the southerners are scared to death of slave rebellions. All hope of reform in the south is gone. Thank you so much for that. You say at the beginning of the book that it will give comfort to partisans of no side as history never does, and the complexity of the story is radical in its freshness and, it spreads so much light. Its 7 45. My one job at the Constitution Center is to end the shows on time. We will give gordon word the last word but we will continue the conversation, all our panelists, lucas e. Morel, edward j. Larson, emily pears, great friends of the center, we will continue on our constitution 101 classes. For now, join me in thanking all of them for shedding such light on Constitution Day. Thank you very much. [applause]