Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, amar joined the yale faculty in 1985 at the tender age of 26. He is now 37 years later. Yales only current professor to have won the university. His unofficial triple crown, the sterling chair for scholarship, the devane medal for teaching and the lamar award for alumni service. His work has won awards from both the American Bar Association and the federalist society, and hes been cited by supreme Court Justices in more than 40 cases, as he says in his punchy way, tops in his generation. As an academic, he is patently that rare thing. A true scholar teacher. And not only that, a public intellectual of the best sort, one who can convey weighty ideas in a compelling and clear way. Not incidentally, a trait ordinarily known that lawyers are ordinarily known for. Here is one pithy example from a recent book chapter titled founding myths, commenting on the legacy of charles beards economic interpretation of the constitution. Quote beard is bunk. Closed quote and you can follow his similarly pithy twitter remarks at akeel read oman. Listen to his weekly podcast, americas constitution, or even gain access to his public lectures and free courses at akhil amar, econ. But his latest and most ambitious book is the words that made us americas constitution. Conversations 1762 1840, the most recent in a long series of volumes whose topic topical fulcrum is american constitution wisdom. Listen to some of their titles and some of you i know have read these books because it came up during lunch conversation. The constitution and today, the law of the land, a grand tour of our constitutional republic. Americas unwritten constitution. Americas constitution. A biography. The bill of rights, creation and reconstruction and the constitution and criminal procedure. First principles throughout the stream of books and articles and lectures and interviews and podcasts. And yes, even tweets. Hes been laboring to give american is what he insists we need. And might i add what our students above all, need in his words, quote, facts and analysis. Not reflexive right wing boosterism or knee jerk leftist hooting. So were all in for a provocative lecture on the patrimony of the us constitution. And please join me and extending a warm madison foundation. Welcome to professor akhil reed amar. To turn this on. There we go. Its such an honor to be with a group of fellow teachers, and i thank you for your service. Thats something that we conventionally and i hope sincerely say when we meet those who have put their bodies in harms way for the rest of us in our military. But American Service also involves centrally teaching. The story of america to the next generation. And you are all servants in that way. And im very grateful to you and our country should be very grateful to you because candidly, its not the most immune narrative of professor, and its absolutely necessary. And and if we dont, do we, fellow teachers, the work that we do, i think in the end, america is lost because the only thing that we have in common, really, as americans, is our national narrative, our story, our history. And so we have to get it right because heres what we dont have in common. We dont have race in common. Americans come from many different races and ethnicities. Our great grandparents come from all parts of the world, and they came at different times to modern day america. Some came in chains. Some came with bullwhip. Some came yesterday. So we dont have race or ethnicity. Steve, we disagree politically and we have religious diversity of an extraordinary sort. So what is it that we have in common . We we have our constitution, our history, our narratives. And im going to tell you a little bit about that today. And and youll decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree with my revised narrative of that. But i just want to begin by thanking you for your service, because you, in turn, are teaching the next generation. And if they dont learn this stuff, then they have nothing in common. And then america flies apart. Maybe the project dies. Not to be to dramatic, but that i think thats actually a real possibility unless we do what we do. So thank you. This is the James Madison lecture officially, but its a little bit awkward because some of you by the time you hear what i have to say, might think that this is the anti James Madison lecture. And the question is, was James Madison truly the father of the constitution . Im wearing a tie. It has a kind of a genius, eric. It has a founding father on it. And and its not quite clear if you look at is that madison . Is that hamilton in is that jefferson . Is that washington is not quite ben franklin . Not quite john adams. But but who is it . And im not sure. But most of you have been taught what i was taught was that, well, of course its the James Madisons the father of the constitution. And im going to call that into question today. Another way of putting the point is to remind you that kind of by tradition, by acclimation, there are six parties actually extraordinary Founding Fathers. The first four president s, washington, adams, jefferson, madison, plus hamilton and franklin. And the book that ive just recently finished and i see some of you have it and thank you so much for that. The words that made us americas constitution conversation 1762 1840 does feature those Founding Fathers and the larger cast of americans who produce just those Founding Fathers. And that them in key ways, and that influence them and that were influenced by them. So its a top down story in certain ways, but also a bottom up story in other ways. But we americans do we like rankings. You know, whos up and whos down. And, you know whos number one, whether its in hockey or basketball or football or even academic programs are ranked so. So we rank found. So who really is the father of the constitution and conventionally we are told thats James Madison. And as i said in this anti guy, James Madison. James madison lecture, i want to basically offer a different point of view. So im going to read you some passages from not from the book, but from an essay that that i composed for a slightly different purpose. But i think will be just perfect for our conversation today. And its an essay on founding myths, and its from a forthcoming book called myth america. Its kind of a pun on miss america that is in which i have one chapter and there are many other chapters written by eminent historians of other periods. Those who myths understand the founding are apt to misread the constitution. Alas, americans from all educational strata and all points on the political campus routinely misinterpret this critical era and in the process, muddy the letter and spirit of our supreme law of the land. Here are five, especially widespread and interrelated misunderstandings. Each followed by a brief statement of the myth busting truth of the matter. Myth one James Madison was the father of the constitution. And i say so heres the thesis. No, that would be George Washington and paternity matters. So hes not just the father of the country, its the father constitution. And the two are connected, you see. Myth two the key federal list essay is madisons federalist number ten. Okay. Yeah, thats what you were taught. No, almost no one read that madison essay in the 1780s or indeed in the ensuing century. The key federalist essays in the ratification era were john jays and Alexander Hamiltons numbers 2 to 8. Explain the washington, etonian and geostrategic essence of the federalist plan. Myth three the framers believed in republics, but disdained democracy. No, despite certain language that appeared in madisons fabulous number ten, in these two words were more synonymous and oppositional in general. 1780s discourse, regardless of the label we now choose to use. The framers believed in and practiced popular selfgovernment. Myth four the constitution was indeterminate on and perhaps even supportive of secession. Ridiculous. Washingtons geostrategic constitution categorically repu stated. Unilateral states secession. So this is very much a Lincoln Point as well as a washington Hamilton Point and a Madison Point as well. Myth five the constitution was designed by the rich. For the rich, not really. The document was just what it said. It was a text ordained by the people, not the property, or, as youve already heard, said, beard is bunk. Lets begin by popping a trio of interrelated bubbles about James Madison, the federalist ten and the linguistic innovation that madison introduced in that. Now famous ratification essay, which sharply contra distinguished repub licks from democracys many today view madison as the father of the constitution. But when the grand Philadelphia Convention met in the summer 1787 to propose a solution to the myriad and interlocked failures of americas first continental legal system, the sagging articles of confederation, few americans had even heard of the diminutive confederation, congressman so memorably short guy. And they think about stuff like that and we short people, we get no respect, okay . By contrast, every one knew of George Washington, the legendary commander in chief who had won the revolutionary war and then disbanded his army. Rather than trying to make himself king, as had william the conqueror or lord protector, i said Oliver Cromwell or emperor has had augustus caesar, and as would napoleon. And by the way, in case you missed the point, washington is tall. Washingtons thrilling act of republican renunciation and selfrestraint has inspired contemporaries high and low the world over. In fact, theres this famous story in which actually, george the third says, well, whats washington going to do with his army . And someone says hes going to disband it. And george, the third says, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world. And he did do that. And he was the greatest man in the world. The Philadelphia Convention had broad, popular credibility in america, mainly because washington bowing to Public Opinion reluctantly agreed to suspend his retirement to attend the grand gathering. So the convention is significant because washingtons theyre not because madisons there. The convention that ensued was washingtons convention, not madisons. Likewise, the proposed constitution and that emerged was emphatically washingtons. At the conclave outset, the delegates unanimously made washington their presiding officer. His title at philadelphia. Mr. President , would poetic because hes the presiding officer. You see his title in philadelphia. Mr. Present would poetically become his title under the constitution itself. Most of the delegates had borne arms in the war. A third were veterans of washingtons continental army, and five of the 55 delegate as one from each of five distinct states out of the 12 that met in philadelphia. Rhode island boycotted the event, had personally served as washingtons aides to camp. These former aides were obviously washingtons men, not madisons. New yorks alexander hamilton. Pennsylvanias thomas mifflin. Marylands james mchenry, virginias edmund randolph. And South Carolinas charles coatsworth. Pinckney. So theyd be just to put it in modern terminology, since we meet on the day after Stephen Breyer steps down from the Supreme Court to be replaced by one of his former law clerks, captain g. Brown jackson. And you heard that way back when i clerked for then judge breyer. And that in boston, washington is surrounded by his law clerks, basically, you know, his military clerks. And theyre there only 12 states there. And hes got a man in each of five separate states delegations. Okay. So hes going to get what he wants and he does compared to the document that emerged from this conclave was also obviously washingtons. The philadelphia constitutions primary goal was geo strategic. The fledgling american regime needed to create a strong and Indivisible Union, able to defend itself against europes great powers. England, france, spain. I might even add. Russia, which is on the western edge of the of the continent. And since were thinking these days about about putin. Okay. The goal was to take create an Indivisible Union, able to defend itself against these great european powers, each of which still coveted new world land, and thus posed a potentially existential threat. We forget that because we are so strong today. But back then it was much more vulnerable. Long before he even knew madison, washington had emphasized the need for such an Indivisible Union. Most dramatically, in its initial farewell address, a world famous circular letter to americas governors in 1783, where he disbands the army and becomes the most famous man in the world because he just goes back to his his farm and and surrenders his his sword when he could have made himself kings. Our emperor, what have you, lord protector, compared to revolution era, state constitu tions, which provided the basic templar art for the philadelphia plans by commercial and tripartite federal system. The most distinctive element of the proposed new federal constitution was its astonishing, powerful chief executive. So heres what i just told you. Its not actually the great man at philadelphia. Its what theyre actually doing is distilling the template that has already emerged up and down the continent in the state constitutions. Theyre basically just coming up with best practices on issue after issue. And thats going to be the federal constitution, borrowing from the existing state constitutions that are already out there. So but that the most different element, the thing that makes the federal constitution really different than the state constitutions, which are written constitutions, bicameral, except in a couple of places pennsylvania, georgia, tripartite legislature, executive, judiciary. Thats in the state constitutions. Thats the federal. So the big difference, the only really big difference is this astonishingly powerful chief executive, infinitely more powerful than any state governor. Okay, america, his newly minted president could win election independence if congress. Whereas in the states, eight of the 13 pick their chief executive received by the legislature. Parliament style. Boris johnson style. Okay. He could win in the election independent of congress and thereafter win infinite and independent reelection. So no term limit. States have term limits would enjoy a long. By 1787 gubernatorial standards term of office four years no one has four years among the governors would wield a remarkably powerful pair of veto and pardon pens. Only in massachusetts does the government have a pardon pen, and he serves for one year at a time. You see, so this is, you know, veto. And they dont have powerful pardon pens and were just seeing how pardons can be important or not right now. Veto pen. Pardon . Pen. And no governor has this powerful combination. Would command a continental army, a navy, and also stand atop all other executive departments that would eventually emerge. He gets to pick his underlings. Unlike council who are sometimes foisted on governors in the various states, they dont get to pick their their their cabinets, their councils, the philadelphia delegates undeniably designed this office for the trusted washington, who would ultimately win unanimous election and reelection as americas first president. So just think about that. Every single leftover votes for George Washington and then votes again for George Washington. Its like, how could you ever have thought, how could i ever have thought it was James Madison . I mean, and im not done yet, but just, you know, add those facts up to madison, by contrast, would fail to win the Us Senate Seat he coveted and would struggle even to secure a house seat. Okay. Prior to philadelphia, madison had given no real thought to how federal executive power should be structured, as he candidly admitted in, amid. April 1787. Letter to washington. And heres a protip to all of you teachers out there. You can see these letters for yourself. Theyre free and online in the net. And to our cspan audience in the net, your tax our tax dollars at work in the National Archives founders online project, its word searchable. You can find every letter ever written to or from the six major Founding Fathers. And theres other stuff too. But anything ever written to or from or between . Washington, adams, jefferson and madison. Franklin. Hamilton. Its all there for free and to you to find if you assigned to your students. Its a word searchable. Amazing. And youll find amid. So if i just tell you, even without giving the footnote a amid april 1787 letter from madison to washington you can find it there. Maybe only to that that madison and madison confesses like i dont know, a clue about executive power. I havent really thought about it very much. And washingtons think himself. Hmm. Ive thought about it a ton at a time or two, and thats the news in the constitution. The really powerful presidency, which you see could end the republic. Thats why we have to be really careful when we pick presents. Thats what makes the u. S. Constitution different than it state constitutional counterparts. And thats all washington and no madison. True. In the run up to philadelphia, madison had pondered certain other features of his hoped for constitution. He favored a bicameral federal legislature, flanked by an independent executive and an independent judiciary. But this was old hat in 1787, most revolutionary state constitutions followed some version of this basic template a template endorsed by both new yorks john jay and massachusetts henry knox and early 1787 letters that reached Washington Well before madison sent the general his own preferred plan. And again, you can see all of this in the National Archives online collection. Note that all three men were advising washington, not vice versa. You know, well before philadelphia, everyone understood that washington was in modern parlance, the man. Another. And defining element of the eventual constitution, its ratification by the American People was foreshadowed by washington himself no later than mid 1783, when he barely knew madison, because thats one of the big thing, really strong presidency, putting it to a vote. These are washington ideas, although madison did bring some original ideas to the philadelphia conclave, most of his pet projects fell by the wayside. And as a short little academic, i can so relate. You know, have all these ideas and people say, well, thank you for thank you for your your thoughts. And madison argued relentless fiercely for a senate that like the house would be apportioned by population. He lost, he argued tirelessly for a congressional negative that is a veto over state law. He lost again. He wanted leading judges to join the present and we only the veto power as new york at it here too he lost. He pleaded for broad federal power to tax exports yet again. He lost. Are you getting the picture . You know, prior to the ratification process, his biggest achievement was in a word, washingtonian, along with others. He had played a key role in cajoling washington to suspend retirement and attend the philadelphia conclave. So thats his biggest contribution, is getting washington to show up when the convention adjourned and his plan became public and Epic Challenge loomed ahead, americans up and down the continent would need to ratify the plan and special elected conventions chosen by uniquely inclusive electorates. When the what the framers envisioned in late 1787 and what in fact unfold did over the ensuing year contra beard you see, was nothing less than the most democratic deed that had ever occurred up to that point in the planets history, up and down, a whole freaking continent. Voting on the thing and talking about it. My gosh, never before had so many persons over so large a landmass been invited to a set so explicitly to the basic ground rules that would govern themselves and their posterity. Once done this explosive deed would change the world in a big bang that would radiate out both across the century in American History and oceans geographically, leading to many later and even more democratic american amendments and eventually giving rise to todays world in which democracies govern most of the plans and habitants. Our modern world was, which is a democratic world, is made in america because before this it wasnt a democratic world, and its putting it to a vote. And washington is thinking about this as early as 1783, when hes barely heard of madison in the year. That changed everything thing this hinge of human history. It was washingtons world famous name that loomed the largest and carried the philadelphia plant of victory. The fact that washington endorsed the plan and the expectation that he would lead the new government counted for more than all the other speeches and writings of all the other backers of the plan. Put together in a brief letter to the Confederation Congress summarizing the proposed plan on behalf of the convention, a letter reprinted alongside the envisioned constitution in ten words of thousands of populate copies circulated among the citizenry. Washington explained the main lines and aims of the new system. So thats what everyone reads, not the federalist papers, and definitely not february ten, which i come back to. Okay, this key letter. So it accompanies the written constitution everywhere and printed in all the newspapers up and down the continent. This key letter made clear that the proposed constitution, if ratified, would end state sovereignty and unite america into a strong union necessary to solve the basic problems of continental government that threaten the very survival of independent america. This is a quote the friends of our country wrote washington have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace and treaties that of leaving money and regulating commerce and the corresponding executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the union, unquote. But he noted it would obviously be improper to quote, delegate such extensive trust to one body of men, unquote. That is a Unicameral Congress combining legislative executive in judicial power like we had in the articles of confederation. Hence, results. He wrote the necessity of a different organization, namely a new model, bicameral and tripartite system at the federal level, akin to the governments of each individual state. Back now to washingtons letter. Quote, it is obviously impracticable and the federal government of these states, that is the national a National Regime to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each state and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Unquote. In other words, individual state sovereignty, the bedrock principle of the declaration of independence in articles of confederation. Now needed to yield in all our. This is back to washington. In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true american. The consolidation of our union in which is involved, our prosperity. Felicity safety. Perhaps our national existence. Unite or die is what hes saying. Building on franklin for years. Washington had been preaching precursor news of this sermon to anyone who would listen. This was also the basic message of a series of newspaper essays that first appeared in new york under the pen publius, eventually numbering 85 essays and repackaged into a two volume book published in the spring of 1788. The federal list was the brainchild of alexander hamilton, who enlisted john j. Jay and James Madison to join him in this joint pseudonym. Seven of the first eight essays, the federalist numbers two through eight authored by hamilton and jay explained in vivid detail the key geostrategic argument for a newly minted individual union along the lines at washington and hamilton in particular, had been advocated for many years, as jay writing. As publius explained in the federalist number five. This union was expressly modeled on the indicia geo strategic quote, entire and perfect unquote union, entire perfect union, excuse me, unquote of scotland and england, fourscore years earlier, britain was free and strong. Hamilton publius argued in the climactic federalist number eight because it was a defensible island protected by the english channel. By uniting in decisively americans could likewise be free and strong. Protect. Aided by the Atlantic Ocean land borders between continental european nation states and led to standing armies, military dictators and horrific bloodshed on the continent itself. You know, the french on the germans and their whomping back and so on. International and borders between 13 sovereign american states or between several regional confederacys or nation states would ultimately lead to the same fate. The new world. The states first need to merge into one indivisible and continental nation state. Scotland and england had merged in 1707 to form the mighty british nation. So in a nutshell, why is britain strong and free . Because its an island. Scotland and england have united because before theyve done that, the scots are whomping on the british and the english and the english are romping back and mel gibson is coming down and and mary queen of scots is getting involved. And no one is free in that world. Okay. But unite the place. Now it only needs a navy. Navies are less threatening to domestic liberty. They can only pound a coastline and americans could just retreat past the coastline. We want to create, you know, a an island nation of a certain sort. Like britain. Its like that scene in when harry met sally, when the meg ryan character, when sally says, ill have what shes having and so we want to be like the brits. Okay. And theyve got an english channel. Were going to have the Atlantic Ocean that will protect us. This was the main argument that persuaded open minded, fence sitting americans in 1780 788. It was the argument that a farmer or a tradesman could understand in response to his obvious questions. This is what any american would ask, like, why do we need to go beyond sovereign states and try to create a continental republic . The likes of which a continental republic you see, the likes of which have never been seen in human history. The only republic before them. A tiny little city. States like athens, pre imperial rome. Given that most of historys successful republics have been small, just in a point popularised by by the french writer montesquieu. And given that the world until now, then until now are sovereign state. New york, massachusetts. What have you. Has never been indissoluble linked to any other sovereign state. Why must we become continental . It would be like today proposing world government with a president of the world and an army of the world. And they can you directly and regulate you. Theres only one reason today youd ever vote for that martians man in black and then youd say, well, weve got our issues with the russians and the chinese. Actually, you know, can theyre not always on their side, but you know, what the hell . Theyre sapiens. Were in. Lets roll. Lets kick in. Thats the argument. You see, its a new as. Its its a continental. Its a new plan for an entire new world separated by vast moats from. The rest of world, thats whats being proposed. And its scary as hell toward the people. And and the early federalist papers are saying, heres why you have to do that. If you dont, youll die. Because im in a word, putin, you know, or george the third or louis or whomever. Thats why madison publicized his own answer to these questions. And the fed was number ten, the mass virginias first contribution to the collaborative project. This was not geo strategic. It did not fit within the main outlines of the washington, hamilton jay solution to the confederation crisis. But rather aim to offer a different reason to vote yes on the proposed constitution. Madisons essay, built on the most original ideas the pitch to philadelphia. Most of are lost and in College Courses today or in high school courses. This essay is widely taught for its intriguing claims about democracy c demography representation and majority rule minority rights, property rights, factionalism and governmental economies of scale argue that the new federal government would likely protect minority rights better than would individual states, because majority tyranny would be harder to pull off in a large and diverse democracy, and because continental lawmakers would likely be men of greater wisdom, who would state legislators . This essay foreshadowed much of posts civil war American History. Its brilliant. It deserves tenure. Its a great piece. But in 1787, 88, almost no one paid attention to madisons masterpiece, the early geostrategic federalist essays were widely reprint, and the fed was ten was not unlike the main ideas of the federal numbers. Two, two eight madisons concepts in number ten were not echoed in other newspaper pieces or by authors or by speakers in ratifying conventions. Number ten failed to make a deep in american coffeehouses and taverns where patrons read aloud and discussed both local and outoftown newspapers. If publius had a great answer to the farmer tradesman, basic question why a truly continental nation state . The best place to give that answer in a newspaper would be in the first few essays, not the 10th. If you had a great answer that question, would you wait to your 10th op ed to make it . Of course you wouldnt. And they didnt. They led with their strong argument, which is hamiltonian washington in geostrategic. The only madison essay that was widely reprinted in 1780 788. And oh, by the way, you confirm all of this. Theres this amazing online project is called the documentary history, the ratification of the constitution is online and free. 26 volumes. And you can do word searches and they will tell you which essays will how frequently, where and when. So you can confirm all the things im telling you now in just 5 minutes at a laptop, which is amazing. The only madison essay that was widely reprinted in 1780 788, the federal member 14 opened with a nice recapitulation of the geostrategic argument, an argument that madison plainly endorsed. Even though he had some other more original ideas that he had to get off his chest, one of these ideas was that popular government, based on the concept of representation, could operate over a much larger area and population than could systems of direct democracy in which voters met in person to legislate. Most notably, ancient athenian and new england town meetings aiming to blunt one to excuse famous claim emphasized at every turn by antifederalist skeptics of the philadelphia plan that truly selfgoverning societies could work only over small areas. Madison introduced his now famous but not then distinction in between republics and the latter that his democracies relied on direct and daily citizen participation and. As to then, matt said madison montesquieu had a point, but republics based on smaller representative assemblies could span large distances encompass large populations, madison argued. And it was it was a brilliant argument, but again, you know how many people following it. The distinction between small representative assemblies and large representative assemblies and large citizen direct participate in assemblies was then and remains now. A powerful one. Indeed, the point was hardly this point was hardly unique to madison 1787, but others at the time did not routinely equate republics with representation or democracy, with pure populism. On the contrary, many other americans at the time tended to treat the word republic and democracy as broadly synonymous. A democracy could be either direct or indirect. Perhaps the word democracy was slight, lightly edgier, but just as edgier today to call someone a left winger rather than a liberal. But madisons sharp distinction between republics and democracies was his own innovation. And it was not widely embraced. Madison himself knew this. In number ten, he referred to, quote, a republic by which i mean unquote. Not a republic by which is generally meant. And number 14, he confessed that, quote, the prevalent understanding confounds a republic with a democracy as other people are equating these two things. Im very carefully trying to imagine, carefully trying to distinguish. Sure enough, madisons contemporaries often casually referred to english. Englands house of commons and state lower houses, all of which relied on the principle of representation as particularly democratic or democratic, all elements of the respective constitutions. Conversely, late 18th century republics could indeed make certain use of make use of certain forms of direct political participate in as had, for example, massachusetts sits in ratifying a state constitution in 1780, and this general trend in its general tradition of town meetings. Ancient greek governments, which had practiced various forms of direct democracy, were also commonly described as a republics. The description that appeared in three of the four federalist essays immediately preceding madisons stipulated definition of britain and again is online. You can do a word search and confirm all that at the same time that madison was drawing his fine linguistic distinction and other leading fabulous were obliterating it. Proclaim that a republican government could be either directly or indirectly democratic in the philadelphia ratifying convention, the brilliant james wilson, a philadelphia alumnus widely viewed as americas ablest lawyer, explicitly equated a republic with a democracy. Wilson went on repeatedly and proudly to pronounce the constitution democratic and democratic, all in a proper republic, such a democracy. This is what wilson says. Either one. Potato, potato. The people at large retain the supreme power and act either collectively or by representation. The constitution meant this test was and declared. Heres a quote all author ity of every kind is derived by representation and from the people. And this democratic republic and democratic principle is carried into every part of the government. So thats pennsylvania now in South Carolina. Charles pinckney says pretty much the same thing. A republican government is one in which, quote, the people at large, either collectively or by representation form the legislature. Unquote. Echoing wilson, future chief justice of South Carolina. Now, heres virginia. Im just giving you sort of north and south. This is John Marshall of virginia. He repeatedly sang the praises of democracy in the Virginia Ratifying Convention here, quotes from him, quote, support of the constitution are firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. We, sir, idolized democracy. We admire the proposed constitution because we think it is a wellregulated democracy. We contend for a wellregulated democracy. So thats not actually this sharp distinction between republics and democracy that youve all been teaching your students when the word to mock. Christie appeared in the founding era, it was often associated with, rather than defined against, republicanism even by madison himself, which he calls in the federalist papers the republican remedy for the republic disease. Actually, this Philadelphia Convention note he calls the democratic remedy for the democratic disease in the 1790s, when various promo madison pro jefferson groups sprang up, they called themselves republicans societies or democratic societies or democratic republican societies. Potato. Potato, whatever. Theyre the same basic idea. The Political Party that Madison Thomas jefferson created in this decade was variously described as the republican party, and the democrat republican party. Thus, todays Democratic Party claims the republican jefferson as one of its founders. Okay, so youve been taught that democracy is a dirty word. If its a dirty word, why is the most powerful and and successful Political Party in antebellum america . Thats, you know, Jacksons Party call themselves the democrats. See if this is it. So be like today. Oh, we can find a new Political Party and were going to call ourselves were going us, the nazis, because thats a great trademark. You know . No, it actually isnt. And this is why im a democrat, but i actually do not call myself a socialist. You know, i think thats a big mistake for us democrats. I dont even like progressive. Truthfully, whats wrong with good Old Fashioned liberal . And so. But democracy is not a dirty word. Theyre not running from it at all. With the foregoing myth busting account in mind, we can now quickly pop a pair of related myths about secession and plutocracy. On secession, were called that the key federalist essays, the ones that were widely reprinted and loudly echoed in the civil state ratifying the ratification debates were the essays preceded and immediately followed number ten, not number ten itself, which veered off on a tangent. The main federalist argument in these influential essays was a washingtonian. Washingtonian hes the man geostrategic argument that emphatically repudiated the idea that any individual state post ratification could unilaterally leave the union. The federalist number five thus made clear that a model for a to point out was the indies soluble union of england. Scotland. You could just anticipate the question some of you might have. Theres talk today of scottish secession, but its basic british law that secession cant be unilateral. Britain as a whole would have to agree to any scottish and exit sex it or whatever you want to call it. Post 1707 britain was free and strong, argued publius in the early federalist essays, precisely. Britain had eliminated internal land, borders and internal armies. America needed to follow the same model for the same reason, explained the federation number eight. Thus, the fed was number 11. Expressly describe new plan as one for a strict and indissoluble union and were unilateral state secession legally permissive for any state at any future date could ally with any foreign european monarchy of its own choosing and thereby threaten its land boarding neighbors with an army buttressed by european monarchs, murderers and mercenaries. Any such alliance would obviously imperil the entire washington washingtonian project, which envisions a largely demilitarized america, which americans would never need. A large army to guard, say maryland, and points north from virginia or virginia, from the carolinas. I wrote this a while back, but just imagine today if South Carolina or any other state could leave the union, make an alliance with putin. And now we have russian soldiers in the carolinas, which is not where you want them. You know, you want them halfway across the world as far away from us as possible. And thats the washingtonian. Thats the early federalist papers. Thats why we formed the constitution. Its not madisons federalist ten, which is great. Give him tenure. Hes a great little academic, you know. But but thats not you know, and yes, i feel this personally, but but thats thats not actually what the key idea was. The text of the constitution and this ratification history were utterly clear on this point. Article six proclaimed the constitution, the supreme law of the land, regardless of what any state in the future might say or do unilaterally, no ifs, ands or buts. Youre in the classroom with kids. You know, some of you, most of your parents. Im a parent. You know, sometimes i look at my kids, theyre all in college now and theyd say, what part of no did you not understand . You know, like what part of the supremacy clause outline do you not understand . Its the supreme law of the land, period. Full stop. Anyone who took up arms against america, even if backed by his home state, or i would add his president would be committing treason, said article three. And you know why i said that thing . Because of january sixth, the constitution pointedly dropped the emphatic language of the articles of confederation, which proclaimed that each state was sovereign. Thats what the articles of confederation about. Been there, done that, repudiating that, and ignore, mislead, consequential omission. Duly noted by all the leading antifederalists. You know, so if i say to you, i love you and you dont say i love you back, oh, you know that im going to notice that you know it says states or sovereignty the articles doesnt say that in the constitution people are going to people are going to kind of notice Something Like that. Dont you think . Okay. In the same spirit. Article five dropped the confederations rules that future amendments would require state unanimity. Such a rule made sense for a pure league of sovereign states, the confederation, but made no sense for a newly modeled washingtonian system in which states would no longer be sovereign as they once had been. The new plan was exact what it said. It was not a league, not a confederation, not a treaty of sovereign states, but a true and indivisible constitution. Obviously modeled on contemporaneous state constitutions. And in turn, those state constitutions were universally understood to as internally in divisible. No one thought in 1787 that boston could unilaterally secede from massachusetts or that charleston could unilaterally exit from South Carolina. And now were going to do continental. What we had done before, state by state by state in the ratification process. Antifa and these are all washington themes. Antifa was everywhere highlighted the proposed constitutions indivisible indivisibility and urged americans to think twice and then thrice more before agreeing to such an audacious and unilaterally irreversible plan. In response its leading federalist across the continent, in both speech and print expressly avowed indivisibility and routinely highlighted the analogy to the Indivisible Union of scotland and england. Some fourscore years earlier. Heres the key. Aha fact. Never in the entire year of ratification did any leading federalist suggest that a state could union leave the new union, even though such an assurance would doubtless made it much easier for states rights men to say, yes, you know, if theres a money back guarantee, why wouldnt you say so prominent in the document and in the conversation . And you can check me on this. Its all word searchable. 26 big fat volumes of actually conversation. The documentary history project. You wont find any federal law saying this not one is in the new York Ratifying Convention compra. Mies minded antifederalists offered to vote yes so long as the state could reserve a right to withdraw from the union over the next few years if federal bill of rights materialized. So theyre proposing compromise. Well say yes. But if theres no bill of rights, then we wont be able to leave. Okay. Federalist flatly rejected this, proffered compromise. At the risk of losing the entire state. Fabulous. Insisted that the state Convention Must ratify cleanly with no attempted reservations. Secession, right. Hamilton read aloud a letter from madison on this key point. Quote, and this is madisons words. But theyre read aloud at the new York Ratifying Convention. The constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by all the other states, including madisons, virginia hamilton. And jay went on to elaborate. The key point in their own words the constitution required the constitutions required oath to the document itself as the supreme law of land quote stands in the way, unquote, of any purported secession. Right. A reserve. This is another, quote, a reservation of a right to withdraw was inconsistent with the constitution and was no ratification. It wont count as the yes or no in or out deal or no deal as hamilton, jay and madison made these points unequivocally clear, all america watching breathlessly, you know, is there going to be a Gun Legislation in d. C. Or not . You know what they come to be able to come up with with a plan or not. Okay. Everyones watching. Would federalist insistence on this bedrock nonnegotiable point doomed deal in the end . The new York Ratifying Convention said yes by the narrowest of margins. Newspapers in virtually every state, including notably virginia and both carolinas, covered the cliffhanger in detail. Americas americans everywhere are in 1780 788. The hinge of human history. The year that changed everything, understood exactly what they were agreeing to and why, how can it be that so Many Americans today miss the central arguments of the key federalist essays and the key federalists . Much of the blame lies with charles beard, who in 1913 wrote the single most influential 20th century book on the constitution. Beards ambitious and widely Read Economic interpretation of the constitution, argued in effect, that the constitution was an undemocratic, quasi coup foisted foisted on america by a wealthy elite. A document by and for the one percenters. So to speak. Modern neo beard means a very stripes tell a dark founding story that goes something. This. This is the world according to howard zinn. And its completely wrong. And i dont care what matt damon thinks. No, hes the guy whos trying to get you to buy bitcoin or whatever. So, you know, dont listen to him and good will hunting. This is the basic story and this is what our students are being taught. This is what my kids were being taught in school and then trying to say, this is. And my kids are saying, chill, dad. Okay. This is the basic sort of narrative. And its coming from beared. And whether youre aware of it or not, all your teachers and their teachers, this is what influenced them. This this book. But its wrong on these facts. Its bunk. Wellheeled delegates. This is the counter story that im basically saying is a myth. Well heald delegates met in secret and exceeded their limit instructions to modify the articles of confederation that scrapped them entirely. These plotters then pressured slash bamboozled america into accepting a document designed mainly to protect private property and fat cat creditors and to suppress incipient movement for economic justice. For debt relief laws, paper money laws and like movements that were beginning to gain traction in the state. Governments that were in federalist is and duly democratic. Madisons federalist number ten was exhibit a for beard and his legions of followers on the beard and reading. Number ten dissed democracy and stressed property rights. Incipient class conflict. Madison was a kind of marxian and an analyst avant la lettre, although of course he was on the side of the ruling class contra the emerging proletariat. Thats the bearden take states in this reading were threatening to minority rights than the larger wider ranging federal government would be and the all important represent nation principle would likely lead to an elite federal congress that would be less vulnerable to mass pressure for economic redistribution. There were the more numerous, less refined, more democratic and demagogic state legislature chairs. Now there is a touch of truth in this dark, parody and tale, but also massive mythmaking. We called it no one at the time, paid much attention. The fed was important to what matters if you think ten is the key or not and youre missing what really is the key, the geostrategic argument. Indeed, almost no leading politician or scholar page much heed to number ten. In the ensuing sense. Three and a quarter even as many other federalist essays did feature prominently in americas ongoing constitutional conversation. Beard almost single handedly vaulted madisons intriguing essay to the forefront of american constitutional discourse. Douglas adair proved this 75 years ago and documented history proves that no ones talking about the time you can do a word search and other things. Were talked about. Adair comes along and says, next hundred and 25 years, no ones talking about fed was ten. Beard it front and center and thats why youre all teaching. That was ten. You see whether you knew it or not. Thats why. But now im coming along and telling theres a different narrative that i want you to be aware of and youll have to decide for yourselves. My friends aside from the details of who read which fed was to say when a much larger question looms, was the constitution itself . As beard and neil beard indians fundamentally antidemocratic . Okay, so this is howard zinn and that damon and that crowd was it fundamentally antidemocratic and hardly the constitution not say we the property, nor did it do we the property. The original document itself mentioned property only once in article four as reference to government property, not private property. More important, the constitution was put to an epic. We the people vote with special democratic, especially democratic procedures and protocols. In eight of the 13 states, ordinary property qualifications either to vote for Convention Delegates or to run as a delegate or both were lowered or eliminated. So a of the states their lowing property qualifications to vote on the constitution and no state where property qualifications raised for this special once in a lifetime ratification. An experience in new york for example all a adult free males citizens could vote for Convention Delegates, no race tests, no property tests, no religious tests, no literacy tests. These were not the rules for ordinary new york elections. Rather, they were special rules, especially democratic rules designed for an especially democratic ratification process. We the people, indeed, that is in deed. But we actually did what beard knew these facts and hid them from. His readers. Thats a very strong statement. And i back it up and notes that he knew it and he hid it from you. Later, beard didnt either did not know these facts or did care. The facts came to light only in 2005 and another ambitious and widely read academic tome americas constitution a biography. And some of you are giggling because you know who read that. And in the end, and in the footnotes, i actually say disclosure. I wrote that book and but until i wrote that book, no one knew this. And even my own teachers at places like yale because knew them and he hid them and no one else actually like double checked it, double check, you know . You know, trust but verify. Okay. Im coming close to the end here. True. The convention met in secrecy, but secrecy lapsed on the conclave last day. Secrecy aimed to promote candid initial deliberation, not to suppress sordid delegate motivation in the ensuing ratification process, many delegates openly discussed details of their earlier deliberations, so theyre spilling the beans immediately after the document goes public. This, too, is a fact. And the obedient either do not know or choose, not to mention how many of you knew, because i actually didnt really clearly until i researched the most recent book that immediately after the Philadelphia Convention ended and people talked openly about what had happened in the convention. How many of you knew that . Yeah, because. Because thats not the. Oh, they met in secret. Yeah. Until the dobbs draft becomes public, you see. Not. Not the leak, but the final version. And then its out there for everyone to see. You see . But its not just that the constitution is out there for everyone, see . Oh. The clerk starts spilling the beans to immediately, which theyre not doing. You see on the Supreme Court immediately i said this. And then he said that. And then i responded. And then immediately after and. And it hasnt been ratified yet. Theyre free to talk and they do talk. Oh, they talk and talk and talk. True. The delegates went beyond their strict instructions, but diplomats and lawmakers back then did this routinely when exciting negotiation possibilities opened up, unexpectedly materialized at the bargaining table, washing ten and company exceeded the letter of their instructions to fulfill the spirit of their instructions, which was please fix the broken confetti, ration their proposal became law only after the Confederation Congress unanimously forwarded their plan to the several states. And only after the American People. And state convention after state convention after state convention after state convention. That said, yes, we do. If the document was truly antidemocratic, why did people vote for it . Why did tens of thousands of ordinary working men enthusiastically join massive pro constitutional rallies in philadelphia and manhattan . Why did americas Electoral College vote unanimous . Mostly twice, to make the constitutions father, George Washington. The renewed unions first president. Why did voters overwhelming early vote for federalists in the first set of National Elections . If youre just right about all these things, here is why. Because contrary aired, the document was remarkably democratic for its time. If we bracket a moment, the slavery issue and i promise ill return to that at the end. But that was an issue that beard and interestingly, all but ignored unlike so ill talk about 1619 just a bit unlike the articles of confederation, the constitution featured a new institution. The house of representatives, elected directly by the people. The 1787 plan. Rejected property qualifications for house service. Senate service and the presidency. No contemporaneous state did anything. Truly not. So youre going to get the vote for congress and the Real Property qualifications. Thats better than the articles of confederation. Better than the state constitution. Wow. The philadelphia plan also provided for a regular and regular reapportionment, unlike most states. The new document additionally promised that federal lawmakers would draw salaries so that even middling men, not merely the idle rich, could serve like a schoolteacher, could run and serve because you didnt need to have independent wealth. Theyll pay you to be in congress. Most states did nothing like this. In sharp contrast to the rules in most states. The constitution promised to open Government Service to persons of every creed, even agnostics and atheist states. Also the philadelphia constitution to age rules aimed to blunt dynastic power by prohibiting the early election a famous favor, a famous favorite sons, while giving low born man a chance to rise and show their stuff. This, too, was democratic than most kansas. Why do you have be 35 to be president . Well, who could be present at age 33 . Who would have the recognition . You know, at age 33 . No. A wealthy, famous playboy. Can you spell trump . Okay. So. So. Age 35, which youre supposed to actually have a walk or quincy or, you know, a q and youre supposed to have a track record as in w a track record of your own. You see. And youre going to be eligible if youre john q or george dubya. But only when you have a track record of your own rather than me. Of the first two. Last name of your daddy. Okay. And whos the Prime Minister when theyre coming up with all these rules . His name . William pitt, as in william pitt the younger. And he has the same first and last name as his daddy. And he might. Good. He might be bad, but hes getting because of his daddys name and hes a member of parliament, 21 mp and Prime Minister pm at 24 and theyre saying no, weve got a different model. We are actually to do something in your own right. Remarkably democratic, affirmative action for low born people. If the constitution was fundamentally democratic for its time and here i end does this mean it was also fundamentally anti so it is democratic but is it antislavery and geostrategic is anti slavery . No. Democracy. A given people, citizenry and slave ment of other peoples nationalities could conceptually coexist and indeed did famously coexist for centuries. In the most notable ancient democracies, republics such as pericles in athens, or the roman republic. In fact, americas prodemocracy constitution, 1787 was sadly also proslavery in its basic structure. And its and its foreseeable effects, even though not everyone at the time, especially the north, foresaw the foreseeable during the drafting ratification process, the 3 5 clause gave slaves states a massive advantage in the house in the Electoral College, an advantage that was in turn ultimately warp the antebellum presidency. The federal judiciary, whose members were nominated by presence picked by the Electoral College pick by 3 5 in a state legislative apportionment since selection western expansion policy and much more. This one little number warps everything. I will make you a deal if you and i are writing a constitution on rachel. Thats right. Every if you let me write every number 3 5 turns out to be huge. The prodemocracy and proslavery constitution that emerged and the republican plantation owner George Washington was thus in a word proto jacksonian in various ways. Andrew jackson called to mind George Washington himself. Both men were deeply versed in american selfgovernment. The jackson not merely democratic but often demagogic. Both men famously bested the british on the battlefield. Jackson even more decisively than washington in the battle of new orleans. And both were also, alas, southern slaveholders. Washington was increasingly embarrassed by this fact, and in this last act, freed slaves. Jacksonville was not and did not. On reflection, we should not be surprised that jackson, a strong prodemocracy and president who also embodied fierce anti anti secessionism and a muscular attitude toward european monarchs, would ultimately become the dominant figure in antebellum america. After all, jack sand personified some of the constitutions most striking structural elements its populism, its military resilience, and also, alas, its special accommodation of slave ocracy in some americas constitution was far more democratic and geostrategic than we have been taught by 20th century neo bearden and neo madisonian myth makers. The documents deep power structure was also sadly more skewed toward slavery than many mainstream scholars have been willing to admit. America constitution. That was not truly madisonian. It was washingtonian and proud of jacksonian. Thank you very much. So. Now i think we have some time for a conversation. Is that right. How we do this, jeff . Yes, we do have plenty of time for questions and for the sake of cspan audience. And i think it is appropriate to to make and and while you all are coming up to the mike, ill tell you one thing. Im with my friends and maybe too blunt with my friends. This is a madison program. So since i ended on slavery, you see, this is the story of madison that you arent taught because the madison biographers are covering up for him in the main. And im by that at the beginning of their lives jefferson and madison are offering up a vision of antislavery in the west. Jefferson is the author of an early version of the northwest ordinance thats going to prohibit slavery in the west and who pushes that and its adopted in incarnation in the summer of 1787 by the Confederation Congress meeting in new york. At the very same moment that the delegates are meeting behind closed doors in, philadelphia and one of the first ten statutes passed by the new congress, signed by George Washington, is a statute codifying the northwest towards ending slavery in the west. And madison helps push it through the First Congress as washington is kind of Prime Minister in congress and washington signs it. So really good jefferson trying to end slavery in the west and theres a part of your brain that knows that story and you guys are very smart theres a part of your brain that knows that in 1819, 1820, theres a missouri compromise which proposed is to prohibit slavery north and of a certain line is in effect except ending the northwest ordinance to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase for the west. Okay, well, wheres jefferson on that . Hes not in favor of that. Hes now in favor of diffusion, you know, spreading the virus. You know, to to the west, because thats brilliant idea. Thomas jefferson, you know, and madison goes so far as to say not only that, he doesnt really like the prohibition of slavery north of the state. He writes to monroe, thats an constitutional, which is absurd. And not even john t calhoun takes that position going to be the position of roger tiny in dred scott. The congress cant prohibits win the territories. Its going to lead to a civil war and you see turns on a dime on this he changes they start out antislavery, they become proslavery. And thats not the story its typically told. People get up here and give the madison lecture. They say. And so why does do that . He does that because in between hes created a Political Party. The federal tends antiparty. Hes going to be the founder of the modern party. Hes karl rove, in the later incarnation. Okay. Thats who he is. No, he is. Hes mark hanna. Hes hes martin van buren. Okay he needs to create a party because john has made it a crime to criticize john adams, because president s can be thin skinned that way. Im not talking about anyone in particular today. Of course. So john adams ridiculous makes it a crime to criticize john adams and jefferson and madison create a party to stop that and they need to and good for them but then that party is a southern party. It has a southern base. The base needs to be fed and proslavery base and they go with the party against principle. You see, when it comes to extending the admirable ideas of their use anti slavery to prohibit slavery in louisiana territory madison is saying its unconstitutional to do the very thing that he pushed in the First Congress. That story isnt theres a part of your brain that maybe knows that about jefferson and and madison in 1819 1820. And theres a part of your that knows about the northwest territory. But those two parts havent talked to each other. Theres a part of your brain that knows that fed was ten is anti party but theres another part of your brain that knows that madison and jefferson are creating this Political Party. But they havent talked to other. If James Madison were alive today. The closer analogy today would not be liz cheney, who is choosing principle above party and whose mother wrote an epically good, very interesting biography of James Madison, their mother, lynne cheney. And so if madison were alive today, he would not be like liz cheney picking prince up over a party. It would be more Kevin Mccarthy Picking Party over principle. And there are reasons to do that. I understand that im a political scientist. If you think the other partys bad, you got to keep your party intact. Youre just going to stick with them no matter what. Okay. But thats not the story that youve told. I dont know. But im not sure any James Madison lecture before has told you that story. But i do think. Thats the true story. And im going to say that here, you know, at James Madison event, because youre my friend. So im going to be straight with you. To thank you for think i never heard the word geostrategic in my so i read your book and im still not sure i understand the word. So if you could clarify that, the big question is if washington was so determined and hes going to be the father, why did he need to be cajoled to go to the convention . What didnt have felt personally compelled to go if it was so important to him brilliant questions . First, the word geostrategic. Its the same root word as geography or geology. Its a basic thought that its about kind of land and defense ability and the globe. So its about grand or world strategy with a particular emphasis on geographic elements in particular. Its easier to defend a coastline than it is to defend a land border. Okay, so they look around the world because they want be democratic and almost no place in the world been democratic. And so look and say whos democratic . Well, the the brits to some extent, theyve got elections. Theyve got a house of lords. Someone voted for they got the king over for. But they do have juries and and elections of some sort so that the brits and the swiss and almost no one else, the dutch are in the process of losing their republic. Why, in a phrase, because of defensible borders. Okay. Because britains an island and its hard actually attack it and swiss have the alps. I mean its hard to up a hill they dont know it because 1943 hasnt happened yet. You in their writing. But in 1943 you look at a map of europe and whos free in all of europe. Well, it would be britain, the von trapp family in switzerland. And thats about it, same reason hitler doesnt want to actually have to launch an amphibious invasion. And its hard to charge up a hill. And so geo strategy captures the idea that theyre in there thinking about the world. France, britain, russia, spain, and theyre thinking about geographic elements. Whats defensible and whats not land borders arent so defensible. Putin all about. Hes trying to actually push across the coastline because he wants to get a land bridge to crimea and even today, its its about navies and armies. The army has to be on the constitution reauthorized every two years. But not thats not true for navy. They are distinguishing between land and naval forces. Thats the geo of a geo strategy. Okay. And the strategy is theyre thinking about things in global context and they are. Why is america, you know, because i was taught, oh, its separation of powers. But you know britains pretty free and it never had a separation of power system and any regimes that did have separate and one wins. I actually think separation of powers is a great political. Scientists have been very bad for latin america. You think of boats because people believe in liberty. What people believe in liberty and all sorts of places that dont have it. Ukrainians believe in liberty. Theyre not entirely free right now. So here is why Americas Free because for the first hundred and 50 years at least, white americans, of course, the first hundred and 50 years, theres no standing in peacetime of any significance in america. And so you dont need to worry about an army basically squashing you. Thats why americans free. Meanwhile, you know that french are fighting the germans. You know four times the napoleonic wars, the. Wars in the 1870s world war, one, world war two, the francoprussian war of 1870s. World war one. World war two. And so americans are free because weve got this huge moat weve created this indivisible island nation on the model of of england, scotland. And thats why were free. And why am i telling you this today . Because now we have Largest Military industrial and car or car shop complex in the world. And you should be worried about that because actually thats not actually the world for the first hundred and 50 years, you know, so just hypothetically, you know, a crazy president with nuclear power, you know, or with this mess. And we will never have a crazy president. Of course, you see. And the president so powerful. Thats not because of madison, its washington. And you have to Pay Attention to that. So thats all geo strategy, how its connected. Now, if washington cares about all this stuff, brilliant question. Why does he need to be cajoled . You know, why wouldnt he just run to philadelphia . Because he has given his word, promised to withdraw from public life and all world is a god. Theyre all at his feet, just like hes the reincarnate of cincinnatus and he doesnt want to go on his promise because and it all fail. You know what . Why not retire . You know, while youre ahead . So he doesnt. He he gets sucked back in because people you say that you actually want to save the project. Now were going adopt maybe a plan on long lines of your proposals. So youve got to be there and he kind of reluctantly says, yeah, youre right. But hes he keeps wanting to come back, so hes hoping to retire after the first term, it doesnt quite work because america hasnt come together yet and i tell that story about how hes only able to retire after the second, but he does. He doesnt die in office and thats really important. Hes trying to set an idea that you should actually withdraw. And his initial inclination was just to, you know, yes, hes promised to resign. And in fact, what he said is its not just that i promised officially the congress to resign. He says its in all the newspapers. What are people going to say if i now jump back in . So thats why he needs to be persuaded to say, what are they going to say if you dont, your country needs you again. You uniquely okay, ben . I really of us, we probably have a poster, my classroom that says James Madison, father of the constitution and the bill of rights. Since you destroyed the first myth, i might have to take it down. But is he the father of the bill of rights . Would that be something more appropriate . Not totally. And i did write a book called the bill of rights creation, and i didnt understand full answer when i wrote that book. And i now do a little bit more. So. First, if these guys are, you know, they are impressed, but they forget to add a bill of rights that philadelphia and i told you that the constitution needs to be ratified. And i told you that the templates are state constitutions. The first thing ordinary farmers say treisman, when they read the thing is dudes are the rights because theres a of rights in the virginia constitution of 1776 and the massachusetts constitution. 1780 and the pennsylvania constitution of 1776 and so on. And george mason at philadelphia toward the end says, hey, we should have a bill of rights and i can help draft it. And in the end, they say, thanks, george mason, but you know, no thanks. And and hes one of the three people who votes now. So so this was a big mistake this gene. It almost dooms ratification when the two biggest objects in the constitution, congress is too small and theres no bill of rights. So how do these geniuses miss it . If youre a small d democrat, as am i, this is about we the people, about ratification, about the of crowds that on some things, a whole bunch of people, none of whom is a genius, may actually outperform Albert Einstein or ben franklin. Small group of people can make a mistake. Theres wisdom in the people. Maybe not the first time around. You know. And if we keep voting for trump, its on us. Okay, but so. But in the end, the idea is democracy. May make mistakes, but theyll correct them. And theres wisdom in the people. Its called famously the condor says jury theorem, the war people. If you want to figure out how many jellybeans are in a jar or how big a heifer weighs at the county fair, you could ask smartest scientist you know, she or he will give you a pretty good answer. Or you could pull everyone at the fair, or ideally everyone in the county. Take the middle. Guess youll be very close to being right and more people you pull the closer and thats called its the condorcet jury theme. Its called the wisdom crowds. So ordinary people, you know, say, dude, you forgot the bill of rights. And so why first and theyve never written this in print quite in this way, but they basically it because they were tired and they wanted to go home. And george mason says its going to be quick, but hes a pain in the. I dont know if i can say on cspan. And he said, i said, hes a pain in the and its going to be two more weeks. And you can see the wheels spinning, because you know what . I tell my students is, you know, theyre hot and homesick, you know, i think thats the pg version. You could say theyre hot, and homesick. They to go back to their beds. Theyre theyre estates. They want to see their kids. They want to pet their dogs. I dont you know, im away for a day and im already thinking, oh, im looking forward to getting back home and i want to stay in washington, d. C. Any longer than i have to. So just saying so so thats why they make a mistake and madison doesnt pivot early on this. He had a chance to support it. So does he pivot and who pivots first . George washington actually pivots first. And George Washington in his inaugural address says we should probably have, you know, i want you to think, why does he do that . Because half the people are for the constitution and almost half are against it. And then you want to bring everyone board. Okay, heres whats amazing about the founding. They put it to a vote, an epic vote. They talked about it for a year. And down the continent, no one dies politically in that year. And the losers lose by this much, but they accept the verdict okay, im wow. And no one dies politically in that year. And the losers and then the winners, though, think, hmm, maybe we should actually with these folks because they actually got good ideas. We could learn so much from today. Dont you see . So washington wants to bring the losers on board is very dangerous to have half the people basically rooting against the regime and in particular, who does he want to bring on board North Carolina hasnt said yes. Rhode island hasnt said yes when he takes his oath of office as president. So only 11 states in the union and those are indivisible borders. And and in theory, rhode island and North Carolina are independent nations. And they could make a treaty, as it were, with putin and youre going to have actually europe in mercenaries, hessians on american soil. So youve got to get them on board in washington and understands all of that totally. And in part for geostrategic reasons. Madison actually says some of this in the First Congress, but washington says it first. So madison gets it through. But washington actually pivots, i would say earlier than madison, because, remember, they, in effect, opposed the bill of rights in philadelphia mason was the guy who was proposing it. And they said thanks, but no thanks. And it takes madison like a year to make a pivot getting all these letters from jefferson haranguing him and he just kind of ignores them in jeffersons. So madison is important in the bill of rights and he shapes it and hes looking at are the best provisions in various states and and all the rest of it. So he is and hes coping out of it. But washington plays a much bigger role than is conventionally understood in the bill of rights and does so for geostrategic reasons, in part to bring North Carolina and rhode island back on board. First of all, i want to thank you for being and for speaking so eloquently to us today. Thank you. You talked a lot about the washingtonian element, especially of the design of the executive branch. And what im kind of curious about is looking at the you know, the the last several decades, especially perhaps the. Four years, the hearings and january six. Do you that do you think that perhaps the office itself, given its its washingtonian nature at the now appears flawed that perhaps the office itself is in need of serious reform . I wonder if you would comment on that. Its a year were now were talking, but we need to talk about this is a deep and hard question. Where have you gone, joe dimaggio, our nation turns its lonely. Where have you gone . George washington. Where are the George Washingtons or the Abraham Lincolns among us . Our constitution puts so much power in one person, and its a very vulnerable. Therefore, a part in the system. If a foreign powers can understand that and push on that. Oh, man, manchurian candidate, fictionally, you know that thats thats the vulnerable spot. Vulnerable spot in our system. So thats one point. And i gave you a second we have a much more powerful military than ever before, a massive military industrial surveillance and castle complex. Im a sort of, you know, George Washington, you know, he couldnt even envision his armies, 5000 folks who were basically enough to to kill a few indians and mop up the continent but not enough to threaten americans. Thats the whole idea. So and now we get to a third thing. Its an almost job. Theres so many things you have to do. You have to be military commander in chief, diplomat and chief and spymaster in chief and legislator in chief to the veto. And you have to be party leader now because its a two party system and post woodrow wilson, you have to be leader of the free world and you have to manage federal properties and be prosecutor and partner in chief and and manager in chief of a huge bureaucracy, a hirer and fire in chief, you know, when some people may have some experience firing people, as in the apprentice or something but its really hard to have all of these competencies really hard. And theres no great training for this. Truthfully. And you can be Vice President , but thats different. You can be first spouse, but thats different. You can be a governor, but you dont understand foreign affairs. You can be a senator, but thats not an executive post. You can be a military leader, but you may not understand the authority you have. Be good at so many Different Things and theres no rate training for it. And the American People just put such ridiculously High Expectations on you to solve everything and. You cant actually without a house in the senate and even if you have them, the Supreme Court can smack down your epa plan or whatever because thats ghosts of administrations past. Its a really hard job and most president s have been failed president s, and we dont think about that. But that actually is true. And then the question is whether they are small fails or epic fails. There havent been that many hugely successful president s. I talked in the end of the book about. The president s who win, who win again and who hand off power to their successors. Those are the most presence that washington and thats jefferson. Thats andrew jackson, Abraham Lincoln. If we skip over johnson and go to Ulysses S Grant, franklin roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, those are the folks who actually win, win again, hand off power, in effect, to their wingman and then their party is sort of the dominant party over the next period until the tide turns again to repeat washington, jefferson, jackson and lincoln, fdr and reagan. And im not im trying not to be partisan here. Im just a political scientist sort of analyzing thing. Its a really impossible job. Not very many people have done well. So, yeah, we have to ask ourselves, should we revisit in, you know, in certain ways how we think about the cabinet or the vice presidency or checks and balances. Youre those are the questions we should ask because washington is astonishing hes like a once in a Generation World historical figure. Without him im not sure we would have had the constitution. We definitely imagined we would have america. Hes not just the father of this country. Is the father constitution, the project and and hes pre party and above party. Okay now we have a how can you be the leader of us all and the leader of government and one Political Party to do both the same time . Its hard to think Ronald Reagan it pretty well and there were two president s after washington who were at least like presence party and they are Ulysses S Grant two terms and Dwight Eisenhower and in our lifetime that might been someone like colin powell who could have actually won but you have to lead half the country because you have to be head of party and lead us all. You have to be Queen Elizabeth and boris johnson. I mean, just think about that at once. Thats quite an image. You know, sort of head of government, head of party. But also head of state, head the world, head of the commonwealth. Wow. So youre asking the right question. Yes. Good afternoon, earl. Whats waterville, maine . Im glad you brought up the Supreme Court because thats my question. First of all, i do want to thank you for your collaboration with peter segal. Oh, peter segal, ive used those in my class. Hes such a cool, big shout out to you, peter, and thank you for all your over the years. So it appears with recent rulings that the originalist is coming back very strongly in the Supreme Court, going back to the constitution article one section to says that the people are the ones who will elect representatives states decided who the people . All the states except for new jersey basically decided that the people were white males. Its never been changed in the constitution. We have the 13, 14, 15 amendments which extend rights, but they dont rewrite the definition of the people. We have the 19th amendment, which extends voting to women. We have the sixth amendment which extends voting to 18 year olds. But thats it. Do we have to have, according to an originalist view amendments to extend to be safe and secure in your surroundings, to own a weapon . According to the Second Amendment . Because its for the people and that hasnt been updated in 240 years. Brilliant set of questions, truly brilliant about originalism, about the limitations of the democratic at the founding era. How do we think about this today . I told you that the constitution was the most democratic deed in the history of planet earth up to that point. But of course, from todays perspective its outrageous because women in general didnt vote and there were property qualification options in many places and there and blacks in some places couldnt vote. And there were slavery, of course. Okay. So im judging 1787. By 1786 or 1686 or 1586. And im saying its actually a pretty good you say, yeah, but theres also slavery the slavery exists in all the world and it doesnt begin in 1619 all. And in fact the thing does that americans do it basically originate is not slavery but actually the idea of abolition not freeing slaves. Thats the Old Testament at benhur. Thats in funny thing happened on the way to the forum. If you your taste in christ or the individuals slaves being freed. Yes but the ancient world never had an idea of ending slavery everywhere as a system the world first able issue in society is formed in philadelphia in 1775 and eventually ben franklin and benjamin ross, who signed the declaration. Independence will be is theater so and it takes us too long to do it but im judging 77 by what happened before now im an originalist you might say, oh, i heard you were a democrat. I am. You click for c. Breyer i did. Democrats can be originalist. Its not a uniquely conservative idea. Its about taking the constitutions history seriously. And the most important ever on the Supreme Court was actually a liberal a crusader. Franklin roosevelts first appointee to the court, hugo black. He was a weird guy, always carried a copy of the constitution with him. What what kind of weird fellow would would do . And so but hes a great liberal and one of the differences between liberal originalists and conservative originalists. Im so glad you asked this question. Have an essay. It just got uploaded yesterday on time magazines website, time. Com is originalism and some of our greatest states persons jurists have been is Abraham Lincoln is an originalist and John Marshall is an originalist. So am i. So is hugo black and i write about it. But the liberal original is tend to be better at talking just about the founding. But the amendments we the people have made amends over time for of the sins of the and the omissions of the Founding Fathers. I told you it was prodemocracy, but also proslavery. And at the end of the day, famous person says that he doesnt think actually america can exist. Half slave and half free. Were going to have to its going to have to be all of one or all the other. And thank god its all the other half. And its now all free if youre originalist of the right sort. I studied under robert bork. I knew Antonin Scalia well. Im a friend of thomass and samuel alitos. Theyre conservative, originalist. Im a liberal average. Thats whats the difference. Well, in part, liberal, theyre just tend to pay more attention to the amendment its amendments that involved more women, more persons of color than at the founding moment and actually finding amendments. Talk about the the right to vote they didnt say that the founding because of race and slavery 14th amendment section 2 15 amendment which was mentioned 19th amendment which was mentioned, womens suffrage, the 24th amendment and the 26th amendment. So no poll taxes and and young adults. Originalism at its best is about thinking about not just the founding, but the later generations, which and the amendments theyve actually almost all made project more free and equal, more participatory and. That project hasnt ended and we need a 28th amendment and the 29th, but we have to come together as a people to do that. And both parties are going to need be involved because it needs two thirds. The house too, so that theres a seventh because states were going to be more likely to do that if we actually have a common narrative, if actually know where we came from and, and what the vector is and the path. So i just told you something pretty interesting. Its hard to amend the constitution, although they added ten from the right out of the gate, which are called the bill of rights. It was originally 12, but two initially to get ratified. One got ratified later. So other have added amendments and we too, if we could cohere her. But i told you something interesting. The amendments have almost always made the project better, more free, more equal. You can talk about prohibition, which may be mistake, but it was repealed. But. But. But all the other added to liberty inequality. The right to vote again and again and again and again for for women, for people who dont cant pay. A poll tax for 18, 19, 20 year olds and. Were not done. So i wrote a book called americas unwritten constitution. And the last chapter was about what the amendments of the future might look like or what they should look like. And they make predictions and prescriptions. So heres what i say. First, the amendments to the future, because if you study the past, we can actually come together more the amendments of past, like the constitution, the past built on state prototypes. Look at what states are doing thats going to be a model for what the federal constitution should look like in the future. States had a written constitution first in 1776. They put the constitution to a vote in massachusetts in 1780. Bicameral tripartite. They did that first. They had bills of rights first, which is why the absence looked weird. They got rid of slavery, many of them first. They gave women the vote, many of them first. This is a a brandeis about states as laboratories to look at what states doing. 1. To i told you its a two party system youre going to need to get both parties on. As a practical matter, point three the amendments of the past have generally been expanding liberty inequality and not contract. You should take those three simple principles and i can tell you what will be and what should be the amendments the future at least some of them. Okay. Yara. Good idea. And in most state constitutions or many state constitutions, i hope every member of my party, a democrat, would be in favor of it. I would hope at least half of the members of the other party would be in favor of it. And if theyre not, oh, lets have lets have an election on that. So so im states to it and to liberty, equality. I think both parties, you know, could be involved for it. Gandhi was once asked what he thought about western civilization, and he paused for a moment. He said, i think it would be a good idea. Okay. Yeah, right. Oh, i think it would be a good idea. And we pick governors by direct election, but not president s direct election is one person, one vote. Its equal. Hmm. Maybe i supported i testified on behalf of the constitutional amendment to say if youre not lucky enough, as i was to be born in america, born an american citizen, at some point you should if you here legally and you work hard and, you make contributions, you should be eligible present, just like youre eligible to governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jennifer Granholm or secretary state Henry Kissinger or madeleine albright. Im picking men and women and republicans states make you eligible to be governor. Why shouldnt we do that for president . States are doing things first. So i testified on behalf of a constitutional amendment for that proposition. It was introduced by a republican senator, a Great Republic and senator. He since passed away. He was longest serving republican senator in the history of the republic. And that was his version of the dream act. Maybe not as exuberant as obamas or bidens, but that was his version. And it built on what states were doing governors. And he was republican trying to reach across the aisle to democrats. And it added to equality, you know, why is it really fair if you just lucky enough to be born a citizen that youre forever ineligible . His name is orrin hatch and then i salute him today. And i testified on behalf of that, im a democrat. Hes a republican. But im giving you examples of how, if we know our narrative, it actually helps us understand where we are, where we came from, what that vector looks like, and maybe then where we should and could be going. And we can study how people in the past actually did these epic things the right to vote, the words five times in the constitution 14th amendment, section 215 119 1 24 Fourth Amendment 26th amendment very. Hi. My name is katie ball and im from trumbull high school. Were running out of time. So lets answer these three questions and ill be short. Ill stop better. But you could talk about filibuster reform if you ask. So again, im the fellow from connecticut. My question for you goes back to the founders. Besides the hbo series on john adams, why do you think he doesnt get as much credit for the founding of our country as as the five that you mentioned . Oh, the person who would, you know, ask that question, especially would be john adams. And in this book, i begin with john adams in boston because he says it started in boston before there was Patrick Henry before there was thomas jefferson, you know, before were talking about ben franklin and George Washington. I was in the room and at first i said, you know, he writes this 50 years later then and then there, the child independence was born. And im saying youre just sort of imagining all of that. Thats what i originally thought it did more research. I said, actually start in boston, massachusetts. Was there before virginia and and jefferson ends up stealing all the credit for this. And so i understand, you know, youre youre kind of anger. So why doesnt he get all the hes not on a par with washington franklin or i would say the i think hes distinctly sixth out of the six thats my ranking why heres one easy point he is thrown out on his if i can say that in c span. I just did by the American People, George Washington is unanimously elected and unanimously reelected. Thomas jefferson is reelected and then leaves on his own terms. James madison the same. So when the American People throw you out, donald oh, its hard to be on mount rushmore, you see. And i told you who the great president s and he knows that you know, and i told you the great president s were and they were watching tonight the greatest washington, jefferson lincoln, fdr, reagan. I did not mention Teddy Roosevelt quite, although he is literally on rushmore. So first point, such is my judgment. The american threw him out. And why . Because he made it a crime to. Criticize the president. The united states. Okay. You cant that this constitution is based on discourse, freedom and, opposition, listening to people rather than shutting them down. So thats why hes too cranky. Now, that said, or i say a lot of nice things about him and heres some Amazing Things about him. I would say the most amazing is hes a patriot. He gives everything. He doesnt age well, he becomes cranky and but the best thing in one word about john adams, abigail oh, shes shes just amazing. And i tell you about her and i tell you about the remember the ladys letter, which means something different. What many of you may have have thought, unfortunately, and the biggest kind of constitution issue of his life, whether to sign the sedition act, he listens to Abigail Hughes to, loyal to him sometimes its possible for a president to actually make a mistake just to surround himself with. Yes, people. Okay. And im washington is really good listening to people who disagree. Hes got jefferson on the left and hamilton on his right in his first cabinet is war councils. People are disagreeing. Adams isnt good at that. Hes not a great listener. And too, he drives people away. He listens to abigail, but shes too loyal to him. And shes annoyed that all these twitter mobs are attacking john adams, you know, and shes too thin skinned and he is too. So thats why hes not up there with the others. I, i infer from florida. And so weve discussed a lot about the bill of rights and, you know, discourse. So both the federalist and antifederalist recognize that the of confederation were not working. The federalist papers had the sense of urgency while the antifederalist papers seemed to to kind of pump the brakes and allude that we had maybe 6 to 9 months before we needed to send this proposal out for ratification or maybe even send it back to the drawing board. So what do you think were the anti federalist correct in this urgency, or do you think that there may have been more time for deliberation . Im with the federalists and thinking that it was a critical moment. It required. There wasnt we you never know when the next crisis could happen. You think its all about peace and security and then the the World Trade Center falls or, you know, who saw putin in ukraine coming and George Washington is military person. He understands that how just he won the American Revolution by this militarily by this much he lost almost every day. He had like three good days in the whole war. Okay. And and at yorktown there were twice as many french as American Fighting persons at land and sea. And he understands he cant count on the french going forward. Words to live by. Do count on the french. Never count on the french. Okay and washington understands that they cant count on us either. Nations pursue their own interests. Okay, we have to protect ourselves. We dont know when and where the next challenge will be. Could be from. Could be from france, could be from spain. Now is the time to do it. And if we wait. Maybe were dead. And by way, we havent paid off all our past debts. So whos going to lend us war for the next one . Im with washington. And sensing urgency of the moment, they. Do from alabama. You spoke originalism and secession. One of the challenges to original ism is that even at the beginning not, everyone had the same original understanding. But youve spoken about how on secession there actually was agreement on this between those who were pro anti ratification with conservative originalism quite the rage and many quarters right now and particularly you say the texas gop. I wonder if you would comment on this alignment of adamantly pushing originalism and yet pushing secession with the texas gop actually, for a vote on that . Yes. And it saddens me that the texas gop is doing this. This is the party of lincoln, and its become the party of Jefferson Davis secessionism and disunion and treason. And that saddens me. How did we get to this point . Ill give you two or three thoughts and i know we were at the end so one is people dont know their history you see. And thats why im so adamant in the book and this is where you were doing gods work because actually i told you in one sentence, gee find me one person in this 26 volumes, prose or con who actually says hey money back guarantee. If you dont like it you can leave one person they dont. Okay so so theyve just gotten their facts wrong and this is easier to check now ever before because of word searches in the and the documentary history, the ratification project is online and free. So one is just theres widespread, you know, ignorance and refusal to accept facts about all sorts of things, whether the earth is round or flat or, you know, whether the election was fraudulent or not. So thats one problem. Now, let me thats sounds like a, you know, just what appointee has a liberal from the northeast would say so now let me say it a different way. One problem is that texas and not ridiculous so that there are all sorts of imposition of certain yankee values on texas weather and and there should be more diversity on for example, reproduction and one thing that just happened, the Supreme Court is allowing different states to go their own ways. California to go way left, texas to go away. Right. Maybe on something is actually theres not enough of a national consensus. And when the media on the left just keeps telling you about the polls and the Huge National majorities, thats to regional variation and people of texas understand this. Most of all, because texas was, its own lone star republic, it was in a way that North Carolina and rhode island not so much so so and they understand it on some things we need to actually allow different to let texas be texas. Im very prochoice choice but i get it because i think we have to hold together as because putin is a dangerous person and he would love america secession. We have to hold together militarily geo strategically and this may mean we have to be a little gentler with each other and allow actually different states to at least on some things, not on everything, not run on things that are clearly the constitution, like racial equality and religious equality and gender equality. I would say sexual orientation. I think theres a clearly in the constitution, other things that arent so clearly we liberals may actually need to be more understanding because. Thats where were getting this book. Thats why were getting it. And ill finally end with a personal story, because its such an honor to be with you. Im an immigrant. Im a child immigrants. Im born in ann arbor, michigan. And so the constitution on the day of my birth makes me a citizen. Its a great and ive been trying to repay that birthday present ever since by by singing the song of the constitution. And im amazingly proud to be an american. And and i see how you know, the rest of the world doesnt have what we have my parents actually their part of the world to come here and but we americans when weve acted together have done epic things. When im a nine year old kid we put someone on the moon and we did it together. And south, east and west, red and blue. And we cant do without texas because it turns out to be very helpful to. Be able, if you can try to get stuff in the space to do it from a lower latitude and and we need yankee but also you know texas strength we need both the first word spoken on the lunar surface is houston. Houston Tranquility Base here. The eagle has landed. Okay . And thats what we can do together when work together, when we understand the american together and recognize its a federal system. And there may need to be some some on some things secession. No, but, you know, allowing different states that you can drive seven in wyoming. But please, not in manhattan. Okay. There there. Okay. So heres the personal story, because this meant so much to me as an immigrant kid. It took us a long time to have kids ourselves. And when we did it, 5 a. M. , im about to tear in new haven and i call my dad up because hes a very proud american as. Is my mom call me dad up. Its 2 00 in california, 2 a. M. In california. So i am in new haven. And i say, dad, the eagle has landed and he knows what i mean. So im a deep american patriot. Im an originalist. We need to know our history. Its what brings us together. Whether were immigrants to the children of immigrants or. The great, great, great, great, great grandchildren of immigrants, some of whom came here with bull whips. Some of them came here in chains. We need to have an american story. We need to get our facts right and our facts are. You cant secede. Thats not thats not permissive both unilaterally. But there are lots things that you can do. But it begins by knowing the american story and thats what you are doing every is teaching that american story. And so i end where i begin by thanking you for your service. Okay before we get started, let me tell you because if were going to have a long line this evening. So if you want a book signed, but you dont want