World. We are joined by the Vice President of the middle east Media Research institute and c. E. O. Of the counter extremism project. Both guests recently testified at a House Oversight hearing on radicalization, social media, and the rise of terrorism. If you look at the world, the production of media worldwide, hollywood, madison avenue, there is no doubt there is more of us than there are of them. But if you look at the narrow space where people are searching for this type of stuff, in this abculture, in this niche, radically outnumber everyone else sending a counterterrorism message. I think we ought to have a robust discussion in the United States that these companies are on notice that their platforms are being abused. I think they have to put policies and procedures in place that limit and denied the ability of terrorists to use these platforms. If they dont, we have to have a robust discussion at some point. Do these platforms become Material Support for terrorist groups . Watch monday night at 8 00 eastern on cspan2. On American History tv, role ofood looks at the political pamphlets and helping to spark the american revolution. Pamphlets were the primary medium for political debate at the time. Mr. Wood examines about 40 of these works with topics ranging from taxation without representation to natural rights. The New York Historical society hosted this hourlong event. Gordon wood thank you for that introduction. It is a pleasure to be back at the most vibrant Historical Society in the country. When you think that 25 years ago, it was on deaths door, it is a remarkable recovery. This is the 250th anniversary of the stamp act. That was the tax levied by the British Parliament on the american colonists in 1765. Because of this anniversary, the library of america asked me to edit two volumes of pamphlets on the debate leading up to the declaration of independence. The library is a Nonprofit Institution dedicated to promoting and publishing the classics of american writings in permanent editions in well over 270 volumes already. These works are not designed to be scholarly editions although they usually contain a good deal of scholarship. They are meant for general readers interested in particular subjects. I especially want to thank sydney and ruth. Their generosity made possible the publication of these two volumes. They are collectors themselves. Sydney told me tonight he had 30 of the 39 pamphlets that are in these two volumes. The stamp act was a tax levied by the English Parliament on colonial legal documents. Bonds, college diplomas, playing cards, deeds, just about every form of paper used in the colonies. It was the first time britain had ever levied this kind of tax on the colonists. From the british point of view, a tax on the colonies made a lot of sense. The government had just bought a seven years war with france, largely on the colonists behalf. They ousted france from the north american continent. But the government had borrowed heavily to wage the war and was very deeply in debt. It seemed only right that the colonists should pay their fair share. The stamp act ignited a firestorm of opposition that swept through the colonies with unprecedented force. In each colony, the stamp agents were mocked and forced to resign except briefly in georgia, none of the colonists ever paid a stamp tax. The stamp act sparked more than riots and mobs. It precipitated one of the greatest constitutional debates in western history. This debate involved all of the fundamental issues of politics and government. Power and liberty. Rights and constitutions, popular consent and representation differences , between statutes and fundamental law. And the problem of sovereignty. Once begun, this decadelong debate escalated in several stages until it climaxed in the declaration of independence. The argument was exhilarating. It forced the british and the colonists to bring to the surface and clarify their different experiences in the empire over the previous century. These had largely been hidden from view over a century and a half. By the time the imperial debate was over, americans not only to the less had clarified their understanding of the limits of public power but they had prepared the way for their grand experiment in republican selfgovernment and constitutionmaking in 1776. This momentous debate was carried on in pamphlets. Withibrary and i ended up 39. Editoror who is a superb quipped, we now have the 39 steps to independence. These were the principal social media of the day. They were inexpensive booklets ranging in length between 5000 and 25,000 words. And printed on 10 pages to 100 pages. Easy and cheap to manufacture and perfect for Rapid Exchange of arguments. The pamphlets concerned with the american controversy from both sides of the atlantic numbered well over 1000 pamphlets. Some were brief. But others important and breathtaking. I cant say that i read every one of these thousand, but i did read many hundreds. Contain some of the most significant statements about politics ever made. Our in addition we believe contains the most significant of them. 10 of the pamphlets were written britons, nearly all of whom are hostile to the american cause. Nine were written by americans who remained loyal to the crown. Two by patriots who ended up becoming loyalists. The rest of the works of various patriots, from Samuel Hopkins to philip livingston. What i want to do this evening is taking briefly through this momentous debate. It compelled americans to give form to their experience in the new world and clarify for themselves Many Political and constitutional principles we still hold dear. Once the British Government sensed the colonial opposition a , number of british pamphleteers set out to justify the tax. The most important of these pamphlets was by a sub minister under the prime minister. He was the person who drafted the stamp act. He argued that the colonists, like englishmen everywhere, were subject to the acts of parliament through a system he called virtual representation. He actually used that term, which now we use all the time in talking about the internet. For englishmen, voting was not the criteria or the measure of representation. He said that even though the colonists did not choose any representatives, they were a part of the commons of Great Britain. There represented in parliament in the same manner as those inhabitants of britain who have no voices in elections. There were lots of people who did not vote in Great Britain. In the british electorate 1765, comprised only a tiny portion, only about one in six adult males had the right to vote. That was a larger electorate than any other place on the continent which was why britain prided itself on its house of commons. There was nothing like it anywhere else in europe. Evenolonists had an broader electorate for their provincial assemblies. Miniature parliaments. As many as two out of three adult white males could vote. This is not democratic by modern standards since slaves and women and men without property could not vote. But it was the largest percentage of voters of any nation or country anyplace in the world at that time. In addition to its narrow electorate,e britains districts were confusing mixture of sizes and shapes left over from centuries of history. Some of these constituencies were large with thousands of voters, but others were small and in the pocket of a single landowner. Many districts had few voters. Had no inhabitants but still sent members to parliament. The town of dunwich continued to send representatives even though it had slipped into the north sea. [laughter] at the same time, some of englands largest cities such as manchester and birmingham which had grown suddenly as Manufacturing Centers and had 50,000 inhabitants, they sent no representatives to the house of commons. Medieval residence requirements had long since fallen away. Members did not have to be residents of the districts they represented. That is still true today in the house of commons. The british said all the people of Great Britain were virtually represented because the electoral process was not the measure of representation. This virtual representation struck americans then and many of us today as absolutely absurd. It was an obvious violation of one person one vote we value today. It was not so absurd for most englishmen. This hodgepodge of representation by claiming people were represented in england, not by the process of election considered incidental to representation, but rather by the mutual interest that members of parliament were presumed to share with all englishmen, including those like the colonists who did not vote for them. The americans immediately and strongly rejected these british claims that they were virtually represented in the same way the nonvoters of cities like manchester and birmingham were. In the most notable colonial pamphlet written in opposition to the stamp act, written by Daniel Delaney of maryland. He admitted the relevance of virtual representation in england itself. America, he said, was a Distinct Community and could not be represented by the agents of another community. The others, and this is more such as zubly, from georgia, he challenge the idea of virtual representation. With what he and others called factual representation. If people were to be properly represented in a legislature, not only that they have to actually vote for members of the legislature, but they had to be represented by members whose numbers were more or less fortunate to the size of the ulation they spoke or spoke four. What purpose is served by the continual attempts to justify the lack of american representation in parliament by citing the examples of manchester and birmingham . If those considerable places are not represented, they ought to be. Electoral world, districts would not deprive history that went back hundreds of years. Rather, they were recent and regular creation, within peoples memories, that were related to changes in population. When new towns in massachusetts were formed, two new representatives were generally sent to the general court. The same was true in virginia. Each set new representatives to the house of purchases. In the 1760s, there was writing and rebellion in western counties, especially in the carolinas, because they had not extended representation. They did not buy into the virtual representation. Because of that different experience, most americans had come to believe in a different kind of representation from that of the english. Process was not incidental but central, the measure of representation. If you couldnt vote, who would represent you . For americans, it was only the residents of the localities they spoke four. The people of the locality have the right to instruct a representatives. Americans founded it only fair that the representatives be their population. It was the fullest and most equal that the modern world had ever seen. The britishsmiss few of virtual representation out of hand, its very easy for us to do as americans. Today we might welcome some virtual representation and our present day house of representatives. Campaigning for election as an mp in 1773, summed up the idea of virtual representation in a classic, famous speech that he gave to his bristol constituents. A said parliament is not congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain against other agents and advocates but he said parliament is a assembly of one nation with one interest, where but only the general good should guide. These are fine sentiments but difficult to sustain by local districts. The house of representatives is really a congress of ambassadors but it might be important to point out that he lost that bristol election. There is justification for virtual representation. Theou recall, it makes process of voting the criterion of representation. You have to vote for the representative to be represented in the legislature. Does that mean the person who didnt vote for wednesday election, they are not represented . Why should we accept ruled by persons who we did not vote for . The concept of virtual representation answers those questions. Its based on the mutuality of the peopleives tween at large and explains why we should obey the law made by representatives who we actually did not vote for. In other words, it justifies majority rule. He helped to justify the repeal of the stamp act. The declaratory act asserted its right to legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. In other words, dont get us wrong, we have every right to pass this act and to do anything. In all cases whatsoever. This was a robust assertion of what was called parliamentary sovereignty. That is the doctrine that they had to be in every state one final supreme individual lawmaking authority. This doctrine of sovereignty made famous by william published in 1765. That doctrine was the most powerful principle of government in 18thcentury british political thought. The end is what broke up the empire. Franklin had mistakenly the cause would project to an inner kernel internal tax like the stamp act that they might not object to an external duty on imports, since they had recognized the right to regulate the trade of empire. It had admitted that perlman had some authority but the Stamp Act Congress recognize that, you just cannot tax us. Had levied duties on imported foreign molasses but these were prohibitory duties designed to control the flow of trade, not to raise revenue. Maybe the British Government can levy external duties on imports and reuse money that way, surreptitiously, so to speak. Between internal and at style taxes, the British Government grasp added. Exchequerllor of the admitted that he could not see any distinction between internal and external taxes, perfect nonsense, but since americans were pleased to make that distinction, he was willing to indulge them. All collateral imports of lead, glass, paper, nt, the revenue which was to be applied to the salaries of royal officials in the colonies. These townshend duties aroused , and theyposition were stymied from the outset. Intended to sort out the limits of parliamentary authority. Farmer, but you know what jefferson thought about farmers. His letters from a pennsylvania farmer was the most popular until we get to Thomas Paynes common sense. Dickinson conceded that parliament had a right to regulate trade. He wrote parliament has no right whatsoever to tax the colonies and it matters not whether the taxes were external or internal. How to distinguish between duties designed to regulate trade and those two design revenue . The answer lay in the ability to discover the intention of those who rule over us. Suddenly americans had turned it into an elaborate debate into deciphering british motives. Its not surprising that americans became obsessed with conspiracy to deny them other labor dispute. Admitting that parliament had some authority over them, there were willing to concede that, but not the authority to tax. Trying to draw these kinds of distinctions that made them confused. The british offered a simple but powerful argument based on the doctrine of sovereignty, that there had to be in every state one indivisible lawmaking authority. Otherwise, they said, the with thento that power within a power. Its quoted over and over again. The subcabinet official in 1769 sought to clarify the matter for the colonists once and for all. , itresult of his pamphlet had begun with the issue of representation. Then the issue became sovereignty. If the colonies accepted one authority, then he said they have to accept all of them. If they denied parliaments authority over the cause in any particular, they must deny it in and the union must be dissolved. This is a very important point that is not easily grasp. Since tierney had always come from the crown, those who ,avored parliament and liberty those like knox found it inconceivable that anyone in his right mind would want to escape from parliaments libertarian protection. You have to keep that in mind, that is important for the english. The bill of rights of 1689, parliament was the historical guardian of the peoples liberties against the encroachment of the crown. Tierney came from the crown, not from parliament. This is the crucial issue in the debate, the different experiences with parliament. Let us in ance different constitutional direction from the english. It was never a threat to liberty, but instead it was the guarantor of liberty. Hence there is no need to protect themselves against acts of parliament. The people could not tyrannize themselves. Carta, which is the 800 anniversary this year, that limited the king. There are no written documents limiting parliaments. The documents living the king limiting the king were all acts of parliament. Statutes, not different in form from other documents passed in parliament. In england there was no written constitution. There is no fundamental law that limits parliament. Today there still isnt. , parliaments could do away with habeas corpus by simple statute. They did that in northern ireland. They dont have the Supreme Court. The constitution was not a document set apart from ordinary lawmaking. As it is for us today. For englishmen, as William Blackstone said there could be , no distinction between the constitution and the system of laws. Every act of parliament is part of the constitution. The terms constitutional and unconstitutional mean legal and illegal. Nothing could be more different from what we americans came to believe. It is precisely on this distinction that the american and english traditions diverged in the revolution. I had a common tradition until that moment. We went off in two different directions. They came to realize that the stamp act might be legal, but such acts could not be automatically considered constitutional. The english bill of rights was only a statute of parliament. But surely the colonists insisted they were of a nature more sacred than a bill establishing a turnpike road . Under this kind of pressure, the americans came to believe that the fundamental principles of the constitution had to be lifted out of the lawmaking process and the other institutions of government. In all three states, samuel adams said, the constitution is fixed. They cannot leave the bounds of it without destroying its own foundation. In when americans made their own 1776, constitutions, they inevitably sought to make some fundamental and to write them out in separate documents. This explains the different response to the act of parliament. There were people in america who fell that parliaments role as the bulwark of liberty meant that no one in his right mind want to be outside of parliaments authority. Governor Thomas Hutchinson of massachusetts was a good whig and he cannot imagine the colonists wanting to be outside the authority of parliament. He lectured people on the doctrine of sovereignty. He assumed his lecture would convince them how foolish they were in opposing parliament. In a speech to the massachusetts general court, hutchinson said there was no line between the Supreme Authority of parliament and the total independence of the colonies. There cannot be two independent legislatures. One in the same state, for although they may be but one head, the king has two legislative bodies before the then in 1603 when james first, king of scotland, succeeded to the strong to the throne. Hutchinson is saying that it would create an imperium within the imperium. Hutchinson assumed that no good englishmen would want to be out from under parliaments benign authority. Faced with this alternative, the massachusetts representatives, including john adams, shows what governor hutchinson never imagined. It accepted the logic of sovereignty. There can be no line between the Supreme Authority of parliament and the independence of the colonies, either we other vassals of parliament or the must be independent. The conclusion is we must be independent. Hutchinson set it up by giving them this alternative. He said it up by giving on this alternative. The colonies had to be distinct states from the mother country. This marks an extraordinary moment in the history of the debate. By 1774 all the leading patriot pamphlet writers, including jefferson and adams, had confronted this choice. Either all in her all out. They have chosen to cut themselves off completely from parliament but not from the british crown. They set forth a radically new conception. Each of the 13 colonies was totally independent of parliament but each retained its allegiance to the king. That was the common link in the empire. Lord north said this is a tory position. Historians have labeled this the dominion theory of the empire. It anticipated the statute of westminster of 1931. This established the legislative independence of the different dominions, such as canada and new zealand. They have their own legislatures but they have a common monarch, queen elizabeth. By asserting their independence from the authority of parliament, the colonists had not repudiated the got dr. Sovereignty. They had surrendered to it. Many scholars dont seem to appreciate this. Through the decade of debate the colonists had tried to divide legislative authority. They said it can do this but not that. There had to be separate spheres of authority in the empire. They could admit any division of authority. By 1774 most of the patriot pamphleteers have given up. They despaired of trying to divide the indivisible. They finally accepted the logic of sovereignty. One final supreme lawmaking authority. To legislatures in the same state, said alexander hamilton, cannot be supposed without falling into that solecism of politics. John adams agreed. They could not be true any more than two supreme beings in one universe. So the colonial legislatures must be the sole legislative authority. They had not disavowed the concept of legislative sovereignty, they just transplanted it to their provincial legislatures. The colonists were not able to account for parliaments previous regulation of their trade. This is why james wilson was led to make his remarkable proposal that we should grant the kang power to regulate trade. The best of the colonists could do, no one accepted wilsons idea, was to allow parliament to have parliaments power over their external commerce. The Continental Congress called it the necessity of the case. Were doing it out of necessity. An awkward way to deal with this. The colonists have concluded that they were side to tied solely to the king. It is not some but we read the declaration of independence. All of the indictments were leveled solely at the king. George the third, you refused to do this, you did that. It never mentions parliament. It was parliament that had enacted the stamp act and the other intolerable acts. King george was the only thing that mattered in the declaration. It said that the king has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution. Jefferson wanted the declaration to be scrupulously legal. This is just one of the constitutional issues. In this extraordinary debate and pamphlets. They thought they learned how to make their own constitutions. To protect popular rights and liberties. To separate powers. The problem of sovereignty did not go away. 10 years later, in 1787, when the country was drawing up a new federal constitution, the antifederalists raised the issue of sovereignty once again. They said that there had to be only one final supreme indivisible lawmaking authority. Because of the supremacy clause in the constitution, it was bound to be the federal government that would be the ultimate supreme body. The states would be reduced to laying out roads while sovereignty rested with the u. S. Congress. The defenders of the constitution did not like this argument. They try to divide power. It was outlined in article one, section eight of the constitution. The antifederalists through the doctrine of sovereignty back in their faces. Government power cant be divided, they said. There must be one final supreme indivisible lawmaking authority. This was the most powerful argument that the antifederalists mounted. James wilson, the philadelphia lawyer, and underrated founder. He found the answer. Is one of the most powerful arguments. Wilson found an answer in a speech he gave. He gave up trying to divide sovereignty. We were relocated in the people at large. He was not saying all power comes from the people. The final lawmaking authority lies with the people at large. Outside of the institutions of government. Sovereignty rests with the people, not with government institutions. This was a brilliant solution. Not so obvious of the time. Madison, the crucial founder, this solves all of our problems. Now we see the government as doling out bits of pieces to their various agents. Senators, governors, representatives even judges were considered to be agents of people. The terms houses of representatives is an awkward reminder that there was an earlier time when there was just one part of the government that was representative. Today we think of the senate is representative and other parts of the government as well. Even though the house of representatives is stuck with that name. Its an awkward reminder of a world that has been lost. All institutions of government now have become agents of the people. We have examples of that sovereignty. Exercised in several states. Not so much here in the east. Referenda and ballot initiatives. Western states like california and oregon and colorado have used this much more frequently than any state in the east. Direct democracy. The sovereignty of the people. Whether it is a good thing in practice or not, i believe that your judgment. Thank you. [applause] i will be happy to take questions. Only one question per person. Dont make speeches. You paint a picture of an incredible level of sophistication in these political discussions. In your writings, some of the pamphlet writers are names that are not commonly known. The average person, how in tune were they with these sophisticated issues . Wood all of these pamphlets except for Thomas Paynes, were written for the elite. John dickersons pamphlet is loaded with classical references. He has more footnotes that he has text. He is writing for his fellow lawyers and educated people. High level of discussion. The ideas percolate down and get repeated in newspapers. May boil down to phrases like no taxation without representation. The sophistication of the argument is designed for very welleducated people. When you come to thomas payne, he really breaks the rules. He has no references in his pamphlet to any classical authors except the bible and the english book of common prayer. He assumes his readership knows nothing except those two books. No references to montesquieu or aristotle or cicero. That is a major rhetorical breakthrough. Paine is trying to reach a wider readership. How did these readers differ by colony . Would massachusetts have a very large number . And South Carolina have very few . Wood readership wouldve been greater in those colonies that had cities. Charleston was a goodsized city but south of the masondixon line there were very few cities. Williamsburg had very few people. Many more readers in the big cities of the north. Boston, new york, philadelphia. The south was a much more rural area. With some pampers from the south but most of them were written by northern authors with northern temperaments. But dickersons pamphlet circulated everywhere. Many people would read dickersons pamphlet. There is an elite world, by our standards about 2 of the population was collegeeducated. The station was between gentlemen and commoners. It was so significant for them. We put gentlemen on our restroom doors. But for them it was actually a legal distinction between gentlemen and commoners. Only about 2 of the population in the south were considered gentlemen. In the north it is much larger. Maybe 5 in the north. Thomas paine was writing for a middle group. By the 19 century becomes the middle class. Not collegeeducated but smart. They know how to read and write. They become the readers of his pamphlet. How many of them read John Dickinsons pamphlet is a question. Im an amateur new york historian. The footnotes to history. Somewhat infamously is the fact that new york did not participate in that vote on the declaration of independence. We abstained from the vote. They was structured as independence from king george. You have any thoughts on why that was . Wood of all the colonies, new york had the greatest number of loyalists. For a number of reasons. Even then, a heterogeneous population that helped to create more fearful atmospheres so that people were more scared of democracy. Letting the people rule. There was a hesitancy. In the end, new york did join. There are moments of the Continental Congress when they didnt. The two delegates walked out. Hamilton had no quorum. They had to move on without votes. Hamilton made many speeches and new york never had a vote. New york was hesitant for that reason and they were paralyzed out of concern that the populace would run wild. They hesitated more than any other. You mentioned representation and you mentioned the strength and the weaknesses of both. I am wondering if the original way we elected senators was for virtual representation and if it was meant to alleviate some of the actual representation. Wood having the senators were designed to appease small states that were worried and it never occurred that they would have the state legislature and there is a constitutional way of dealing with this. There is no prescription in the constitution to have districts. We can elect at large and that was a case in many states. We changed it to districts and, in some states, when the legislature is locked and you have gerrymandering and so on, they are forced to run at large. We can do that now in california. The representatives of california could run at large and it would change the nature of things. It is unlikely that would happen. By all means, in a small state, the representative runs at large. If you had them running at large, it would be constitutional and there is no prohibition against it. Part of the madisonian idea behind the constitution was a better caliber of person in the government. That is why he narrowed representation, so a place like north state legislature he thought the state legislatures were running wild and it was populism running wild. If you think the tea party is bad today, it was bad for him in 1780. He screened out the populists and excessive democrats. It would work this way there were 235 members of the North Carolina legislature and five congressman given in the First Congress to North Carolina and madison assumed to there will only five College Graduates in carolina and they would be the ones who would be the liberal cosmopolitans. They will have the more enlightened legislature. That was the idea. It was always a problem of how you would have a designation. We lost control of that. A problem we have with the house of representatives and the government in general is the destruction of the mediation institutions and we have created the atomization of politics with everybody running it is unbelievable atomization of politics and we have destroyed the mediating institutions that act as screens. The parties are weak. They used to control the candidates. Now, look at the primaries. It is difficult to stop when you say, let the people decide. Who will stand against the people . The federalists are trying to find new ways of stifling the people because the people can be crazy. We see this happening. This is a problem. Back when jack kennedy ran, he had a couple of primaries and had to run in West Virginia to show Dave Lawrence or daly in chicago, illinois. Could the catholic win in the protestant state question mark he did and he controlled the delegations state . He did and he controlled the delegations. You cannot say that and you cannot get away with that now. We have destroyed the ability to choose our candidates properly and we can see that happening now in the republican party. So, it is actual representation and it is difficult to stop. You are letting the people the decide. Who can stop that . In a democracy, that trumps everything. [laughter] not to use that term. Beating, not trump questioner what made the early colonies a spark against england . It seems like they had the access to the political philosophers. Why did it happen in the u. S. . Wood there were radical movements to change things. 1832, they rationalize the representational system and there are people corrupting protesting the corruption. The americans responded to the radical whig writers who are libertarian. That is the literature we found the most powerful. Read bernard or the book on american politics to get a sense of this. It is a complicated issue of why americans and colonists deviate. They deviate from the beginning. We do not know this until issues are raised in this debate and people say, we do not believe in this. They are forced to confront experience and it did not create diversions. It exposed divergence. The englishman in the 18th century assumed the parliament was a protector of liberty and they did not realize americans would have a different view. Americans respected parliament and, when push comes to shove, when it comes to enacting unconstitutional laws, in england, they could not have the unconstitutional law. You cannot today. There is no Supreme Court that says a statute is unconstitutional. The americans deviate and it takes a debate to open their eyes to the experience. The experience is 150175 years and the colonial experience