of the republic from 1789. george washington's mount vernon hosted this event. ms. dunn: i am the chief of staff at george washington's mount vernon. you are in for a wonderful presentation. i would like to take a moment to thank ford motor company for supporting george washington's mount vernon and continuing to fun this opportunity. i would also like to recognize some special guests. we have our george washington leadership fellows here, 16 fivents spending weeks immersed into a leadership program. they are here through the generosity of david rubenstein, who helped us conceive of the idea to have this group of students here. i would like you to stand so that we can recognize you. [applause] ms. dunn: this is our second class of fellows. they just arrived this week and have very busy schedules, but they are wonderful to speak with. it is now my honor to be able to injures tonight's -- introduce tonight speaker, fergus bordewich. he has been a independent historian and writer since the 1970's. he is a frequent speaker who has also worked as a journalist, which allows him to write on history, politics, and more. his articles have appeared in the new york times, the wall street journal, and the smithsonian appear. he is the author of several books. he is currently working on a new book focusing on congress's role in the civil war, and tonight he will join us to speak about his latest book, the first congress: how james madison, george washington, and a group of extraordinary men invented the government. me in welcoming fergus bordewich. [applause] mr. bordewich: hi, everyone. i assume you can hear me clearly enough in the back? not too loud, i hope? thank you all for being here. iwill allow as much time as can for questions afterwards because i know this is going to be a well-informed and people.ive for not every group i speak to is. occasionally i find myself saying that there were two houses of congress. [applause] mr. bordewich: fortunately i'm not worried about that tonight. naturally i want to thank mount vernon for having me here. and for providing such a wonderful venue for this talk. this new book of mine, the first congress: how james madison, george washington, and a group of extraordinary men invented the government. it was inspired by an earlier book which was already mentioned about the creation of washington, d.c. why are we here and not on the susquehanna river in pennsylvania? or the south bronx? [applause] mr. bordewich: i am a native new yorker. , that occurred, that political decision occurred as one of the actions of the first federal congress. it became readily apparent to me that that congress, which was prodigiously productive, and i think there is no question that it ranks among the three or four most effective, successful, productive congresses in american history, if not the most productive. in writing this book, this is a narrative history, this is a i knowve history, and there are people, i think actually a lot of people, who think there is no more boring narrative than congressional debate. however, i don't think that is true at all. in writing this book, i tried to imagine myself as kind of a fly on the wall, a spectator, in the gallery of the house of representatives, the gallery of the senate, because there was no gallery in the senate. the senate was a close body at the time. --allowed no gas or visitors guests or visitors, and made a record of its actions, so there is a wonderfully tart and sarcastic diary by one of my favorite members of the first congress. moreu still want to know about the first congress after you have read my book, i recommend his diary. i try to imagine myself as a fly on the wall watching the debates unfold in front of me without knowing the outcome, because of course when members of 1789,rch and april nobody knew the outcome, and trust me, nobody was confident it was going to succeed. plan a had been the federation congress, which failed. this, the first federal congress, and it was no plan c. so i tried to write as if in real time, and i tried to capture the often very dramatic political give-and-take, the verbal combat which was often on a morris -- marvelous level, and the often grudging compromise in the face of failure. the me give you something better to look at here. ok, let me explain the first two images. in 1789, and we are standing approximately in front of federal hall looking towards the east river of new york. city, althoughe the buildings are only five stories high, had some of the bustle and teeming quality that we have had for the last 200 years, so federal hall, even though the image of it i will show you in a minute looks austere and classical, it's here. this is another image of new york and maybe somebody in this audience, but i would bet one dollar probably not, who knows this house is standing at the end of the holland tunnel. it is not there anymore. this is the house that vice president john adams rented for the two sessions that the first congress met in new york, and why am i showing it to you? to convey some sense how rural and will collect manhattan was -- bucolic manhattan was in 1789. if you went beyond city hall, you're going out of town. stooduilding approximately a mile and a half, maybe two miles, from new york city. when members of the first congress needed a break, and that was often because it was very exhausting and these fellows were working six and seven days a week, they went for rides in theeback countryside, and that --ntryside is often the land greenwich village was out there somewhere. so that is the new york we are in, and this is federal hall, where just about all the action is taking place. it is on wall street. , and we areeehouse now looking in the direction of the hudson river. ok, so, the first congress. despite its significance, the first congress has generally been treated like something of asterisk. it took two years of highly creative and sometimes two-fisted down and dirty politics to accomplish the job, and that job was creating the institutions of government, of ,reating what patrick henry whom i will refer to once or twice later on, referred to as the crazy machine of government. that is what these men are doing in federal hall here. when the first congress gathered 1789, york in march-april white two months? it took more than a month to get a quorum. everybody who showed up on time, including james madison, was in a blind panic that not enough people would even turn up to make a congress. r letters to others express a few that they failed even before they got started. so, the challenges facing the country are terrific d. the country is a shaky collection of 11 sovereign states. opponents of the constitution are demanding and amendments, more than 200 amendments, or even a new constitutional convention. the government has no reliable source of revenue. there are more than 50 different currencies and circulation. there is no permanent seat of government. forrnment had been nomadic the most part. they are suspicious of northerners and westerners and easterners and new englanders, just about everyone. [laughter] there areich: and well-founded fears that the west will break -- we are not talking about montana, idaho, and south dakota, we are talking about west of the appellations. we are talking about what soon becomes kentucky and tennessee and ohio and indiana and illinois, and that is about as far west as anybody can imagine at this point. west are fears that the will break off into another country or maybe several countries, quakers and others demanding an end to slavery, while southerners threaten secession, and they do so in the course of the first congress, threaten secession if government dares to tamper with slavery. i willve said, and repeat it probably a few more times, even many members of don't think the government will survive at the birth. as james madison put it, and he said this a number of times, we are in a wilderness without a single footstep to guide us. the first congress achieved prodigious output. it established the executive department, the federal court system, the first revenue streams for the national government, it approved the first amendments to the constitution, it adopted a program for paying the countries embraced the principles of capitalism. it found at the first national bank, established the national capital on the banks of the potomac, enacted the first patent and copyright laws, founded the u.s. coast guard, and i could go on. the members of the first congress did not regard themselves as demigods. they never expected anyone else to consider them that either. the great majority of them were professional politicians. most of them were lawyers. [laughter] this was not a congress of amateurs. threw down his plow, jumped on his mule and road to new york and legislated for a while, then went back to the farm to finish plowing. nobody. nobody tore off his cobblers leather apron to legislate. these men are professionals. they were overwhelmingly pragmatists. there were no ideological zealots. one or two were a little bit crazy, and a few others were a bit famously lazy. others in time to time had to be pulled out of the taverns and brothels. [laughter] mr. bordewich: some of those names don't occur very often in the record, but among these men -- we will come back to him in a minute. madison, james madison stands out as the leading figure, particularly in the first crucial session of congress. there were three sessions, two in new york, a third in philadelphia. he served as the floor leader in the house. i should remind you that there was no structure as we know the congress has today. majority leaders, whips, and there was no structure of seniority at all. moston was recognized by everyone as the foremost interpreter of the constitution, to which he contributed arguably more than anyone else. he was a brilliant parliamentarian, and i would take a story about that if there is time. one of his truly stunning maneuvers that borders on sleight of hand that buffalo the rest of the house and was fundamental to bringing the capital here as opposed to being elsewhere where congress had already voted to put it. is the single most charismatic man in the united states, george washington. so, let's go back. veryis george in a presidential sort of pose, and this is a conjectural rendering of washington arriving for his inauguration. i am going to take the liberty of reading a short bit of the book here. my own wordssh here. i would just read a necn excerpt. this is george washington out vernon -- mount vernon. washington was determined not to add to the sluggishness. as this delay must be very irksome for the attending members, i am result no interruption shall proceed for me that can well be avoided, he ushered james madison. james madison. the house of representatives was still debating molasses when on the afternoon of april 22, congress learned that george washington had reached the jersey shore. left mount vernon accompanied by his aid, david humphrey, is secretary, his enslaved manservant, billy lee, and a hopeful charles thompson. have headed anht executive department, but didn't. they headed north towards some potomacat valley promoters hoped would become the site of the nations permanent capital. in as hoped to travel quiet and peaceable manner as possible to conserve his energy, but that was not to be. cheering, route had flag-waving well-wishers throwing flowers at him, holding up their babies, and amending speeches. towns that had cannons fired them. veterans marched along side him for miles. men wept. banners proclaimed a new era and behold the rising empire. so he's that the crowds when he could. pressed tohen deliver addresses in baltimore, wilmington, and philadelphia, where 20,000 people, have the city's population, thronged the cobbled streets shouting, long live the father of his people. and a laurel wreath that for roman emperor was placed upon his head. more cheering crowds were waiting for him on the new jersey bank of the delaware river. calvary and imagery escorted him, girls through flowers before his feet. washington had become virtually a skill ofnding upon eminence that heaven never before assigned to a mortal. expectations were high. [laughter] mr. bordewich: finally on the morning of april 23 at elizabeth, new jersey, he was ,et by a committee, john j numerous new york city officials, and the uniformed henry knox. dressed in a blue suit that ,ecalled his wartime uniform the an awning hung with red curtains, washington was rowed across the river in a 47 foot barge manned by 13 pilots dressed in white garments and black caps. the ships fard cannonade's across the harbor as if inspired by the jubilation's, porpoises leapt and though around the barge. eyewitness account. [laughter] near bed lowes island, the future site of the statue of liberty, a boatload of gentlemen and ladies trilled a welcoming ode to the tune of god save the king. as washington near the manhattan sure, passed around the battery and turned north up the east river to the booming of artillery, cheers rose up here . another observer recalled hats being doffed like the rolling of the sea. the panorama washington later road filled my mind with sensations as painful considering the reverse of the scene which may be the case after all my labors to do good as they are pleasing. in other words, he was pretty uptight. it was washington's first trip back to new york since the end of the war. if any new yorkers held him per se responsible for losing their city to the british and the catastrophic battle of long island, they had clearly forgiven him. he was filled with trepidation, all his sacrifices, that years of war and political struggle, the great experiment upon which the nation was about to embark, it might yet collapse as a fiasco and come to nothing. an assembly of war veterans met him at murray's work at the top , an officer declared that a guard of honor was ready to take his orders. washington turning to the crowd and with the democratic inspiration declared that he would accept the honor guard, but in truth, the affections of his fellow citizens was all the guard he wanted. he rejected the use of a carriage and preceded by a troop of cavalry, artillery, and uniformed officers, new york's governor, mayor, clergyman, and an amazing concourse of ordinary citizens striding slowly through the streets hung with banners, flowers, and branches of evergreens. new the present-day brooklyn bridge, a house had been rented for him. later the skies bursts in a torrential downfall, but no one seemed to care. not that there weren't dissenters. to at least some republicans, washington's entire journey seemed like a real progress that successof monarchical and hinted at the elevation of the new president into a sort of a american king, a satirical and sacrilegious caricature that spread around new york labeled the entry should washington arriving in the guise of jesus at the american jerusalem of new york, sitting in billy lee's lap on a donkey led by david humphreys wearing devil's horns and chanting, the glorious time has come to pass when david --ll conduct a no less significant of ambivalence of washington's monarchical pretensions, a member of congress reported that a prominent quaker who had led assistance to the struggle was told that washington was at urging his house replied with disdain that he was perfectly indifferent to the general commotion at the door and declined to rise from his dinner table as the president-elect processions marched by. i don't want to leave you on that negative note there. thatill realize as i go on i think washington's role in the course of the first congress was really quite fascinating. i'm going to give you one short snapshot here. this action describes the day of his inauguration shortly afterward. it is a different note. visitors poured in to the city, every one of them was desperate for a glimpse of washington. i have seen him, a young boston woman breathlessly wrote home. i never saw a human being that looks so great and noble as he does. i could fall down on my knees before him and bless him. overwroughtas so that she experienced a virtually orgasmic collapse. mind was so overcome by the expectations of seeing the president that it affected her whole frame in a very uncommon manner. that thoughinful she promised her self much gratification, she wished it over. so people responded to george in different ways. [laughter] so, washington's charisma and his wholehearted commitment to the republican extreme, and that's what it was, and experiment, where powerful assets to the fragile government, but congress, and you have to remember, they were the most powerful branch. it was not in washington's mentioned that the real decisions were made. washington was a republican in his bones. despite this adulation -- americans had no idea of what a chief executive might be like except king george the third, so it is not perhaps a startling that people responded in some of the ways that i was describing here, because they don't know what the president is. there has never been a president. george washington is going to invent it. washington of course had no agenda of his own to advance, no program for his first 100 days, which is a millstone that has been hung around the neck of every president since fdr. generally by the media, penance, and opposition in order to say if the president has not a cop was what we expect them to do in the first 100 days, he is a failure. i don't think any president benefits from that. i think we ought to retire the phrase. it certainly did not exist in 1789. when i said washington was a republican in his bones, he looked to congress for leadership, not the other way around. trembled at his inauguration, and that was for good reason. he knew that everything he said or did would set a precedent for better or worse. well, i should quote you at least a fraser two of how washington -- phrase or two of how washington was thinking. he said from the moment when the necessity of accepting the office of chief executive had become apparent and as it were inevitable i anticipated in a thet filled with the stress 10000 and there's men's, perplexities, and troubles to which i must again be exposed in the evening of a life already near consumed in public cares. one of the first challenges very, very first weeks of congress. it hinged on a seemingly innocuous question. just what was the chief executive to be called? it might not have been president. adams stepse john in and ruins the vice presidency for all eternity. [laughter] first congress than weeks, weeks debating what to call the chief executive. withdams, who repeatedly charisma, i daresay, inserted himself in the senate debate and essentially aggravated everyone. he diminish the office of vice president with his every utterance. adams, bute john these were not his best years. adams considered his most benign highness or at least his highness as the bears acceptable forms of address, although he preferred his high mightiness, and he dismissed president as fit for nothing more than the leader of fire companies or a crooked club. others propose the name washington should itself become the title, like caesar or augustus in ancient rome, to be bestowed on future presidents. fortunately, george washington would have none of it. he rejected all these grandiose titles. and although he was obviously a patrician, a slave owner, a military man accustomed to command and obedience, he was a republican, and he regarded congress has the core of the nation's government. hisunderpinning republicanism was unimpeachable quality of self-restraint, modesty, and respect for the dignity of his fellow men, including those he disagreed with. thear as he was concerned humble title of president was just fine. thank you, george. we are all grateful for that. we have certainly had some presidents, more than a few, i daresay, who we would have had a difficult time addressing as his high mightiness. depending on where you are on the spectrum, pick your choices. [laughter] mr. bordewich: so, the first congress did not a congress anything. did that not seeing a 1789 -- theyof chrome by ya did it through pragmatic and sometimes shameless deal mating disparaged ritually by ideologues and idealist alike. the suspension of personal principles in order to get things done. the french ambassador, who was a very acute observer of the first observed that he entreats the cabals, the underhanded and insidious dealings of the factions and turbulent spirits are even much more frequent in this republican than in the most absolute monarchy. the turbulence he is describing is the republican government at work. you one goode example, a serious example. there are so many, so many, but i'm going to talk about the battle over amendments. do that, theno let's find medicine again. madison again. there are some surprising aspects to this. today we think of the bill of rights is one of the most majestic components of the constitutional system, rightly so. created themen who constitution did not want amendments at all. the amendments as we know them were the product of a political sausage machine. state ratifying conventions called for more than 200 amendments, many of which commanded the rebalancing of power to favor the state government. in other words, to push the system back in the direction of the failed confederation or one might say if one really wanted to go out on a limb forward in the direction of the confederacy of 1861, and i am not saying that as loosely as you might imagine. conventionsing called for a amendments, but they tended to focus also on limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts, banning federal taxes of any kind, the creation of commissions that could override unpopular supreme court decisions, restraints on the power of congress to oversee federal elections and many other drastic changes that would have got to the constitution. we can think james madison that they did not succeed. madisoneralists, and comes into the first congress as a leading federalists, a leading nationalists, and he do verges from that in the course of the first congress. as far as the amendments were concerned, he was carrying a nationalists banner. most federalists strongly oppose any amendments. appeased by were madison for not counting any. madison would today undoubtably be rather unkindly smeared as a consummate flip flopper. he had opposed amendments very vigorously, objected to amendments of any kind until running as a candidate for congress and watch was an anti-federalist district of virginia against james monroe, by the way. claimed to have been a supporter of amendments for quite a while, and now in congress he declared that actually he pretty much opposed them. he certainly opposed any that were of a doubtful nature, very precise term. was against them before he was for them before he , butgainst them again seriously, he was behaving like the clever, not to say brilliant, somewhat inconsistent , patriotic politician that he was by putting aside often stated principles for what he considered the greater national interest, which at this point was appeasing strident antifederalists who demand a quite a bit more than he intended to give them. having promised amendments, medicine had to deliver. not a nothing if compulsive worker. he compressed the 200 amendments into 19 committees into which madison participated, with all those down to 17, and eventually 12. he threw away everything he considered trivial, which was quite a bit, not in asserting what others considered trivial. he rewrote others and simply ignored ones that he felt would undercut the powers of the presidency or damage the national revenue stream and a few other things. mucheal struggle wasn't so over the content of the amendments or whether there would be any. thatalists complained tampering with the constitution so new, so fragile would obstruct the will of government and throw everything into would in, or even effect repeal the constitution as it existed. why? there was much debate over this point, which may sound odd or obscure except madison was to alterationsents for into the text of the constitution. only later did he concede that they could be tacked on at the end. that was not quite an afterthought, but nearly. i think i want to say also parenthetically here that nobody, not one member of the first congress, consider the constitution as a sacred, divine document. these terms do not occur in the first congress. .he constitution is brand-new it has just been ramified 15 minutes ago figuratively speaking. is builtitution itself of compromises that left a lot thereple unsatisfied, and are quite a few holes in it, which the first congress trouble to fill. madison's defense of the constitution's integrity was .otally pragmatic he said at one point, is it not the glory of the american people that they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for customs, or for names to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation and the lessons of their own experiences? this is a superb expression of pragmatic politics. i think to put it a different way, there were no originalists at the origin. [laughter] mr. bordewich: james madison certainly was not one. along with some other southerners, when smith of south carolina, who is here somewhere. william smith, a strong federalists, nationalists worried that i amendments might eventually lead to federal interference with slavery. anti-federalist of massachusetts, who bestowed to posterity the term , complained that all amendments should be considered, not the ones that madison had cherry picked. the numbering of the amendments is completely arbitrary and change many times before the final arrangement that we know now. originally, the first to amendments focused on the size of congressional districts and .n congressional pay raises guess why those two were gratified? [laughter] mr. bordewich: in other words, the original third amendment became the first and so on and so on, so you were here today from figures home a anywhere on the political spectrum that they put the first amendment first for a reason. well, they didn't. it was the third. it doesn't ring quite so well, but there it is. civil rights and gun rights that are so large for americans today received remarkably little attention from anyone. as far as gun rights are concerned, today's second amendment, really the fourth amendment, nobody spoke of it in terms of gun rights. that term does not occur. it does not occur in the first congress and nobody was thinking of it that way. the nra did not exist. ok. little moreoint a comprehensively, what is going on at the same time here? another debate in first congress, a major debate comparable to the debate over alexander hamilton's marvelous, brilliant financial plan. ,his is a debate over militia over the creation of a militia, and they are not talking about six guys down the block in the tavern with submachine guns. they weren't. even though we may sort of wish it, it is not so. the debate focused on the following, henry knox, secretary of war, was charged with figuring out a plan for the nation's defense. there was no standing army. americans did not one a standing army. a standing army meant redcoats in muddy boot stomping around your house, eating your food, messing with your doctor or your wife, and generally lean you. that is what a standing army was. the americans would not tolerate it, even though it was a federal -- fragile country that need to defense. what were they going to do? this was going to be the national militia. if you go back and read henry 's militia plan, you will find it. inis highly detailed national structure and accounts 16-60, verybetween complex plan. that was going to be the nation's army. amendment isecond referring to unorganized militia, it is referring to what henry knox is talking about in his plan, and i suggest take a look at it. this is happening at the same time. did not needt n to be debated. the militia plan is being debated. it's not a debate over who will belong to it. everybody will belong to it. again, it's not six guys down the block with submachine guns. ok, how about civil rights? theodore sedgwick of massachusetts, who in most respects is a very forward-looking liberal minded off the right of public assembly, asserting that it was beneath the dignity of congress to insert such minutia into the constitution. others objected to the suggested prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. samuel livermore from new hampshire said because it may be thought cruel, will we therefore never hang anybody? he went on to say, villains often deserve whipping and having their ears cut off. fortunately he did not win that argument. [laughter] anyway, madison strategy succeeded brilliantly. neither side was happy with the result. james burke, firebreathing south carolinians complaining that the thanments were little more -- frothy and full of win only to please the palate, while an anti-federalist essays declared makkahdison had rendered belly piddling by comparison. this is how the first amendments were created. this is what people thought of them at the time, which was not very much. washingtonpresident monitored debates long-distance from his mansion on cherry street. almost dailyed him to report what was going on at federal hall. washington very rarely venture federal hall, and when he did, it was precedent-setting. -- there he isnd in full presidential dignity. time, i amrest of going to compress a story that i had to tell you here. i have said several times, washington is crafting the presidency. this is congress finding its own way through its wilderness. just how much power did the presidency have? not clear. madison very much wanted a strong presidency, and he clearly urged washington to use -- power. he was much more afraid of a congressional tyranny, particularly on the part of the anythingen he was resembling a presidential monarchy. know,gton, as we all --re certainly were maniacal monarchical sentiments in both branches. and certainly shared by john --ms, who was accused accusations are not a point. he believed the presidency would soon become hereditary. john adams is the vice president, and everybody knows he will become the next president. only one ofs the the founders with sons. , i am going to talk to for just a moment about these precedents, but i also want to say here that it has often been said, quite wrongly i think, that washington really was not much more than a figurehead at this point, that he was driven by james madison at the beginning of the first congress, then later on by hamilton. i see no evidence to that at all. a much washington was more acute political man and acute political thinker and a subtle, nuanced political thinker than he is sometimes given credit for. he is able remarkably to listen to everyone. you hear him again and again when he is writing, whether it is letters or cited by others in the course of the first congress , he is listening to everyone's advice. he knows exactly who to ask, takes it in, thinks about it, and the last thing he is is a man with authoritarian instincts, and then he decides. the decision he makes our decisions taken congruently with others. this is part of his greatness, setting a pattern for the presidency. not all presidents have been like that, but i think we were extraordinarily lucky that he was the man who was not only available, but the unarguable candidate only for presidency. what presidents did he set? did he set?s appointments, not a sexy issue, i grant you, but the president has the authority to appoint the first cadre of federal officers. these were mainly federal customs officials, the revenue stream having been established. government had no income, duties and tariffs were enacted. washington appoints agent woman named mr. fish born, quite capable, well recommended, the senate turns him down. why question mark nobody tells washington. washington goes to the senate and says, excuse me, fellas, mr. fish born is my appointee. it turns out that one of a prettysenators has trivial grudge against mr. fish born and decides to basically nail him to the wall. sorry, mr. fish born. this,gton is furious at is the precedent it set courtesy in presidential appointments. so up to the present day, a senator has the right to bar the appointment of a federal appointee in his own state. unhappy, ands very apparently he smoldered in a way that was quite terrifying when he was angry, but he bowed to congress because he believed in republican government. in another instance having to do with the first treaty signed by the united states, there had treaties under the federal government, these were livedrn indians who then mainly in the state of georgia, and by the way, one of the most colorful, wonderful episodes of the first congress was the delegation of creek indians to eventually come to newark in full regalia to sign the treaty. it is a wonderful, wonderful moment. but at any rate, before the arrival of the creek, upper luminary form of this treaty goes to the senate -- a preliminary form of this treaty goes to the senate and again president washington is ported -- flirtednate were not talking about semis and trucks on the street on wall street outside. we are talking about metal wagon wheels on cobblestones, which are noisy if you have ever heard them. that the is so great senators can't actually hear much of the treaty. washington doesn't care because the senate's job is to just advise, thank you very much, two are three words, and i will consent to it. senator, we mclain of pennsylvania, rises and says no, i think we should think about it. it is our job, so no, we will not consent to it right now. washington regards this as a personal affront, stocks out, and says something to the effect that i will never go back to that damn place again. [laughter] and presidents do not go to the senate to advocate for their treaties anymore. we are kind of coming to the in here. i know i promised you a really madisonory about james and his arguable sleight-of-hand that resulted in the capital here on the potomac, and i am going to an adequately tried to compress it into just a couple of sentences. there were 32 different proposed locations for the united states needs of government ranging from new york to norfolk, virginia. congress voted twice to put the capital in pennsylvania, somewhere on the susquehanna river. ,he pennsylvanians divided robert morris, a very influential senator and one of the wealthiest men in america, who essentially bought speculative property anywhere there was the possibility of putting the capital, including here. [laughter] mr. bordewich: this is a story i tell in my earlier book about the creation of washington. morris decided, who needs a capital on the susquehanna? it's going to be near where i live in philadelphia. he divided the pennsylvania and congress voted to put the capital in germantown just outside of philadelphia. james madison who with washington where the two leading advocates of the potomac capital was by no means anybody's -- ing choice, madison have a small suggestion to make. we know the capital is going to be in germantown, but i think we need to assure -- ensure that it is properly policed, that it has lawn order, so i would like to ensure thatct to the constables of philadelphia will be in charge. and the house votes to do that. nobody noticing that by amending it on the very last day of the session after the senate has already adjourned the bill has essentially been killed. it comes back in 1790. many of you i hope all you know about the famous backroom deal in thomas jefferson's dining room in new york in 1790 where the first great horse trade in united states history takes place. unhappilyson very musters a small group of potomac valley members to vote for hamilton's extremely radical, controversial treasury plan. in return, alexander hamilton, a very strong antislavery man and advocate of a northern capital, surrenders that and agrees to northern, mostly new york and new england votes, to bring the capital to the potomac. that is why we are here. because two of the most illustrious founders, hamilton and madison with jefferson more or less presiding at the dinner yield onreed to matters of deeply held principle in order to come to the decision that they felt would benefit the country as a whole. in the course of these two years, congress got its footing, washington created the presidency more or less as we of congressbers differed on all kinds of issues, on slavery, government, regional interests, taxation, but why did they succeed? they were all determined to make the government work. they knew failure meant catastrophe. they believed politics as a tool for national survival. i want to underscore this, after political is to be what they fought the revolutionary war four. they fought to put politics into government, not to take it out of government. they fought bitterly sometimes and compromise, even on matters of principle. they were professional, experience politicians. us in the 21stf century america who thing that what is wrong with government is politics are betraying the intent of the founders. they fought the revolution to give is politics. politics is messy. it is very unsatisfying sometimes. it is full of compromises that people making them don't like to make. idealist and ideologues don't women who areoday pragmatic and know what government is and know how to make it work are the kind of people whom the founders foresaw. i will say one last thing. i know we want to get the questions. and even the staunchest antifederalists, the staunchest enemies of the constitution, eventually resigned themselves before the end of the first , resign themselves to outcomes that they fearfully resisted. patrick henry, the leading ,ntifederalists, the godfather so to speak, of anti-federalism, said the following, although the form of government to which my countrymen determined to place , it isat my in mentee natural to care that the crazy machine as long as we are out of sight. i think it is a principle worth remembering that in government we are always out of sight of port. thanks. [laughter] [applause] mr. bordewich: i am happy to take questions, and please wait until you get a microphone so not only i, but everyone else can hear you. winded the word compromise become the great sin? , prettyewich: well recently. [laughter] pretty recently. we have people in government today who think that government is the problem. i think you have probably heard that phrase somewhere. i think those tend to be people who have not read their history, who have not read their history and listen very closely to the founders. james madison, who many people today like to think of as one of , infathers of states rights the first congress he said what we need here is the fostering hand of government. anyway, i'm getting a little off the point, but we have people who for the today first time in american history actually regard the institutions and the machinery of government as the enemy and the problem. we have never had that before. that is new in america. the caliber of individuals and government i do not think his lower than we had in the first congress or any other congress. i think the types of people you get, you don't get a madison every time and so on, but i think the caliber of people and their basic capacities are not different. i think we do not know how to deal with people who have lost faith in the structure and the government that the founders gave us. in the first congress did the two chambers as equal, or was it an upper and lower chamber? well, theych: yes, argued a lot about that. that issue was in the air at the first congress. the senate clearly thought it was somewhat superior. members of the house certainly did not think so. i would say that on balance that the house was regarded as the paramount body, but it is worth remembering that the term really came into use because in federal hall in new york the senate chamber was upstairs. it was the upper upstairs rather famously, this is all point with a great anecdote, there was an extremely loud member of the house downstairs, particular afl and names james jackson -- a fellow named james jackson of georgia, that was so low that the senators upstairs now and again you could hear them saying, shut the window. it is jackson again. [laughter] mr. bordewich: jefferson and madison gave up a lot when they allowed hamilton to have this national thank which they thought would favor merchants and so on, but they got the capital new -- near here, but it you think of the better deal of that -- at about? [laughter] mr. bordewich: yeah, i don't think i'm able to answer that question. it was not a good thing for the country that the capital among the slave states. a slice of june -- a virginia was part of the federal district. there was well articulated here that a northern capital would tilt the country's guys in the direction of emancipation, so i think that is a big thing. i think that is a big thing. of the selling capital, getting it, snagging it, was an important thing. the potomac valley members as well as george washington had what i'm sure many of you have heard of, potomac fever, which was to say this obsession with developing the potomac is the great national highway into the interior of the continent, which the. canal actually became. notice,mac, you will never became that. they felt that getting the capital would help make that a reality. it didn't. it did not. balance i would have to say that the hamiltonian's got the better deal, because it is of ourhe underpinnings governmental financial system. >> i may be revealing a lack of an education on the subject, but when you were talking about the amendment process, i had always believed that the biggest argument some people raised against the bill of rights was the constitution limits the federal government's power, which it does, and they felt that the bill of rights was unnecessary because the government would not have the power to muck around with freedom of speech or right to bear arms. am i right that you did not mention that? mr. bordewich: that is absolutely one of the whole tangle of debates taking place simultaneously. i think that has become increasingly emphasized in our time, in modern times, looking back at what mattered during that debate. it was part and parcel of many, many arguments that were made rightists and nationalist. as i understand it, prior to the revolutionary war if everyone, there was no restriction. you did not have to go get a background check to buy a gun. i don't think there was any expectation by congress that they had the power to impose such regulations, but when you are describing it, you made it sound as if your argument was contrary to the supreme court's opinion that it did not, that it was a personal right not restricted only to a militia. mr. bordewich: well, you are individuals did .ot have to buy by permit totally correct. no one even thought of the question, that's true. 99.5%, nobody thought about it. i did find some interesting traces and letters, but that is getting a little too deep in the weeds i think for this particular conversation. no doubt whatsoever in my mind that they were thinking strictly of an organized national militia, and not individuals, not individuals. the idea that they would not be looking at restricting those rights. mr. bordewich: it was not necessary to restrict it at the time. it was just never thought of. the debate on the amendment, per , rarely covers a couple of pages because it wasn't necessary. i had expected to write a great deal about a debate on the second amendment, and i was astonished at how little conversation there was about it. eitherconsidered it particularly liberal or .articularly restrictive we interpret things differently. said, there were no originalists at the origin, but we have now more than 200 years of looking at this document and president, and we make of them what we will today, but i think -- we ignore what the men of the time were actually saying and doing at our intellectual parol. peril. >> when the first congress adopted the bill of rights, they debated and voted against applying it to the states. i was wondering if you could explain what the rationale was. -- bordewich: madison was a well, there were 10 amendments -- not allst always sameem have the half. madison very strongly advocated for language that would have applied the amendments to the states. it would have, added a great deal more national power to the federal government. he did not have the support for it. in the first congress, this isn't a simple break down of north versus south. the leading antifederalists is only rich query from massachusetts, and there are other new englanders who lean .hat way some of the staunchest federal are in the deep south, smith of south carolina, whom i mentioned earlier, but it was a bridge too far, essentially a bridge too to his credit,n and it's one reason he was a great parliamentarian, madison could take a defeat and move on. he was defeated not infrequently. he cared a lot about it. he let it go because he knew he was not going to get it. they're just want the votes. part of the reason that some states wanted to maintain a state imposed religion and they felt the first amendment could prevent it. in thedewich: that is debate, but that is not a majority. yeah, in fact, those were .rimarily new englanders new england at the time was regarded as the most religious part of the country, the most orthodox and the narrowest from that point of view. it has to do with the way the congregational church was established, new england communities and so on, but there were many other anxieties. >> you talk about the debates that of course went on right after the constitution was established and the bill of rights was then established in this first congress. there are some people who are calling now for a constitutional convention. based on your scholarship, your overht into what to place 200 years ago, do you have any insights or lessons learned that you would be willing to share with us on a 2016 constitutional convention? .r. bordewich: ok in 25 words or less, yeah. [laughter] i am not such an advocate. i see no reason whatsoever for a new constitutional convention. i think it has worked pretty da mn well. i think the founders, including those who were ordinary men, became extraordinary through what they accomplished, this tremendous commitment, pragmatic commitment, i can't say that were too often, pragmatic commitment to problem-solving and to making compromises. it is easy to make compromises when nobody feels like he loses anything. it is rare hard to make one's when somebody feels like they're going to lose something. everybody goes away feeling unhappy, and that's what a lot of compromises are. ship, the wonderful metaphor they use constantly, the ship of state, the ship having left port. i think the ship is still doing mn well for 200 years. see any logical reason to reinvent the wheel here, because the wheel was round. it rolls. [laughter] [applause] >> since the constitution is silent on the number of supreme , how many supreme court justices existed for the first congress and how did they determine that? mr. bordewich: they flipped a coin basically. court never met during the first congress. well, technically they met, but they have nothing to do, so they went home. the supreme court at the beginning was by no means regarded as the third great pillar of the national government at the time. as i said, it did not really even exist. questions of constitutionality actually were decided in , and indeed through most of the 1790's, until the marshall court 10 years later. hard to getof people to serve also because the members of the supreme court had to write circuits -- ride circuits, which was an appalling prospect of the time because there were no roads to speak of. it was a brutal ordeal. the most interesting debate over the courts in the first congress really has to do with the establishment of the federal court system, federal courts that will fit in states, and couldr or not states tolerate or except federal superior to,ng reviewing state court decisions. nobody is really thinking much about what the supreme court is going to do because there is very little it is prescribed for at that point. one more. lady in the back has had her hand up for quite a while. yeah. >> you got to your whole lecture without mentioning george mason, the fathern called of the bill of rights. so would you like to do some honor to that gentleman? the, you do not mention ninth and 10th amendments, so to some people that shows that the filing -- founding fathers meant to be originalists because they did not want the federal government to become stronger than the powers specifically delegated to them, the rest are reserved to the states and to the people. thank you. [laughter] mr. bordewich: quickly, why no george mason? a member of the first congress. he also refused to sign the constitution. he was not in the game. i'm interested in the first congress and what the political men at the time did to create the government. rather than going back to philosophical influences, which are not to be diminished at all. mentioningte right mason in that context, but he is not there. he is not there. 10th, i would read that a little more carefully. there is a great deal of argument at the first congress over the wording of that true, but absolutely the word expressly is left out. that is to say it was a victory for federalists and nationalists rather than state righteous, even though many people today don't want to read it that way, and clearly there are passions on the subjects in the united states that subject in the united states. i felt i should have to be square with you and let you know where i stand on this rather than be mealymouthed. amendment is a federalist victory, not a state righteous victory. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> you are watching american history tv, 48 hours of programming on american history every weekend on c-span3. forow us on twitter information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Georgia , New Hampshire , Makkah , Saudi Arabia , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Washington , Hudson River , Kentucky , Boston , Massachusetts , Illinois , Indiana , Virginia , Germantown , Lowes Island , United Kingdom , Tennessee , Greenwich Village , Rome , Lazio , Italy , New Jersey , South Dakota , South Carolina , Idaho , Mount Vernon , East River , Ohio , France , Jersey , Americans , America , Pennsylvanians , New Yorker , French , British , American , Billy Lee , Robert Morris , George Mason , Patrick Henry , David Rubenstein , James Jackson , Henry Knox , George Washington , Thomas Jefferson , Charles Thompson , James Burke , William Smith , David Humphreys , Theodore Sedgwick , King George , James Madison , David Humphrey , John Adams , Samuel Livermore , Vernon Mount , Alexander Hamilton , James Monroe ,