Historian Gordon Wood unveiled his new book Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution at the National Constitution Center earlier this fall. He was joined in person by professor Edward Larson, author of Franklin and Washington: The Founding Partnership; and virtually by professor Emily Pears, author of the forthcoming book Chords of Affection: Constructing Constitutional Union in Early American History, as well as professor Lucas Morel, author of Lincoln and the American Founding. The panel discussed America’s earliest constitutional ideas, principles, and debates—from roots in the United Kingdom to the American Revolution through the Constitutional Convention and beyond.
This conversation was held in person and streamed live on Constitution Day—September 17, 2021.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
If you’d like to check out more content about the American Revolution, check out our constitutional class on the principles and ideas of the American revolution featuring renowned scholar Akhil Amar.
PODCAST
Or, listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
This episode was produced by Jackie McDermott, Tanaya Tauber, John Guerra, and Lana Ulrich. It was engineered by the National Constitution Center's AV team.
PARTICIPANTS
Gordon Wood is Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University. He is the author of numerous books, the most recent of which is Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution. For his scholarship, Wood has won several awards including a National Humanities Medal and the Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, Award from the Society of American Historians. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and writes for the New York Review of Books.
Edward Larson is the Hugh and Hazel Darling Chair in Law and University Professor of History at Pepperdine University. Larson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, and author of several acclaimed books, including Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership, The Return of George Washington: Uniting the States, 1783-1789, and A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800.
Lucas Morel is the John K. Boardman, Jr. Professor of Politics at Washington and Lee and a professor in the Master’s Program in American History and Government at Ashland University. He is the author of several books, most recently, Lincoln and the American Founding. Morel also currently serves on the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission, which will plan activities to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America.
Emily Pears is Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, where she teaches courses in American politics and American political thought. Pears' research has appeared in Publius: The Journal of Federalism, American Political Thought, and The Journal of Policy History. Her book, Cords of Affection: Constructing Constitutional Union in Early American History will be released this fall by the University Press of Kansas.
Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Gordon Wood, Power and Liberty Constitutionalism in the American Revolution
- Edward Larson, Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership
- George Washington, Circular Letter to the States (1783)
- Lucas Morel, Lincoln and the American Founding
- Emily Pears, Cords of Affection: Constructing Constitutional Union in Early American History
Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
To watch National Constitution Center Town Halls live, check out our schedule of upcoming programs. Register through Zoom to ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A or watch live on YouTube.
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript may not be in its fial form, accuracy may vary, and it may be updated or revised in the future.
[00:00:00] Jackie McDermott: Welcome to Live at the National Constitution Center. The podcast sharing live constitutional conversations and debates hosted by the National Constitution Center in person and online. I'm Jackie McDermott the shows producer. How should we understand the legacy of the American revolution and the founders in the 21st century? We hosted an exploration of that question earlier this fall. NCC president Jeffrey Rosen was joined in person by bestselling historian, Gordon Wood, who unveiled his newest book, Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution. Historian Edward Larson joined the panel in person as well, and author, Emily Pierce, and scholar Lucas Morel joined virtually. This conversation was held on Constitution Day, September 17th, 2021. Here's Jeff, to get the conversation started
[00:00:52] Jeffrey Rosen: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Constitution Center. Hooray. It is so wonderful to see you in person. We are safely socially distanced, but we are together in our yearning for learning and light. And that's exactly what we're gonna get tonight from America's greatest historians. We are so fortunate on Constitution Day to welcome them to the Constitution Center, to celebrate and learn from Gordon Wood's new book, and to hear responses to it, by three of his most distinguished colleague. So welcome to all of our great panelists. Gordon, congratulations on the book. I read it as I do many things on Kindle. So I, I have it right here. And the first chapter about the imperial debate starts in 1765 or so. Although of course, it looks back earlier, and talks about the central declaration of the Stamp Act Congress. It is inseparably essential to the freedom of the people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent given personally, or by their representatives, what was the imperial debate?
[00:02:01] Gordon Wood: [laughs] Well, I don't wanna tell you the whole debate, but it starts over the issue of representation. The colonists instinctively know that they cannot allow this parliament 3000 miles away to make decisions of such importance as taxation on them without them having a say. So right from the outset, in the Stamp Act Congress, which is a, which meets in, in reaction to the Stamp Act, which is a tax on all paper products in in, in, in America. They, they know instinctively, they, their colonial assemblies will be the the legislature that will determine taxation. Now, they have an awkward position because they have accepted parliamentary regulation of their trade. And so that is always a a problem for them, but they can make it very clear that they will never have representation be, be outside of their own colonial legislatures, only they are willing to represent, to, to recognize the supremacy of parliament in the empire.
That concession confuses the English, because the English look at parliament as a sovereign body. In fact, it is the protector of liberty. It is the it's the wig instrument that they have honored ever since the glorious revolution. It is what curbs the crown, which is a source of tyranny. So they're very confused by the American argument, how can you be opposed to parliament? The argument starts over representation. The English say, you... The Americans say we're not represented. And they say, yes, you are. You're virtually represented. They use that term virtual, which we now are familiar with, of course, because we have a virtual program going on here. But they, they refuse to accept that notion. It starts with representation, but by the late sixties, it shifts into a question of sovereignty, because the English come back with this doctrine of sovereignty, which runs through the whole revolutionary era and comes back to haunt the Federalists later in 1787, '88.
The doctrine of sovereignty says there must be in every state, one final supreme law making authority. And for the English, that's parliament, king and parliament. The Americans can't accept that, because if they do then they, they're convict-, you, you can't be, as the English pamphleteers say, you can't be half into under parliament sovereignty. You have to, if you accept one, I order of parliament socie- authority, then you must accept all. And since the Americans have already accepted parliament's right to regulate their trade, they must be under parliament's authority. Given that alter, and if you're outside of parliament authority in one, even in one little respect, then you must be totally outside of all parliaments authority, which they to, to a good wig seems absurd. Nobody would choose to be outside of parliament's authority. So that's how the imperial debate goes. The Americans confronted with that alternative decide to, okay, if that's what we are, our choice we're outside of parliament authority completely.
And by 1774, all the leading intellectuals, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, all concede that they are tied totally only to the king, and that they have no, they have no recognition whatsoever of parliament authority over them. It's not a very accurate portrayal of their experience, but they're forced into it by this doctrine of sovereignty, so that when you come to the declaration of independence, these legal, these lawyers in the continental congress are scrupulous in trying to avoid any mention of parliament in the declaration, even though parliament was the source of the Stamp Act, the towns and duties, the coercive acts, parliament is not mention, except tangentially. You, the king, King George is the source of all tyranny. So they say, you, George, you've done this, that, this, and you've conspired with others, meaning the parliament. So the, the, this is the way the argument, they, they very, very legally minded, and the break comes solely from the crown at that point, because we've, we Americans have ceased recognizing any authority of parliament over us. That's our brief summary of that first chapter.
[00:06:53] Jeffrey Rosen: It's fascinating and crucial. And you've introduced us to this idea that for the colonists, the idea of two sovereignties was a state within a state, imperium and imperial was a solecism-
[00:07:06] Gordon Wood: Right.
[00:07:07] Jeffrey Rosen: And they struggled to relocate sovereignty from parliament, where it was in Britain to allegiance to the king. And then eventually, as you tell us in future chapters through the genius of James Wilson and others in the people themselves. So Ed Larson, help us take the story that Gordon, what he's laid out from the imperial debate in the 1760s to the declaration you described in your wonderful book Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership. Franklin's own gyrations about where sovereignty is located, and his compromises to say, well, maybe taxes are okay if they're imports, but not exports, and trying, trying to split the difference, but eventually he came around to independence. And he like the others decided that sovereignty was in the people. So how would you tell that story of the, that transformation?
[00:08:01] Edward Larson: Well, it certainly build on what Gordon's already said. There was a struggle to understand how to draw these lines of virtual representation, because they understood the terms virtual representation, and the British were using them, and they could say, and some did well, we are virtually represented just like women are virtually represented. And they would use that exact analogy of women being virtually represented by their husbands voting, even though they can't vote. And they did in some pamphlets. If everyone's treated the same, we're like Manchester, Manchester had grown to be a city of, I don't know, second or third largest city in England, and had no representatives in parliament, because it didn't exist when they divided up the seats. And so we are represented like Manchester, as long as we're treated the same. So if it's regulatory, they could look back. If it's a regulatory law that it's tariffs on something coming into the empire, well, English people are paying that as well as people, English people in America. And therefore you are virtually represented like the people in Manchester.
But if it's attack solely on the colonies, as the Stamp Act was, then how can we be virtually represented? We, and they would use this terminology, which was as, as extreme then as it is today, this is we're slaves. We're nothing better than slaves. If you can impose attacks just on us, just on us, the Stamp Act, only on us. You're not imposing it on people in England, and therefore we're not virtually represented for that tax. Now, I agree with Gordon absolutely, then they carry it on to the point that, well, they're pushed to the point to say, well, then we're not represented in parliament for anything, but their originals or stopping point, if you look at the writings of Delaney they would, they could draw those lines, but if you pushed him beyond, and that's where Franklin was trying to draw a line, not very successfully, I agree with Gordon on that as well.
But then you get to the point, okay, if we're, if we're, if we're not parliament, where is sovereignty? Now, you can go way back into the colonial tradition, the original motto as Gordon probably knows, and you probably know, the original motto of Virginia, and I hope I get it right, was it was in Latin, Virginia, Virginia [foreign language 00:10:57], Virginia the fourth, Virginia is the fourth. I hope it's the fourth. It could have been the fifth. The point was that Virginia was the first colony. And therefore it was equivalent to Scotland. It was an independent domain like Scotland. And that's, was their motto. Virginia makes, Virginia makes four. That was the motto. Virginia makes four, if you translate it. And the other, the other one was Scotland and, the other was England. And I think the other was Wales. And the point was, we're just under the king, and our assembly should be equivalent to parliament.
And that's where they, and the other place they tried to come down, one point would be, yes, Franklin's argument, yes, let's have representatives in England, but that I agree in the British parliament that didn't fly for a variety of practical reasons, but the argument could be okay, we're each equivalent of England, just as Scotland was. And this would be analogy they would use just like Scotland before the union of 1707, where Scotland had it's own parliament, but it was under the king, or as they would often say, Hanover. Hanover was directly under the king. The king was the elector of Ha- Hanover. And he had rulety, he was a ruler there. Let's be like that. And that's why as you're pointing out, when they have to transfer sovereignty, and they have a very difficult idea of splitting sovereignty, that's gonna be a problem on the constitution. How do you split sovereignty between the states and the central government? The idea is all right. So the only thing, if we already conceptually view ourselves as the equivalent of Scotland before 1707, or as Hanover, we're only under the king. The only person we have to break from is the king.
And that's why Jefferson very art fully wrote the declaration of independence. If you read pamphlets much before this, they were all directed against parliament. If you read the pamphlets of Dickinson the farmer's papers, or all the other pamphlets by by writings by Hamilton, or, or, or Jefferson earlier, they were directed toward the parliament. Now, they have, but then they don't have the sovereignty problem. But now if they're breaking with the king, suddenly who's sovereign? Because they have this history of each colony/state having sovereignty through its assembly to the king, versus the idea, if we don't have the king, where is sovereignty? Is the sovereignty as Washington like to say in the circular letter to the states, for example, which I view as the most important document between the which was in 18, which was in 17, I think 1782. I think he wrote that, 1783.
I think that was the most important political document between the declaration of independence and the, the constitution. He was pointing to the, the central government has to have all power over everything that is common to all the colonies of the states. Well, if that's the case, if, if the argument of the circular letter to the states is correct, and other people who were following that line of thinking that Washington was espousing, and you can find it in Franklin as well, you can find it in Wilson, then, well, what's sovereign?
Madison is already play with ideas, well, we can have some joint sovereignty, but they didn't think that way. And so ultimately, if you're reading it is, and I think they go into the Constitutional Convention with this puzzle. And that's where Roger Sherman is saying, no, we've gotta keep the states sovereign, or a Wilson thinking, no, and that's why he is pushing for the people pushing on the people, and pushing the direct election, no, we've gotta have the central government sovereign. And that's the funny thing floating around Washington circular edge of the states, where ultimately, once we break from the king, who is independent? And Washington repeatedly makes that argument. We weren't granted independence under the peace treaty with England. We weren't granted independence as 13 individual states granted independence. We were granted independence as a whole union. In contrast, at the declaration of, in independence, you could make a plausible argument, some states did, that each state was declaring independence in a corporate fashion. And that each state had to separately deal with it.
So the question is who is independent? Who isn't? And if it's the, if it's the United States, is the United States a singular noun, or is it a plural noun is what it comes down to, in a way. And that's an issue that continues beyond the constitution, but it's an issue of where does sovereignty lie if it no longer lies with the king?
[00:15:42] Jeffrey Rosen: Perfectly phrased. Lucas you've written so powerfully about Lincoln and the founders. And Lincoln quoted James Wilson for the proposition that secession was unconstitutional, because we, the people of the United States, as a whole having made the union, you'd need the consent of we, the people as a whole, to alter it. Is it fair to say that Wilson deserves credit for redefining sovereignty, and placing it in we, the people of the United States? And how would you rate his contribution to American constitution history?
[00:16:17] Lucas Morel: Well, I agree that James Wilson was the legal mind at the Constitutional Convention, there's no doubt about it. And his lectures are still read to this day, as its been said. But my reading of Lincoln, of course whether it's a gloss on, on Wilson or others that he read, were not clear that it's unclear to me, at least in all my time reading Lincoln, that he ever read the federalist papers. I don't think he did. But what Lincoln argues in his first inaugural address, when he talks about succession, he only grants it arguendo. That is to say he only grants the idea of it having to be an agreement among the states to deny that any particular state can unilaterally leave the union. He only grants that in order to show that even if you were to believe in the compact theory of states, that the south still didn't buy at a state by state level still didn't have the right to succeed. The American people, as Lincoln understood it, were the source. As Madison puts it, the true fountain of all authority, true sovereignty lies with the people, not with any government.
The government is, is as it were borrowed powers they are delegated their authority, whether at the state or the federal level. So Lincoln was trying to reinforce the conviction among American people, that they are the, the true masters of their government, and not the other way around. He saw secession as anarchy, and he meant it. You cannot participate in an election and then say the either we rule or we ruin in all events. If you participate in election the viability of republics depends on being good winners and good losers. And just as Republicans were good losers in 1856, all of the Democrats [laughs], or those who voted for Democrats, needed to be good losers in 1860, and of course secession was the exhibit A in terms of resistance, and not my president, and all that.
So my, my sense of Lincoln's understanding and drawing from the founders, the legacy of the founders is his understanding that sovereignty, true sovereignty lies with the people. Everyone has a natural right to, to rule himself. And can only be told what to do if he gives his consent to government, that's both a question of establishing the government, of founding as we call it, as well as the operative principle, right? We, the people, right? Owned and operated by the American people. So voting or elections is the way that we remind our rulers in particular every now and then that they have delegated authority.
[00:18:49] Jeffrey Rosen: Th- th- thank you very much for that. Emily in your forthcoming book you argue that there were three conceptions of attachment at the time of the founding, a political attachment, a, a utilitarian theory a cultural theory, and a participatory theory, all, all three of them sound really interesting. And I think relevant to this question of sovereignty. So, so tell us what these three theories of attachment are, and, and how they relate to sovereignty.
[00:19:19] Emily Pierce: Sure. So I think the connection to sovereignty is really that if the people are ultimately sovereign in order for the institutions to survive, the people have to buy in to them. And most people actually aren't born loving the constitution, or willing to support the institutions of government. And so what the founders recognize is that there would have to be an ongoing effort to attach people to the institutions, and to the constitutions, so that they would le- be legitimate. And so that the people sovereignty could be transferred to those institutions. What I argue is that they sort of depicts these three different ways that future statesmen might go about trying to upkeep attachments, or to keep people connected to the constitution. The cultural is sort of turning the constitution, and the institutions into a part of our shared cultural heritage sort of version of a shared nationalism that would make us all feel as though the constitution is something that we've inherited, something that's a, a part of ourselves.
The participatory approach is that actually people are very invested in things that they have a hand in making. And so if you can allow people to participate in the processes of political decision making, not just allow them to vote, but allow them to really have a say in the outcome of elections, and in the outcome of, of the policy making process, they'll be more inclined to see the benefits of, of those institutions to, to feel like the, the policies that they create, or things that they had a hand in. It makes their sovereignties feel more real to them. And the utilitarian is the idea that people feel more attached to, and are more willing to support a government that seems to do good things for them. So the more the government can serve the public interest and make clear that they are serving the public interest, sort of claim credit for what they're doing, the more likely the people will be to continue to legitimize those institutions and uphold them. So that they can survive challenges, and the kinds of, of push back that the Civil War obviously made, made prominent.
[00:21:36] Jeffrey Rosen: Wonderful. So powerful, and so great that you'd cite Wilson as support for the participatory theory, and that all three of those theories have supporters among different people in the founding era. Gordon Wood, my only regret is I don't think we're gonna be able to go chapter by chapter, because I think your, your discussion has provoked such [crosstalk 00:22:51]-
[00:21:55] Gordon Wood: I'd like to clarify something on this sovereignty-
[00:21:57] Jeffrey Rosen: Yeah.
[00:21:57] Gordon Wood: 'Cause it's getting a little confusion. When we talk about the sovereignty of the people, we're not talking about all power derived from the people. All wigs on both sides of the Atlantic believe that. There's nobody left who believes in the divine right of kings. So that the, even the English believed that the king ultimately derived his authority from the people. That's not what the Americans mean by placing sovereignty, which is a law making authority, the ultimate law making authority lies with the people. Now, as this was worked out in our own this is what allowed the, for the recall election in California, the ultimate, you have the people in the middle of the person's term, recalling or attempting to recall a elected official. It's the ultimate lawmaking authority that's meant by sovereignty. And that, that's not the notion of, of power being derived from the people, which is a kind of conventional wisdom, I think at this point, I think that need to be-
[00:23:03] Jeffrey Rosen: Crucially important. Power is not only derived from which is conventional as you say, but remains in the people-
[00:23:09] Gordon Wood: Right. Exactly.
[00:23:10] Jeffrey Rosen: ... which is central. So your, your next chapters on state the state constitutions, and then the crisis of the 1780s. Take us up to the federal constitution which you discuss both the debates were national power and also on slavery, and among the many fresh and arresting learnings from your chapters about the path to the constitution. You reject the view that it was all a question of economic self-interest on the part of the framers and stress, that really, it was a fear of democracy, in particular, a fear of paper money in Massachusetts. And chase rebellion that led to the calling of the convention. And, and, and in your superb epilogue, you say it all comes back to Rhode Island. And Rhode Island is sort of a [inaudible 00:25:06] or the [inaudible 00:25:08], or whatever you wanna, less fancy word, an example of of, of this rage for paper money that represented the future, and what the founders were trying to fight against. So tell us as much of that story, as you can taking us up, up, up to the federal convention.
[00:24:19] Gordon Wood: Look, it, it's a revolution of 13 independent states, who start that. And the Articles of Confederation is a treaty among these states. It's like the EU today. Virginia to Jefferson is my country, so if you think of it in those terms, you can understand the Articles of Confederation. It is a treaty, just like the Treaty of Lisbon, which is the basis for the EU. Now, something had to happen... In, in 1776, nobody in his wildest dreams, and I mean no one, even conceived of a strong national government of the kind that we finally got 10 years later. It, it's just, nobody thinks about it. Nobody even imagines it. Nobody throws it out as a possibility. It's not even in anyone's consciousness. So something awful had to happen in those 10 years to change a lot of people's minds, in order for them to create this federal government.
It ran against all their experience. They had this distant government in England that was trying to dictate to them, they, why would they create another long distant government? And all of the theory at the time, [inaudible 00:26:36] being the most important said, republics have to be small and homogeneous in size. They can't be large. So why, why would they create this national government? And it's not, you don't wanna think of the national government as, or the articles as an early version of the national government, that as I say, it's a treaty. So they throw out the articles and create this entirely new government, much to the, I think, shock and amazement of the bulk of the population. When they caught, when these 55 guys meet in Philadelphia, here, down the street here, they are not really representative of the people as a whole. It's a loaded convention, and it's loaded with nationalists. People, they quite, truly call themselves federalists, but they're really nationalists. They wanna create a strong national government.
And Madison is a cru- crucial figure, because he draws up a working paper that helps him clarify his own ideas. And he essentially writes the Virginia Plan, which is the model for the convention. And what, what Madison is most upset by is not the weaknesses of the articles. Everyone accepted that there were weaknesses in the articles. We need a taxing power, and we need the power to regulate trade. And by 1786, I, I would say that the, the bulk, if not everyone in the political nation, including later anti-federalists, were in agreement, that those two amendments ought to be added to the articles. What Madison and his colleagues do, this nationalists, is essentially hijack that reform movement, and use it as a cover if you will, or an excuse to do something much bigger, not to amend the articles, but to scrap them entirely, and create this new government.
And it comes as a shock when it's in, on this day, September 17th, how many years ago?
[00:27:54] Jeffrey Rosen: 234 [laughs].
[00:27:54] Gordon Wood: It was-
[00:27:54] Jeffrey Rosen: I think it's 234, if I got-
[00:27:55] Gordon Wood: 234 years ago, it is announced to the world, to the American world and to the world. And the, most people are shocked and stunned. This is not what we bargained for. We thought you guys were meeting to amend the articles and all of a sudden, you come up with this great big, this great, big, powerful nation, this government. This is unbelievable. And I think if there'd been a a fair kind of a modern election the, the the, the new constitution would've been defeated, but it, given the politics of it and in each state, the ratifying conventions finally passed it. Ultimately, I think, because it's either this, as Richard Henry Lee, who was an opponent, he says, it's either this or nothing. And most people don't want nothing. That is in short is, is how the constitution gets created [laughs].
[00:28:49] Jeffrey Rosen: I mean, listen to the significance of, of Gordon Wood's distillation. That really, it was this fear of, of democracy, of mob violence, of the rage for paper money in the states embodied in Shays' Rebellion, that, that-
[00:29:03] Gordon Wood: [crosstalk 00:30:10], we've, we've experienced democracy with, with President Trump. Social media is the ultimate democratic instrument. It has democratized our society in a way that we could never have imagined. An individual, one individual can have an effect by linking up through social media with hundreds, if not thousands of others. This is a scary process. Democracy has its problems, and we are experiencing it. And Madison had his. Democracy has that kind of side to it, and therefore needed to be controlled, and registered, the reason they give so much authority to the court, to the courts back then, and now we have them in, in spades is because the court was seen as the most important, impressive check on democracy. We don't talk about it in those terms today. But that's, we have nine unelected people making decisions about the United S-, you know, that affect us. It's the most undemocratic process you could ever imagine. And the fact that we've allowed it, shows that I think beneath the surface, we have our own misgivings about democracy if it's carried too far or misused. So I think it's a it's an interesting fact that Madison was so concerned about what we would call democracy.
[00:30:42] Jeffrey Rosen: Thank you for putting it so clearly and powerfully. And I'm gonna ask each of your colleagues this question. And, and I'll, and I'll ask you to start, first of all, do you agree with Gordon woods analysis that it was this fear of democracy that was the central motivating factor for calling the constitution? And in what ways do you think if you do agree, this fear of democracy was embodied in the constitution they created?
[00:31:04] Edward Larson: I do think as we were talking before, that they, they went into Philadelphia without a clear concept, as Gordon said, that the people of national sovereignty, and the people being ultimately sovereign that's why you get and it's captured in starting the constitution as we, the people, which is, was the idea of Wilson and Gouverneur Morris with this soaring preamble. And that becomes a target. So you have Patrick Henry at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, but also in public statements before it saying, how dare you say we the people create it. You should say, we, the states. And the Virginia Plan had that that you list the states, and the states create this. It isn't the people of the whole country. It's a creation of the states, but as long as it's a creation of the states, and this is Wilson, again, thinking then in some way, it more or less, it comes back to this league of friendship, which is what the, the treaty as Gordon calls it, or the league of friendship as they called it. The con- the Articles of Confederation created a league of friendship, that here where 13 sovereign states league together.
And but if you go back to the document, I keep hammering on, the circular letter to the states. Washington says we need a central government that is the final say in everything that is common to all of us, common to all the states, which wouldn't be slavery, which wouldn't be education. You can think of things that wouldn't be. But it would be international, and interstate commerce. He makes that clear. And he also says, in the circular letter to states, this is indivisible. Once you join, you can't get out. He says that in the circular letter to the states of, of, of 1783. We need a central government, which you can't leave. Once you're in, it's a one way ratchet.
So by saying that commerce is gonna move, and many people argued, it wasn't just taxation. Certainly everyone would agree that the central government, even the anti-federalists would agree that central government needed more power to impose a tariff, that would affect everybody. And so that more power was agreed to. But then the question was, and I do think people saw it coming in I think. Madison saw it coming in I think. Washington, Washington very clearly said, I'm not going unless I am conf- I'm not going to Philadelphia to that convention, even though I've been named by the Virginia, picked by Virginia to go, I'm not going unless I'm confident they have power to make radical decisions. That was a phrase he used.
Well, Washington's not a radical man. No, he made clear, and he had proposals in that he had received, he had asked the people he trusted most, John Jay, Knox, Madison had all sent him drafts of the type of central government they wanted. And the central government always had a two house legislature, not a one house, like the Articles of Confederation, which is like a UN. The UN is sort of like, you know, everybody sends a representative. They are recallable at will. They're not by each state, and the states retained sovereignty. He says, I will only go if it can be a fundamental transformation. And Madison spent most of the two months before going to Philadelphia, living at Mount Vernon. You know, he didn't have a wife then, he didn't have other things. And he stayed at Mount Vernon. He worked on, on these ideas at Mount Vernon talking with Washington. And so they went in with a pretty clear idea. It wasn't just Madison, Washington was appraised to it. Washington appraised Franklin the first person he visits when he comes to Philadelphia is Franklin. 'Cause he says, we've gotta be on the same wavelength, because we're the two most did people nationally. They're the two national heroes. We gotta be working on the same wavelength.
And so they came, and Wilson was a fellow thinker. Franklin, as you know, had, had met, had, had a regular weekly meeting at his house, where Gouverneur Morris and, and Wilson and others had come. And they had talked about these things. So they came prepared. And so when nobody else showed up on time, the Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania delegation, and the Virginians who were there, and at first it was only two. At first it was only Washington and Madison, but then Mason and some others begin to roll in. And they finalized Madison's thinking into the Virginia Plan, which is called the Virginia Plan, not because it had anything to do with, with, with Madison, but because it was offered by the governor of Virginia, Randolph. They offer really the plan for a national government.
And if you read the Virginia Plan, it doesn't say Wilson... Gordon was very clever to say that they did pick up, they turned the term to federalists, but when they offered the Virginia Plan, it says national government. And this is a national government they're creating. And that's what they really did create, a national government. And that's, and so they were already thinking, they hadn't flushed it all out. It took the whole convention for them to fully understand it, but this movement of sovereignty and of we, the people, and where it would all come from, and they had to bring along people like Roger Sherman, kicking and screaming. And they never could bring along others who voted against it then. And they could have never brought along Patrick Henry. I, I would argue that they could never have pulled it off under, giving, going one step further than Gordon. Gordon said it was 55 people who weren't truly representative.
I think if, if it hadn't been in secret, if this thing, if what they were coming up with, had been made public in the newspapers had been reporting it, people like Patrick Henry would've, who was chosen as a, as a delegate for Virginia, but didn't come because he thought it was a waste of time. He would've been, he, he was, he claims it was, 'cause he smelled a rat. I think he was, that was later. He didn't smell a rat was the problem. He would've shown up. All these other people would've come. And the whole thing would've been would've been derailed, which is what Gordon sort of say, was, was suggesting. And I'm just sort of underscoring what he's saying.
[00:37:45] Jeffrey Rosen: Thank, thank you for that. Lu- Lucas you quote Lincoln at Springfield, warning of mob violence, and saying when reason rather than passion prevails, rather when passion rather than reason prevails than democracy is threatened. He's channeling Madison's fears that chases rebellion, although he is responding to violence against abolitionist newspaper, editors, and African Americans who were being lynched and murdered through terrorism. Do, do you agree with Gordon's a- analysis that it was this fear of mob violence and democracy that led to the constitution, and does the Lincoln experience suggest that it was mob action in particular rather than democracy in general, that that made the founders afraid? And how does it reflect in the constitution?
[00:38:33] Lucas Morel: I, I hope I'm not just it's not just a question of semantics here, but I would phrase it differently. I, I, and democracy, in fact, was not a word that Lincoln used very often at all, but that didn't mean that he was against democracy [laughs], right? As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. That's his definition of democracy. One of the few times he mentioned that word, but I would phrase it differently. It's not so much that Lincoln was afraid of, of, of democracy per se, or direct rule by the American people. What he feared is something that the founders strived mightily to try to establish, which is what we call the rule of law, okay? And that ultimately derives from the principle of consent. And that what we're trying to do with consent it's not simply reflect the direct will of the American people. With consent, and ultimately I would say constitutionalism we are trying to create space for people to live according to an informed consent, if you will.
We wanna make space. We, we wanna give time for reason to prevail over the passions. We want if you, if you wanna use the word democracy, we want democracy to be deliberative. That's why you have a constitution. That's why you have representation. And so I would but I would, I was gonna try to add quickly on the Senate and in terms of why the Constitutional Convention was called. On the Senate, we have to remember there are two senators. They do not have to act as a block under the United States constitution. They are voting their own judgment as to what the best interest of their state is in light of the collective good of the United States.
So that is a huge difference from the Articles of Confederation, where the delegation had to vote as a block. So it wasn't just that they were recallable they had to vote. The state had to speak with one voice. Under the United States constitution states are not constitutionally bound to speak with one voice. It is up to each of the two senators to decide. And of course, over time they aren't voted on. At the same time, they aren't appointed by the state legislature, at the same time, we have staggered elections. So what you're seeing is at actual mechanisms in the new constitution to promote deliberation, to make consent, not simply self-determination, not simply a mirror of the people, but as Madison put it in Federalist 10, to refine and enlarge the public views, that is to do the best good on behalf of the people. And that meant you had to create space and time for consent to work that out.
I would say that, yeah, Shays' Rebellion had, had something clearly to do [laughs] with the, the Constitutional Convention ultimately in 1787. But especially if you bring up Washington, Washington did have an idea of the United States as a country. That was a gleam in his eye, long before it was in most Americans eye. And I would say that, that the need for, and, and Professor Larson brought this up, the need for a stronger central government, a stronger national government, that was clear. Washington would have nothing to do with the, with the convention if he didn't think there was a reasonable chance for the central government to be equipped with power. Perhaps the most mundane, but most pivotal change made at the Constitution Convention, which makes it not like the, as you were calling it a league of friendship as the Articles of Confederation, Perpetual Union were, was that Congress would actually now have the power to pass laws.
They did not have that authority under the Articles of Confederation. The states, if you will, interpose themselves, between their citizens, and the authority of the Articles of Confederation Congress. Under the proposed constitution, the biggest, one of the biggest changes I would think, I think the most fundamental is now you actually have a national government that circumvents the states, if you will, the states are involved. We did mention the Senate, but now you have laws acting, not upon state legislatures, but acting directly upon the American people themselves, who are represented in the house of representatives, proportionally, and express through their preexisting political organizations, through the states.
So the fact that the United States constitution now is equipped to pass actual laws, that's a, that is, that is a sea change in terms of how the American people were governing themselves previously under the articles.
[00:43:01] Jeffrey Rosen: Thank you so much for that crucial distinction, series of distinctions you were making between a mirroring of the people and a reflection that enlarged and refined their views. And that distinction between ordinary lawmaking and constitutional lawmaking is one that you just brought out so well, which Gordon Wood explores and elucidated so powerfully in his discussion of Jefferson and the other founders, understanding of the rise of conventions as bodies that would reflect the slow and deliberate sense of the people, and is crucial to American constitutionalism. Emily the founders thought that virtue, wasn't necessary for the Republic to survive. And they define virtue as a personal, and political act. Personally, citizens had to use their powers of reason to master their unreasonable passions like anger, jealousy, and fear. And politically, they needed to do that, so they could choose wise representatives, who would deliberate for them to serve the common good, rather than self-interest and partisanship. It sounds kind of ratified nowadays in light of some of the changes that Gordon flagged, including social media, the rise of political parties and the rest of it, is the founders notion of virtue as crucial to constitutionalism it's still relevant?
[00:44:21] Emily Pierce: So I think it's still relevant. I would say though, that the, the founder's view of virtue, at least the federalist view of virtue is a little bit different than this sort of pure civic virtue that many political theorists before the founders thought of. So we see the anti-federalists in the debates over the ratification, really pushing for the need for virtue, the need for the constitution to cultivate virtue in the citizens. And what the federalist I think have is a little bit more faith that the institutions of government could do more of the work to get us the good laws that we needed, right? So you can rely on the individual citizens virtue to get good laws that are then sort of able to, to maintain, or keep us from the anarchy that that Gordon has pointed out. They were trying to avoid.
You can rely on the citizens virtue to get you those good laws. But I think the federalists also thought that there were ways that we could design institutions to help that process along. So the institutions could encourage good lawmaking, could encourage that kind of virtue in the citizen. So you're not wholly dependent on the citizens to produce it themselves. The problem is that you have to then maintain this relationship between the institutions and the public. If the institutions are going to encourage virtue, if they're going to recultivate a sense among the citizens, that the rule of law is worth upholding, and the common good is worth pursuing.
And that relationship has to be, has to be cultivated. It has to be tended to. And I'm not sure that we've really done that. I think there was this sense that what the Federalists had done was created institutions that would work in perpetuity that the constitution could just sort of stand on its own ground once it had been ratified. And we've lost sight I think of the, the work that has to be done to make sure that the citizenry understands the constitution, upholds the constitution and is committed to it. That sort of cultivation of something like ci- civic virtue, or at least a sort of constitutionalism among the people, is something we don't do very much anymore. In the sort of smallest way, we don't teach civic education anymore in America very much. And in broader ways, we draw attention to things other than sort of the, the cultivation of virtue that might be, might be important to uphold those institutions.
[00:46:50] Jeffrey Rosen: Absolutely. You, you so powerfully put the both the federalist notion of institutions doing some of the work, and the crucial importance of teaching the constitution for the cultivation of virtue. And that's exactly what we're doing tonight in this great discussion. And that's what the National Constitution Center was created to do. And that's what we're, we're doing every day. And I am thrilled to share, I just got the numbers, 25,000 people tuned in today to watch our Constitution Day programs. So we're making some headway in the cultivation of civic knowledge, but thank you for putting the problems so well.
All right, well, we ha-, we're the, the one thing we do at Constitution Center prog- programs is end on time. And we are gonna end in about 10 minutes. So Gordon, this is the chance for you to put the rest of the book on the table. And there's so much in the chapters on the federal constitution on slavery, and on the emergence of the judiciary so much, it's surprising, and your discussion of slavery, including the prevalence of indentured white servants, which changed the way the founding generation thought about enslavement. And the brief moments when it looked like even Virginia and other southern states were gonna eradicate it, and the wind shifting, to the transformation of the judiciary from a body that was originally supposed to rarely exercise judicial review, only when the people themselves would have been mobilized to find an act unconstitutional, to the more regularization of the striking down laws that we see today. And then that led to this incredible chapter about the emergence of a private sphere. And then you say it all goes back to and looks forward-
[00:48:24] Gordon Wood: [laughs].
[00:48:25] Jeffrey Rosen: ... to Rhode Island. So please take, take what time you can to [crosstalk 00:50:19]-
[00:48:28] Gordon Wood: Well, let me say something about the founders. We talk about the founders, but you have to understand that for most people in America, in the antebellum period, which is the period we mean going up to the Civil War, the founders were not the people we refer to, not the revolutionary leaders, not, not James Madison, not George Washington. Their founders were were John Winthrop, William Bradford, William Penn, John Smith, that is the 17th century founders. And when Bancroft wrote his great history in this period, he had 10 volumes on the colonial period. He thought the colonial period was the founding of America. It's almost in fact, in 1820 at the Constitutional Convention in New York, they're revising their constitution. Martin Van Buren, who becomes, I think the first American politician as a president, he did nothing. He never had any great speech. He never won a battle. He never did a, he never negotiated a great treaty. He was simply the most astute politician that America had ever seen up to that point.
He organized a New York party that, that brought him into prominence. He's in, in that convention, he says, look, if these guys back there, you know, Washington and Jefferson, he says, forget about them. They're aristocrats. They have nothing to do with us, we're Democrats. And of course, that was one of the great arguments of the anti-federalists. That the, the whole system is aristocratic as creating a, a, a government, which will, which will, the fuel will benefit at the expense of the many. So Mat- Martin Van Buren just dismisses them. It's ave- almost single-handedly, it's Lincoln who makes the founders, the founders that we talk about. He's the one who says the men, the man, or the group that created the declaration of independence, that document, that, that makes the blood of the, of blood, and the flesh of the flesh of all of these immigrants that are coming into America with the founders, that the blood of, and, and the flesh of the flesh of the people who drew up that document, and the other documents by implication, including the constitution, are, are, are what hold us together as a people. That's Lincoln's great contribution.
And he really brings the founders into prominence. There's a book about this. It's about, if you're interested Wesley Frank Craven came out around 1950 or so. He was a professor of, of early American history at, at Princeton. And it gets neglected. I, I don't know why, because it's so important to realize that the founders that they believed in were not the founders that we believe in. And it's really Lincoln that we that created this. I think that, that point needs, it's not in my book, but it needs to be mentioned.
[00:51:30] Jeffrey Rosen: Give us one more burst of learning from your book, because there's, there's so much in it. And why don't you give your, your-
[00:51:34] Gordon Wood: Well, I think on the slavery thing we have to under- this is the central issue that's obsessing us now. We have to understand two things, one or more and more than two things, but one, they all thought that slavery was on its last legs. Now, maybe people in South Carolina, in Georgia didn't think that, but many Virginians did. And certainly the northerners did. That slavery was dying. And in Virginia, they thought so too, Washington had more slaves than he knew what to do with, and tobacco is no longer being grown, because they exhaust the soil. They're turning to wheat. Wheat does not require great labor. They're renting out their slaves. People like Washington are renting out their slaves in Norfolk or Richmond. And the idea of renting out the slave suddenly it says that's one step towards wage labor. So slavery is somehow on its last legs. It's dying away. And there's, I can give you dozens and dozens of quotations from many figures saying that in 30 years, 40 years, there'll be no slavery in America. Now, they couldn't have been more wrong. It was one of the many illusions they live with. They had a lot of illusions, but don't get cocky. We have a lot of illusions too. We just don't know what they are.
Some historian will tell us 200 years from now, wow, how could they think that. They thought that slavery was dying. Virginians were ready to abolish it. You know, the Virgi- the, the College of William & Mary, the dire- the trustees, the visit, the board of visitors, the wealthy slave holders, in 1791, they give an honorary degree to Granville Sharp. Now, who's Granville Sharp? The leading British abolitionists at the time. That's the kind of question you wanna ask a graduate student. Why would the, the College of William & Mary trustees, who are all slaveholders, why would they give an honorary degree to an abolitionist? This undercuts the 16, 19 project, right, right out from London. That's the kind of issue that should provoke a lot of graduate students into thinking freshly about these issues. Anyway, they s-, they, they did have to accommodate the Southern S- the deep self, you know, Virginians, some of the Virginia's, Washington and Jefferson, both think of themselves as middle states, not southern. The south is, is South Carolina and Georgia. And they, they want slaves. And there are compromises made in the convention. Compromises that are more easily made, because they think slavery is gonna die.
Now, as I say, they couldn't have been more wrong, but you have to account for that, but they are, there are compromises. And, and the, the, the south of course wants slaves to be counted fully for representation purposes. And the south, the north says, no, not at all. And so they reach a compromise three-fifths, which becomes a source of southern strength, political strength, so that it allows the south to dominate the government throughout the whole antebellum period. And, and then the fugitive slave. So there are provisions in the constitution, which are to some like Garrison are seen to turn the document into a document of hell. But Madison and others are crucial, are crucially important in keeping the word slave out of the constitution, because this document is supposed to last forever, hopefully. And we don't want to taint it with the s-, with the s-, even the word slavery.
And so they, there's no recognition of property and man, as Madison puts it in the constitution. And they're, they see the future as being the end of slavery. Now, they had no realization that there would be more slaves at the end of the revolution than they were at the beginning, even though the north abolishes slavery. That's another important thing. This is the f- these are the first slave holding states in the world, in the history of the world that had legal slavery, that abolish it. The Greeks never abolished slavery. The Romans didn't abolish slavery, but the American states in the north abolished slavery. Now, they don't have the number of slaves that the south has. They have 50,000 maybe, whereas there are hundreds of thousands in the south. And it's easier for them to do it, but nonetheless, they did it. And way before any other place abolishes slavery, that should be emphasized.
So and there's the expectation that this will spread. This is part of the enlightenment program. They have a whole series of reforms, each state from Virginia, Northwood. They're gonna redo the criminal system. They're gonna do away with her- her- inheritance laws in, in, primary janitor and entail. They're gonna have public educational systems. They're gonna abolish the, the Anglican Church, and they're gonna abolish slavery. Now, they don't always succeed in those things. They didn't in Virginia with this public education, but they did abolish the, the Church of England, and separate, and create a separation of church and state. And they try, Jefferson tries to abolish slavery. He puts forth a bill, it gets defeated, but they don't wipe Jefferson out of the, he'd become still a major figure in the state, so that there are a lot of people thinking about getting rid of slavery. Now, what changes things of course is the, is the revalue in, in, [inaudible 00:59:41], which becomes Haiti that scares the [inaudible 00:59:45] out of the southerners. And, and from that moment on there's a reaction. And, and by the, by the early 19th century, the southerners are, are scared to death of slave rebellions. And that all hope of reform in the south is gone.
[00:58:05] Jeffrey Rosen: Thank you so much for that. You say at the beginning of the book, that it will give comfort to partisans of no side as history never does. And the complexity of the story is radical in its freshness, and it spread so much light. Friends it's 7:45. My one job at the Constitution Center like Chief Justice Roberts is to end the shows on time. So we're gonna give Gordon Wood the last word, but we will continue this conversation. All of our phenomenal panelists Ed Larson, Lucas Morel, and Emily Pierce are great friends of the center. We'll continue the conversation on podcasts on our constitution one-on-one classes, and throughout the year. And for now, please join me in thanking all of them for shedding, such light on constitution. Thank you very much indeed.
[00:59:04] Jackie McDermott: This episode was produced by John Guerra, Lana Ulrich, Tanaya Tauber and me, Jackie McDermott. It was engineered by the National Constitution Center's AV team. If you'd like to check out more content about the American revolution, we just hosted a constitutional class on the principles and ideas of the American revolution, featuring renowned scholar Akhil Amar. We'll link to that in our show notes. And our fall season of debates and panels is well underway. If you've missed any of our recent programs, you can of course catch up via this podcast or watch the videos. They are available in our media library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. We also have many other exciting programs coming up this fall. Check out the full lineup, and register to join us virtually at constitutioncenter.org/debate. As always we'll publish those programs on the podcast. So stay tuned here as well. Please rate, review and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center on Apple Podcasts, or follow us on Spotify, and join us back here next week. On behalf of the National Constitution Center, I'm Jackie McDermott.
