Her intimate partner or her husband cause statically thats the person whos most likely to cause her harm. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspans q a. Each week American History tvs american artifacts takes to you museums and historic places. Next we travel to the National Constitution center in philadelphia to learn been 42 bronze statues in signers hall and to learn about the Constitution Convention of 1787. Im jeffrey rosen, president and ceo of the National Constitution center and im tlided to welcome to you signers hall. So let me just tell a little bit about the National Constitution center and then tell you about this incredible room that were standing in. The National Constitution center is a very special place. It is the only institution in america that has a charter from congress to dissem mate information about the u. S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis. And that means that in these polarized times, we are the only place in america that brings together all sides in the constitutional debates that transfix the country to debate and discuss not political issues, but constitutional issues so that you, the people, can make up your own mind. And we do that in three wise as the museum of we the people here with the most beautiful contusional views in america looking out on Independence Hall where the constitution was drafted. Were also meshs town hall, a place where you can see here at the center and also thanks to our great friends at cspan often on tv debates and sim pose seeya and panels debating the constitution. And weve got this phenomenal podcast series which are grating great downloads where we call up the top liberal scholars in americaing to debate the constitution so you can engaig gauge with that great question. And finally were a Civic Education you can find online our incredible Interactive School that allows you to click on any provision of the bill of rights. And trace the spread of that liberty across the globe. So this place i say that this place is constitutional heaven. Im a law professor at George Washington university and i feel every day so lucky to be able to be inn ganling in this great project of constitutional education. Signers hall is in some ways the heart and soul of the National Constitution center. This is this beautiful room, so simple and so powerful that contains lifesize statues of the men who siengned the constitution. There are 42 statues in this room 39 people who actually signed the constitution. And theyre all here and theyre life sized. It was an extraordinary process of creation to make these statues. Its based open a 1940s paint about the Constitutional Convention and about ten years ago when the Constitution Center opened, a studio in new york commissioned 50 actors to stand in the positions that you see here in period costume to give you a sense of what it was like to be in Independence Hall at the time the constitution was drafted. This room has the same proportions as Independence Hall, so its more or less the size of the room that the framers stood in. And there is something so viscerally powerful about just being able to see how big this framers were, to go up and kind of to see the kids who loved to just touch them and sit on Ben Franklins lap and touch their hands. You can see the shiny parts are where they get especially rubbed and touched. Actually these statues have just been repolished because we opened this great new gallery with one of the 12 original copies of the bill of rights already and just a few weeks theyre getting nice and shiny again which is great to see. The main thing that Everyone Wants to know is how tall was james mad sob and how tall was George Washington . So theyre right behind me here. I think i can squeeze in between abraham baldwin, hes from georgia and hes here because he was the last guy to sign and haez hes gesturing towards the kont tugs itself. Now im standing between George Washington and James Madison kaund see George Washington is the tallest man in the room at 62. Hes literally towering over everyone else in his physical presence. He is commanding in every respect. And James Madison over who i am absolutely towering is i think he was 54 and is the smallest guy in the room, anyone boned, he had epilepsy, he had challenges in health, theres a great new biography by lynne cheney who came to the Constitution Center recently who talked about how his illness and physical frailty shaped many of his ideas and created this great man, the father of the constitution if theres waya single father who was so devoted to moderation and pragmatism and comp compromise. And really the great genius of the constitution was the balancing and mixing of interests. The challenge for the men in this room was how to balance interests that seemed, at times, irrelevant reconcilable. And the biggest difference was over the power of the large states versus the small states. Who should prevail . The small states obviously wanted to make sure that their interests were represented. And they favored equal representation in congress. They basically wanted one representative o two representatives for every state. The big states doesnt didnt like that at all. They wanted to be represented by population so that they would have more power. So the question of how to reconcile those interests led to a clash a clash between what was known as the virginia plan and the new jersey plan. I want to talk to you about that. The virginia plan proposed by the virginia delegation, which included madison and washington, was favored by the large states. It would have had Bicameral Legislature, two houses, but the states were to be represented by population. So new york and virginia would have far more weight than new jersey and delaware because they had great population. That wasnt going to fly at all with the representatives from the smaller states. They rallied around something called the new jersey plan. Lets go to the new jersey delegation and see what they thought. Ill pass respectfully by alexander hamilton. And move right up here to William Livingston of new jersey and, in particular, William Patterson. Who was the guy who came up with the new jersey plan. And William Patterson is in energetic discussion with jacob brume. I gather out of all the statues in this room, brume is the only one for whom an image didnt exist so the artist had to mang wh imagine what his face looked like. And William Patterson proposes the new jersey plan, which says that every state is going to get equal representation in a Bicameral Legislature. That would have been great for states like new jersey whose vote counts as much as big states like virginia and new york. But as you can imagine, virginia and the larger states werent happy with that. So what to do . It looked like an irreconcilable clash. As was the case so many times at the convention, someone proposed a compromise. That someone was Roger Sherman of connecticut. So lets go look at him and see what he came up with. The connecticut delegation. Is here. And i have to apologize, ladies and gentlemen, because whenever i think of Roger Sherman, i cant help but think as i do so many times when i see the framers of that great musical 1776 and Roger Sherman was one of the six people who was at the convention that passed the declaration of independence and in 1776, mr. Sherman and mr. Adams are all debating in song about who should write the declaration of independence and they give it to thomas jefferson. He says, i dont know a part sipple from a predicate, im just a simple cobbler from connecticut. One of the great lines. Shermman by the time of the National Constitution was no longer singing and dancing. And the connecticut compromise. My goodness, look, he looks so stern but impressive. How could you resist a gaze like that . Shermans connecticut compromise was to blend the virginia and new jersey plans and propose the system we have today, where we have a Bicameral Legislature of two houses. The interest of small states is reap represented in the senate where every state has two votes regardless of how big it is. And it is of the large states is in the house of representatives which is by population. So that beautiful compromise which allowed the constitution, in fact, to be passed, is just one example of the incredible pragmatism of these delegates. I mentioned the spirit of moderation and compromise being so central to madisons achievement. These men were not ideologues. They certainly had strong views. Which they were not willing to compromise in some cases. Ultimately, the question of whether the constitution should contain a bill of rights or not was one that led three men to refuse to sign the documents and well see those three dissenters in a moment. But generally the spirit of compromise infused the documents or, rather, the convention. They open rapted in secret. That was pretty important. They were able actually to test out ideas without having them exposed to public scrutiny. And they took their secrecy very carefully. Although madison took notes which were later published. And ultimately they came up with a document that they did now. This is a room about personalities but its also a room about ideas. Because these great men who came up with a document that some described as the most perfect in history. Its really hard to think of, given the constraints of human frailty, a document that would have better endured for the ages. The longest enduring written constitution in history, its exciting to learn their stories and also to talk about their views. So lets do that. Right here is a framer who, next to madison, is perhaps the most important philosopher of the constitution in this hall. Sorry, ill add one more to that list and thats james wilson. I would say wilson, hamilton was the most important. This is alexander hamilton. We like to see what he lacked in stature he made up in fiscal responsibility. He was the secretary of the treasury and was a great defender both of an energetic Central Government that would be Strong Enough to regulate the economy. Some accused him of being monacle in his tendencies and he would have favored an Even Stronger executive than the one that ultimately resulted. Hamilton, like madison, was one of the authors of the federalist papers. Which were the documents that were issued anonymously under the pseudonym publis to give the aubme arguments. And hamilton had many great contributions in the federalist papers. Not least of which was his theory of why its okay for courts to strike down unconstitutional laws. So federalist 78 which hamilton wrote says it contains the whole philosophy of the American Government in a few paragraphs. It says the will of we the people the United States is represented by the constitution because of the special ratification procedure that gave it the will of t the force of law. Hamill ston says imagine aen co fli a conflict between the will of the people. In the case of this conflict, its the obligation of judges to favor the will of the sovereign to that of the agent, the basically the master has to be preferred to the servant because legislatures are servants of the masters who are we, the people. And thats why, according to hamilton, its not undemocratic for courts to strike down unconstitutional laws when they set aside a law passed by the legislature that clashes with the constitution, theyre favoring the will of the people over the will of the legislatures. A brilliant theory, like so much of what hamilton did. Now, i want to introduce you to the pennsylvania delegation. Hugely important. Also contains the most underappreciated framer. And in some ways, the greatest constitutional philosopher of the convention, and that is james wilson of pennsylvania. So see james wilson, age 45, born in scotland, lawyer, and politician. Would go on to serve on the Supreme Court. James wilsons central contribution to the Constitutional Convention was his theory of popular sovereignty. Remember the preamble to the constitution. We the people of the United States. In order to form a more perfect union. It didnt originally read that way. The original draft said we the people of new york, virginia, new jersey and so forth. It actually listed the states individually. Because there were those at the convention who, following the model of the articles of confederation, thought that we the people of each state were sovereign and had sovereign authority. That has huge consequences. Because if the people of each state are sovereign, it would have taken unanimous approval to ratify the constitution, which after all violated the rules of the articles of confederation which did require unanimity and nothing could get done. If we the people of each state were sovereign, then any state could choose to leave the union on its own, if it choose. But wilson disputed that we the people of each state was sovereign. He insisted that we the people of the United States as a whole were sovereign. This, he says, is the difference between britain, where parliament had sovereign power and could do whatever it likes, and the United States, where the people and not parliament were sovereign. And the relevant denominator for the people was that of the entire union, not of each state. This great con tritribution to american popular sovereignty was at the heart of the civil war. Abraham lincoln challenged james wilson. Agreed that because we the people of the United States were sovereign, when those people ratified the constitution, they created an indesoluble union that would require the support of the entire union to allow any state to secede. People like calhoun and other state rights advocates, channeling the antifederalist, said no, any state could decide to leave on its own. It took the civil war, the bloodiest in American History, to establish that wilson and lincoln were correct and that the advocates of state sovereignty were not. And that indeed we the people of the United States as a whole were sovereign. Madison himself was probably conflicted on this score. Federalist 39 talks about a kind of dual sovereignty where both the states in their sovereign capacity occasionally rule and sometimes we the people rule. Others like wilson said the idea of two sovereignties was an impeero sorry, was an impeer yum within an impeero, a state within a state, which the framers considered a solessism, you couldnt have a state with two powers. Today, our National Unity represented by National Popular sovereignty, is all thanks to james wilson. But of course james wilson is not i said he was the most underappreciated framer. Hes not the most famous. The most famous, and i suppose the most beloved based on amount of shininess on his hands in just a few weeks, is Benjamin Franklin of pennsylvania. At age 81, hes the oldest of the framers. Printer, inventor, scientist and statesman. Hes not well at the time of the convention. But he is so respected and his wisdom so acknowledged that when he did speak, he was closely attended to. The main thing to say about franklin is kids loved to sit on his lap. Because, look, hes just very cuddly. Pillsbury framer in that respect. But he was sharp as a tack. And there was an amazing moment at the end of the convention where he was looking at the chair that George Washington sat at, which had a son inscribed in it. And we dont have a replication of the chair here. You can see it in Independence Hall. But frankly said throughout this convention, i was wondering whether it was a rising or a setting sun and once the convention agreed to propose the constitution, he said now im confident that the sun is rising. Inco next to Benjamin Franklin is governor morris of pennsylvania. I thought when i first learned about him he was a governor, but he wasnt. He just had a very distinctive name which was governor. And he also had a distinctive peg leg. How did he get his peg leg you may ask. Well, the story is he was in a carriage accident and some say that he was escaping from an asignation with a lady. Others say he just had a carriage accident. You can decide for yourself. But he is here with his elegant walking stick. Peering over Benjamin Franklin along with the rest of the pennsylvania delegation. And its striking how central these delegates were here in their home state. So the great issue in addition to the presence or absence of a bill of rights that divided the Constitutional Convention was the question of slavery. This is the great moral stain in American History. The original nall dedeclaration independence had promised that all men are created equal but the Constitutional Convention was not able to vindicate that promise because of a disagreement about the status of slavery and also about the political consequences that would result from allowing slavery to continue. There were some framers who oppose slavery on moral grounds. But the more practical question that the framers faced was if the sourp stathern states were d to count their enslaved men and women as part of the baseline for apportionment and representati representation, then they would dominate the legislature. So this is the conflict between the big states and the small states. And the slave states and the free states. And they were at an impasse. How should slaves be counted for purposes of representation . What saved the convention, although allowed slavery to continue until it was finally eradicated after the 13th amendment, passed after the civil war, was something known as the 3 5 compromise. The 3 5ths compromise was originally proposed by james wilson of pennsylvania, who we talked about as the great architect of popular sovereignty. And it was seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. Im standing here with the South Carolina delegation including pinckney and also John Rutledge and finally charles coatsworth. And pinckney, who seconded the 3 5ths compromise, believed that it was a way of reconciling the maintenance of slavery with the political concerns of the northern states. Heres what the 3 5ths clause, i can say famously or infamously says. Im reading from my riveting National Constitution center pocket constitution. I think you can get these on amazon now. Although if you go on to our website, we should get them up and running too. Which has this completely thrilling introductory essay. Which discusses the status of slavery. And heres what the 3 5ths clause in article 1, section 2 says. Article 1 sets out the powers of the congress. And section 2 talks about how congress should be apportioned. And the 3 5 clause says representatives should be apportioned among the several states which may be included in the union acording to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of three persons including those bound to service for a term of years and excluding indians not taxed, 3 5ths of all other persons. So that is one of the great compromises, one could say, one of the great moral indignities of the convention, to decide to count enslaved persons as 3 5ths of a person for the purposes of apportionment. That compromise came along with the decision to allow the slave trade to continue until 1808 which is also inscribed in the constitution. And those two decisions meant that the great question oferadi deferred until the civil war. Its not the proudest moment of the convention. In fact, arguably is the most shameful. But the reality is the constitution would not have been passed or proposed without this 3 5ths compromise and is an example of how these delegates were able to reconcile their competing interests of large and small states and free and slave states in a way that produced a workable document, whether or not you think that compromise was morally defensible is up to you to decide. What i want to show you now are the dissenters. So lets go see them. Three men at the Constitutional Convention refused to sign the constitution. El grinch car gary of massachusetts. And then ed randolph of virginia. And george mason of virginia. First of all, lets talk a little bit about each of them. El bridge gary. I learned to pronounce it gary. I also learned to pronounce the practice that his name inspired as gary mandering, the not gerrymandering. Gary mandering, you cant really say it that way, is the practice of drawing voting district so they snake around in such funny shapes that they look like a salamander. And gary was famous in massachusetts for presiding over the con strungs of such a district, designed to ensure basically that your party wins. To protect incumbents. Or if the state legislature is drawing up the seats, to ensure that their party retains power. So gary created this district that looks like a salamander. People ridiculed it as a form of gary mandering. And thats what we have today. Edman randolph of virginia. Along with george mason. Was not happy about the rights that were proposed. Randolph and mason, interestingly, originally supported a strong Central Government. And were supporters of the constitution. But during the course of the debates over the constitution, they both became concerned that it did not include a bill of rights and that a tyrannical Central Government might come to mention the inalienable and natural rights retained by the people. Mason was the author of the virginia declaration of rights, which was so inspiring and important to thomas jefferson, that he had a copy of it beside him when he wrote the declaration of independence. And the virginia declaration, which looks quite a lot like our bill of rights, because James Madison would ultimately come to rely on it, set out the basic natural and inalienable rights that mason believed that governments were created to protect rather than menace. It wont be a surprise. Youen en kcan check it out onl. And compare the language in the virginia declaration of rights with the ultimate bill of rights and youll see how madison essentially cut and paste from the virginia declaration in coming up with the bill of rights. So its an amazing story of principle really. Because mason was not being an obstructist. He did think that the Central Government had to be more energetic than it was under the articles of confederation. He also wanted to ensure it was limited. So why didnt James Madison go along with mason gary and randolphs call for bill of rights . Well, madison originally opposed the bill of rights for two reasons. He thought it would be either unnecessary or dangerous. Unnecessary because the constitution itself was already a bill of rights by limiting and spelling out the powers of congress and denying to congress any powers that werent explicitly enumerated. Dangerous because madison thought people might assume if a right wasnt written down, it wasnt protected. And he and the other framers thought since our rights come from god and not government, it would be a bad idea to a sum ss you can have a determinate list. But based on the opposition of these three dissenters, the antifederalist geared up. I told you that hamilton and madison wrote the federalist papers under the pseudonym plubis while the antifederalists wrote a series of counterpamphlets with really vivid anonymous pseudonyms themselves like federal farmer and so forth. And basically they said dont ratify the constitution unless it contains the bill of rights and based on this opposition, many of the state radifying conventions came to agree with them and demanding subsequent amendments. As a result of this groundswell of support for a bill of rights, James Madison changed his mind in 1789, went to congress and proposed a bill of rights that originally contained 19 amendments. Congress sent 12 of those to the states for ratification. You can see here in the next room an original copy of the bill of rights along with rare copies of the constitution, declaration of independence. Youll see how the original document doesnt contain just 10 amendments but 12 and the first two have to do not with free speech, which is our First Amendment, but with the size of congress. The first one says there should be one representative in congress for every 40,000 people. Which would have created a congress with 4,000 people today. And the Second Amendment says the original Second Amendment says congress cant raise its salary without an intervening election. That became part of our constitution. As the 27th amendment in the 1990s. So what a remarkable story. That in this room, despite the fierce divisions of principle among the delegates, that these brave dissenters ultimately were vindicated. And its a reminder of the importance of dissent and political dissent was so crucial to the framing of the constitution and protections for dissent now expressed in the First Amendment are really at the heart of what makes america distinctive. Throughout the day while congress is on break, were showing American History tv programs normally seen weekends here on cspan 3. Coming up, landmark cases with a review of the 1905 Supreme Court decision that laws limiting working hours violate the constitution. Followed by a Supreme CourtCivil Society discussion on the ruling. And Supreme CourtJustice Stephen breyer on the influence of Foreign Relations on u. S. Security and civil liberty. Coming up today here on cspan 3. American history tv is in prime time all week with our original series landmark cases. Tonight, the Supreme Court decision that limited the president s power to seize private property. Youngstown sheet and tube Company Versus sawyer. Its the result of