It has been 40 years since he has been here. He was here in 1976. Every 40 years, we are going to have him back. Gordon wood is recognized as the premier historian of the early od, then peri revolutionary era. When i say that, i do not mean only active historians, i mean of all historians, for all time. He is recognized as at the top of his profession. It is truly an honor to have him here in madison. Its an honor to be associated with him. Professor wood went to tufts and went to harvard for masters and phd and studied under bernard bailey. It is pretty difficult to top that. Just marvelous. Professor wood is noted for his productivity and the quality of his work. I had lunch with him today and i asked him how many books he had published. He wasnt quite sure. I told him, i counted 26. He said, no that is far too , many. He has so many books, he doesnt know how many that he has. [laughter] ande has at least 26 books, three of them them stand out. The creation of the american republic, a seminal book that tied everything together in a discussion of the American Revolution. He believes that is his most important book. He won the bancroft prize for that. Then, he came along with the radicalism of the American Revolution. That wonderful surprise. A pulitzer prize. And then recently, empire of liberty. Many other volumes in between. The last five are documentary editions. Three volumes on john adams and two volumes of pamphlets from the revolutionary era. Professor wood is working on a book on john adams and thomas jefferson. It wont be long before that is published as well. What professor wood has done is he has taken all kinds of interpretations about the revolution and he has synthesized but also delved into the primary sources and has come up with an interpretation of what the revolution was and almost as important, what that revolution how the revolution transformed the American People and made us a unique people that others might look to. And so, that is what he is going to be talking about today and i think you will enjoy it. Lets welcome professor gordon wood. [applause] prof. Wood with an introduction like that, i have to reciprocate and tell you of that about what john is doing to historical research. What john and other editors do is longlasting. We historians, who write books, those books are very ephemeral. They dont last very long. History is a quasiscience. New books supplant the older books. What john is doing will last as long as the republic. Given what is happening, that may not be very long. [laughter] i want to emphasize how important it is. I want to emphasize how important this is. For anyone who is introduction interested in political hall that political theory. Debates that take place, contain every major issue. Anything you can think about in politics is included in these debates. Are the richest debate recorded in the history of the world. Documents. Or maybe 17thcentury english. Here we have been and unbelievable collection. Its incredible. Its a know that it is all hours. And yet, i believe it is the greatest collection of discussions about politics that the world has. The greater ones did not get collected, so i want to pay tribute to all of the document editors for keeping these things live alive. But i want to talk about is entitled, a device to the egyptians from the founding fathers. Three years ago in 2013, csis, a washington think tank, invited 30 egyptians two years after the arab spring they invited 30 egyptians, journalists, politicians, academics, women, to members of the freedom and justice party, the Muslim Brotherhood present among these. In that spring, president mohammed morsi, the Brotherhood Party had just been elected and probably the fairest election egypt had ever had and yet things were not working out in the streets. There was a good deal of fear. Democracy was not working out for the egyptians. Csis invited them to talk about the problems facing egypt could the arab spring survive . They thought it would be interesting to invite an american historian to tell these egyptians, how did we do it as if somehow lessens might be learned from the American Revolution. That is why i was there. When i am going to talk to you about is i am going to give you the lecture that i gave those egyptians. Before the arab spring, there was an atlantic spring, a series of democratic revolutions that spread from the Third Quarter of the 18th century and went on for 75 years, climaxing with the revolutions of 1848, intense by the european state to overthrow the monarchys. All of the revolutions failed and by the time needed to Abraham Lincoln, he realized, and this is the context for his speeches where he says the last best hope it looked like democracy was failing everywhere and Abraham Lincoln is saying, maybe the whole dream of democracy will fail. The American Revolution was the first of these revolutions. It was no colonial rebellion like the algerians throwing off french rule in the 1960s. In america, he was an historical event. In europe, richard price, the unitarian minister, in 1785, said, the American Revolution is the second most important event in the history of the world. The first according to him was the birth of jesus christ. That was the excitement among a lot of radicals, including french radicals. The french revolution erupted 13 years later and because it was such a momentous of people, it dominated western consciousness. It followed the American Revolution in that is the french have never forgiven us for. Many leaders believe the American Revolution was the stimulus for their revolution. Lafayette took the key from the bastille and sent it to washington as a mark of your contribution. Of course, it hangs today in mount vernon. Revelation was not just colonial but the overthrowing of monarchy. It is a little confusing to use 18thcentury terms because we have a lot of monarchs in europe that we happen to like. You cannot think about monarchy in modern terms. Republics, Hosni Mubarak in egypt, cuba, china, Saddam Hussein in iraq to use republic in opposition to monarchy is confusing but if we think of monarchies in terms of authoritarian governments, we have a clearer understanding of what it meant to be opposed to monarchy. The americans did not intend to just get rid of tyranny, they wanted to end it tyranny for all time, they wanted to set an example for the rest of the world. They had a key responsibility, a responsibility to show the world what a new democratic future it is important to keep in mind that our experiment with democracy was not an immediate success. The United States was not a united country. There is over a decade between the declaration of independence and the constitution. Americans think the declaration of independence they are separated by a decade and it was a very awesome decade. There was a real crisis in the 1780s. Many thought that the country would fall apart. The republican experiment seemed in peril. It was not an immediate success. The United States constitution which brought stability and unity was not something that anyone even imagined in 1776. There is not a single document where somebodys head, this is the government we ought to have. Even those not happy never conceived of such a constitution. Something had to happen in that decade to change peoples minds. In 1776, they established 13 independent democracies. Women, blacks, black slaves did not vote. Among the white population, three quarters of a bill white males could vote, and extraordinary proportion, higher than anywhere in the world at the time. Even britain, only one out of six adult males could vote. The new United States has the most democratic policies in the world. The declaration of independence was a declaration of 13 independent states with their own constitution. They were writing the constitution before the declaration. There was no National Government. There was very little sense of nationhood. Jeffersons opening line, that is just a hope, not a reality. When jefferson referred to my country, he meant virginia. The sense of not being united the United States was still a plural verb. That was true until the civil war the United States are. Him think about it. Most people do not think about the meaning of that. United, but not really united. These states eventually came together in a loose union called the articles of confederation. They are not an early version of the constitution. They are a different thing altogether. They are a treaty like the e. U. That is a parallel in modern times to what they are doing. They were not ratified for various reasons. There were not ratified until 1781, six months before the battle of yorktown. The battle of yorktown ended the british will to continue the revolution and was the ending of the war. The new state constitutions ever drafted in 1776 were terribly important, more important than the federal constitution that followed. The federal constitution was derived from the experiments worked out. They were written documents and from that moment on, when people created new constitutions, everybody who wants a constitution wrote it down. That was not true earlier. If you are going to have a new constitution like in iraq, they wrote it down. That was a grand innovation. More important was the notion of separation of power. It does not mean just legislation, it is the prohibition on members simultaneously Holding Office in the legislature. By prohibiting that, you prohibit a rise of cabinet government, which has been more adopted by the world then our system so that when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she had to resign her senate seat. If she were in england, she would have to remain in the house of lords to get into the cabinet. That is the difference between our systems. The American Revolution created that separation of power. They thought that that was corruption, that the executive would corrupt the legislative. That barrier created our separation of power. In these constitutions, a great deal of power was given to popular state legislatures. Most of them maintained governors. Most of them had governors. The powers of these governors, the prerogatives were greatly reduced. They had no power of appointment to anybody in office. They had no power of veto. They were emasculated. Jeffersons proposal said, he is no longer a governor. Even the pardoning power which seems essentially magisterial was taken away in many states. That is how severe the stripping of power was. Almost immediately, the states and began abusing their power. The state legislatures were acting minorities were being tyrannized by popular majority. That was not something the patriots expected. There was a debate between Daniel Leonard and john adams, who was defending the week party w hig party whig party. Leonard charged that the congresses would become tyrannical, abusing their power. John adams dismissed this. He said, it is impossible. The people cannot tyrannize themselves. He said that democratic despotism is a contradiction. 10 years later, he changed his tune. That was exactly what was happening. The legislatures were becoming despotic and it was a learning situation. James madison summed it up in an unpublished essay. This is the most important document between the declaration and the federal constitution, the most important document written in that interval. He was region in early 1787. It is a working paper. He was always a clear thinker and he wanted to get, what is wrong with america . He wrote these ideas you can call it up on your ipads. He outlines what is wrong with america and popular politics. These state legislatures were being annually elected, which was an innovation in most states. The turnover in some states were 60 . 60 new people. The multiplicity he outlined three evils, mutability, multiplicity, and injustice. That is his main objection. Multiplicity comes from the numerous legislatures, the turnover. More laws enacted in the decades since the declaration then the entire colonial period. More laws then in 100 years. And the laws were constantly changing. In this flood of legislation with new people every year, all narrowminded most important was the injustice. He is concerned about minorities being oppressed by majorities. The principal is the same, how do you protect minorities in a democratic polity . What the legislatures were doing were passing all kinds of legislation and the printing of paper money which creates inflation so that people were getting paid back they might lend 100 pounds and they were getting back pieces of paper issued by the state which said 100 but they were not worth 100. Many of the american elites, the aristocracy, and this includes slaveholders, they are learning a lot of their money not from what they sold, although, the southern planters were making money from rice and put tobacco wasnt quite what it used to be but many of them were acting as bankers, lending money. As you know, the english aristocracy lived off of rent and that was true until the 1920s if you watch downton abbey. The lord is still charging rent to succeed. That was not possible in america because there was very little 10 entry. Tenantry. So the gentry are living off this interest paid from loans but that interest is been inflated so they have a vested interest in preventing this kind of paper money. All of these problems, said madison, and this is true for any minority brought into question the fundamental principle of republican government that the majority that rose are the safest guardians of the public good and minority rights. That was a major problem. I cannot think of a more major problem. How do you curb majorities without doing violence to majority rule . That is still problem a problem. The theory going back to aristotle would be, if you have too much democracy some authoritarian ruler. Give the authoritarian ruler more power. In 18thcentury terms, you would have to say that these governments needed monetary. There is a lot of suggestions buried in the unpublished letters of new englanders saying, we have got to go the way of the father of the [indiscernible] washington some thought that washington himself should become the king or a dictator. He dismissed those suggestions. As you know, we came close to a military coup detat headed off me by a brilliant speech by washington to the military officers who were plotting to march of the continental congress. Madison did not want to go in that direction. What he wanted i want a republican remedy for republican ales. How do you do that . The creation had become a solution. By the 1780s there was a consensus that the articles of confederation were not working out, Confederation Congress lacked the power to tax and regulate. The reason for that is because congress was a substitute for the crown. The crown could do a lot of things, wages war, appoint offices, and so on. What i cannot do, it cannot tax or regulate trade in that is why the congress which was supposed to be a substitute for the crown was deprived of those powers. Now people are thinking, this system is not working. By 1786, the entire political nation i dont think anybody objected to this was ready to add those two powers to the articles of confederation so there is a consensus building up. Rhode island was very cantankerous, turning down things. They came around to accept the idea of giving a 5 duty tariff duty tax power. Everyone is ready for those kinds of reforms. What happened is that madison and his followers, takes advantage of this consensus and hijacks this Reform Movement to create something entirely different. His virginia plan is much more than a couple of articles added to the articles of confederation. He scraps the articles and asserts a powerful government that is a treaty a government that reaches directly to the people. That so he is going to solve two problems at once. He is going to take advantage of that consensus to create this new kind of government. He says this was caused by so many and these are the terms he uses code words for narrowminded people who are creating this kind of excessive democracy the parochial, illiberal, liberal arts they are narrow and uneducated. These are the kinds of people who are doing all this bad stuff. William mckinley, from pennsylvania, he is exactly the kind of person that madison dislikes. He had taken advantage of the revolution, now a politician in pennsylvania. He comes from the western part of the state and he is a fan of the farmers who want paper money and he is much hated by the elites. He is asked by the legislature there is a meeting that is going to take place to presumably reform the article. That is the way it is phrased. The legislature acts asks [indiscernible] he says, that these other guys do it. The pennsylvania delegation was made up of seven people who lived in philadelphia. Nobody from the rest of the state. One of the representatives wasnt even a resident, was not a citizen. Robert morris says, why dont you come along . Because he is the man actually wrote the constitution. Why dont you come to this meeting . Governor morris spoke for the pennsylvania delegation through the old convention. Finley had no idea that that was going to happen. They did not tell him in advance. It was a loaded convention. Made up of what you might call nationalists. They are the nationalists. They embrace our group of people. It is a loaded convention. The only supporters were lancing and yates. As soon as they grasped the implication they see the virginia plan introduced. They begin to think about, what does this mean . And they walk out, leaving the new york delegation alone with alexander hamilton. But the time they leave, new york never votes on anything. When you read the final letter that washington writes, he names all of the states that have supported this report and he says, new hampshire, massachusetts, connecticut rhode island is not come to the convention. He has to name and as the single person. So, it is a loaded convention in some medicine and his colleagues are out to do more then just reform the articles. The virginia and proposes a to House Legislature with both houses have proportional representation. He wants both houses to be like the house of