University of wisconsin. Every 40 years, we are going to have him back. Gordon wood is recognized as the premier historian of the early american era in 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 an honor to have him here in madison. It is an honor to be associated with them. Professor wood went to tufts and harvard 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 was not quite sure, i told him, i counted 26. He said, that is far too many. He has so many books, he doesnt know how many that he has. He has at least 26 books. Three of 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, the radicalism of the American Revolution. And then recently, empire of liberty. Of the the third volume oxford history of u. S. States. Many other volumes in between. The last five are documentary editions. I am very fond of that. 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. That will not be long before that is published. 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 him. [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, those books are very ephemeral. They do not last long. History is a quasiscience. New books supplant the older 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. Ist his team has done collecting these needs to be at the sized interested in political theory. John has already collected 25 volumes of these ratification debates. These debates that took place over whether the country should ratify the constitution contain every major issue of politics, anything you can think about in politics is included. They are the richest debates ever recorded. As far as im concerned. Maybe athens had richard debates but we do not have the documents. Maybe england had richard debates but we only have fragments of their discussion. Here we have in three dozen volumes and unbelievable collection by ordinary people. It is incredible to know that it ours. S 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 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 they invited 30 egyptians, this is 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 insecurity, 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 attempts 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, if we do not survive, 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, it was a 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. In 1780s. Erupted 13revolution years later. Ous use it was such a moment ous dominate t continued tended to with respect consciousness but it followed the American Revolution and that is something have never forgiven us for. Many french leaders believe that was the can revolution stimulus for their revolution. Took the key from the he tille, the symbol of t regime, the prison, and sent it a mark of your ontribution, the americans contribution to their revolution mounte key hangs today in vern vernon. Was not just ion the colonial revolution but monarchy. Ng of it is confusing to use the terms century monday ar monarchy versus republic. Like. Narchies that we aou there much a number of republics. So to use republic in opposition monarchy is confusing. But if we think of monarchies as uthorize attorney governments and republics as republics as democracies i think that is what i think they meant we have a clearer understanding of what it opposed to monarchy. Americans didnt just intend to rid of british tyranny but to end it for all time. They wanted to set examples for the rest of the world to follow. Key responsibility or many of them and jefferson was greatest proponent of this, a responsibility to show the to show what a libertarian democratic future was. I think it is important to keep experiment with democracy was not an immediate success. United states was not a United Country in 1776. Decade between the declaration of independence and constitution, something i think Many Americans forget. Two and to blur the some think the declaration of independence all men are created equal, are in the constitution. But they are separated by a was a very awesome decade. Crisis in the l 1780s. Many thought the country might apart into separate sections. The whole republican experiment in peril during that decade. Not an immediate success, our experiment with republicanism. The United States constitution, new federal the constitution brought stability nd unity to the country, was not something that anyone, 1776. Even imagined in theres not a single document i this is thehat said kind of government we ought to have. Even those who were not happy disunion of 1776 never conceived of such a constitution. So, something had to happen, toething awful had to happen this ople to think about new Strong National government. Insteadthey established 13 independent democracies. Now not democracies by modern standards. Women didnt vote. Didnt vote. Black slaves of course never voted. But among the white population three quarters of white males could. High. As extraordinarily even britain only one out of six could vote inening land. So the england. Will the ted states most democratic policies in the world and probably the most world tic policies the had seen, at least in the modern world. The declaration of independence declaration of these 13 independent states each with its newly written constitution. They were writing constitutions the declaration of independence. There was no National Government in 1776, and there was very of nationhood. Jeffersons opening line we are people that was just hope, not a reality. There is no sense of nationhood yet. When jefferson referred to my country he meant virginia. My country ams said he meant massachusetts. The sense of being a united not yet clear. It the United States and was legally created with the declaration was still a verb, took a plural verb and that was true up to the civil war. Are. Ed states after the civil war the is the is. Ted states but thing United States. Most people dont think about of , the technical meaning that. It is separate states. Not, of course, but until the civil war not really united. States eventually came together in a loose union that called the articles of confederate raugs. Keep in confederate ration. That is not an early version of the constitution. A y are a league, a treaty, treaty of these states coming together like the e. U. Parallel in losest modern times for what they were doing. What the fies i think articles much been thinking about them as an early version the constitution. They were not ratified for various reasons. Bringing, not happy with there treaty and they were of ratified until march 1781, which is only six months before the battle of yorktown in october of 1781, of course that will,on ended the british destroyed the british will to it revolution and was the effective ending of the war. Constitutions that were drafted by the 13 were terribly important. In some sense far more important federal constitution that followed a doecade later constitutionederal was derived from the experiments state out in the constitutions. They were written documents, and from that moment on when people created new constitutions and own timeight up to our and the last half century or so everybody who wants a down. Itution writes it that was not true earlier. Is not ish constitution written down and i think the ofy other state we are aware is israel that doesnt have a written constitution. A written se has occasion. And if you are going to have a tpnew constitution as they did it down. Wrote that was a grand innovation in 1776. More important was the notion of separation of powers which was by the federal constitution. It does not mean just egislature, executive and judiciary separate but the prohibition on members of the from simultaneously Holding Office in the legislature. Minute, ink about it a by prohibiting that, that dual thece holding, you prohibit rise of parliamentary cabinet government. English system which has been more adopted by the world than our system. So, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state she had to seat in the senate. If she were in england in the lords she would have to remain in the house of lords to get into the cabinet. The simple example of the difference between our system and the british system. American revolution and that constitutions create separation of power. They did that because they corruption that 9 executive with corrupt the legislature so they put a thater between the two and created our peculiar separation of powers. Revolutionary state consists a great deal of power and authority was given to the staet state, popular state legislatures. States maintained governors. Pennsylvania didnt but most of will single gives but the powers of the governors, the often tives as they were called were greatly reduced and sometimes taken away entirely. Of appointmenter of anybody to office. That was all given to the state legislatures. Of they had no power vetoing any state legislation. Emasculated. Jefferson, his own proposal for state constitution for virginia said hes no longer a governor, he is a mere the istrator and thats term he wanted to use. The others called them gives. Power which oning seems sanction magisterial or was taken away in many constitutions an given to the legislature. Strippingw severe the of power was from the governors. Almost immediately the state abusing theiregan power. It came to be called excesses of democracy. Legislatures were running wild and enacting all inds of crazy legislation in the eyes of many and minorities were being tyrannized by popular majorities. That was not something that the patriots had expected. There was a debate in massachusetts in 1775 between who was a tory a loyalist and led and john adams who was defending the whig cause. Eonard charged all the congresses that were occurring ere likely to become tyrannical. They would begin abusing their ower and tyrannizing the people. John adams dismissed this threat out of hand. Impossible. Is the people cannot tyrannize themselves. Democratic despotism is a contradiction in terms. Changed his r he tune and that is what was happening. Legislatures ic despotic and it was an alarming situation. It up in ann summed unpublished essay entitled vices of the olitical system United States. This is, i think, in my mind, document mportant between the declaration and most importanthe period. Written in that , was written in the early r early 1787 and it was never published. Was his working paper it get his thoughts straight. Wrong ed to get what is with america that needs remedied, needs curing . And he wrote out these ideas. Ipad. An call it up on your the vices of the political system of the United States. What is wrong with ameri merica, american popular politics and these excesses of democracy. Legislatures te being annually elected which was popular except new england. But the turnover in some states 60 . So, every year you have 60 new people sitting in the and each legislature ad new things to enact, new interests in each election. So, the multiplicity. Outlined three evils. Ute ability, multiplicity and injustice of all the state laws. Objection. S man multiplicity comes from the the ous legislatures, turnover. Ore laws enacted in the decade since the declaration than in the entire colonial period. Just in 10 years more laws than he 100 years of the colonial period. And the laws were mutable. Onstantly changing so much so he said that judges dont know what the law is and they are of less in this flood legislation which keeps changing ith new people in the legislature every year all enacting their narrowminded legislation. P most important for madison was injustice of the laws. Hes concerned about minorities oppressed by majorities. The minority he is concerned a ut is not one that we have lot of sympathy for, creditors. Is the same. Iple that is, how do you protect inorities in a democratic policy. Legislators were doing, the majority, passing all kinds of didntor relief. Laws and printing of paper money which creates were lendingpeople gold and or 100 in silver and they would get back pieces of paper issued by the which said 100 but they the not worth 100 because prices were inflated. In america, lite he aristocracy so far as america had an aristocracy and i hink this included many slave holdings, much earning a lot of their money not from what they although the southern planters were making good money, especially south carolina, from and indigo. And tobacco was not quite what in virginia. Ut many of them were acting as bankers. Lending money and living off the interest paid. English ow, the aristocracy lived off rents from tenants and that was true right the 1920s if you want down ton abbey. The lord is still drawing tenant rent and that is how he succeeds. That was not possible in america 10 e there was very little innocentry. Ristocracy or gentry are living off the interest paid money on loans but it is has been inflated. They have a vested interest paperventing this kind of money. Ll of these problems, said madison and this is true, i beset byr any minority majority rule, and that is a big todaym in the middle east as you know. Im quieting madison, brought nto question the fundamental principle of republican government that the majority that rule in such governments safest guardians of both the public good and minority and individual rights. That was a major problem. I cant think of a more imagine that. M than how do you curb majorities the ut doing violence to democratic principle of majority rule. Hat is still a problem that faces any democracy. Theory back to ristotle and the ancients if you got too much democracy you have to bring some monarchy into that is some authoritarian ruler. Ive the ruler more power and curb the democratic excesses. In 18th century terms you would say that these governments needed a dose of monarchy. 1780sme americans in the actually suggested that. There were a lot of suggestions the unpublished letters of new englanders in articular saying we have to go the way of the father of the on an brothers was key having a monarch brought it merica because nothing else will work. And some thought washington himself should become a king and he should become a dictator and these successes were made to him and he of hand. Them out and, as you know, in the spring 1783 away came as chest to a coup detat as we ever by the speech by washington to the 50 soldiers going to march on the continental congress. But Madison Department want to didnt want to go in that direction. What he wanted, i want a remedy for republican ills. How do you do that . The creation of the new federal solution. T becomes his by the mid 1780s there was a skpconsensus that the articles of confederation were not working. Lacked the vote, power to tax and regulate trade. Is because the congress was a substitute for the crown. A lot of could do things and still can. Declare war, e wage war, appoint judges. What it cannot do is cabinet tax or regulate trade. That is kwhy the congress, whic was supposed to be a substitute crown, was deprived of those two powers. But now people are thinking we have to get them because there working. Not i think by 1786, i would say, entire political nation i dont think anybody objected to was ready to add those two powers at least to the confederation. So, there is a kind of consensus building up. Of rhode island was cantankerous and turning down things but ev