Program guide or at cspan. Org history. As you know from being here before in the time before the as you know from having been here before in the midst of time, before the pandemic we have to begin our shows by reciting together the National Constitution inspiring congressional mission. I know some of you remember it by heart. The National Constitution center is the only institution in america charted by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the American People, on a nonpartisan basis. Beautiful. There we go. Increasing awareness and understanding of the constitution on a nonpartisan basis is exactly what we have been doing all day today on Constitution Day. We started this morning at 9 30 in this room, with the most inspiring naturalization ceremony. I have screened for the first time, watching 29 new citizens from, 39 new countries, it was extraordinarily moving. We had an amazing panel with leaders of Civic Education from professors martha jones, robert george, Hassan Jeffries spreading a lot of light, then we had three judges from the Third Circuit talk about the cases that they had decided before the Supreme Court decided, involving School Free Speech and religious liberty and the election cases. And now, i have the extraordinary honor of bringing together gordon wood and his colleagues to talk about his new book, so i will introduce them and then i will ask gordon wood to put on the table the central arguments of this book, which iran with rapt attention. You know ladies and gentlemen gordon wood, the dean of american historians, all of us had learned from his pathbreaking work on the ideas of the center of the american founding and he is still instilling a lifetime of wisdom in his new book which you could not do better on constitution they van to read. He will be joined in talking about the book, by colleagues that i need to put on my constitutional reading glasses in order to get their titles right. I will introduce them and then we will jump right in. Gordon wood is the although Way University professor. Recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. To the americanization of benjamin franklin, transforming the field. The book that we will be talking about tonights power and liberty, constitutionalism and the american revolution. Its so wonderful that he is joined here in person by another towering american historian and great friend of the constitution, edward larsen, professor larsen holds the heel and hazel darling chair in law and is the professor of history, also a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in history and author of superb books from the return of george washington, to most recently, franklin and washington, a Founding Partnership between discussed not too long ago, it was such a great discussion. We are joined remotely, im so glad to see you, the monitors are working, you look great, i hope you can see us as well as we can see you but its so great to welcome here to the Constitution Center, lucas e. Morel, the john k board mint professor of politics in washington lee, author of lincolns sacred effort, and most recently lincoln and the american founding. A frequent guest on the Constitution Center podcast and programs and we always learn from your wonderful light. And emily, its wonderful to welcome you to our table of learning, emily pears is assistant professor of Clairemont Mckenna College where she teaches about political thought. Constructing Constitutional Union in the American History that will be released in november. It looks fascinating, cant wait to read it. Welcome to all our great panelists, congratulations on the book, i do many things on kindle so i have it right here. The first chapter about the imperial debate starts in 1765 or so, although it looks back earlier and talks about the central declaration of the snap back congress and is essentially that no taxes should be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives. What was the imperial debate . I dont want to 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 on such importance as taxation. On them, without theyre having a say. And they dismiss out of hand, although franklin throws out the notion, while he is over in london, out of touch with american opinion, that maybe we can have some representatives from the colonies. Maybe 100. The way the scots do in the way that they did in 1707 when they became great britain, when england and scotland came together as great britain. The americans want no part of that notion. They know that they would be swamped by the british, and no one ever seriously considers having membership in the house of commons as a solution to the problem. So right from the outset in the snap back congress, which meets in reaction to the stamp back, which is a halt on all Paper Products in america, they know instinctively that their colonial assemblies will be the legislature that will determine taxation. Now they have an awkward position, because they had accepted parliamentary regulation as a trade, and so that is always a problem for them. But they make it very clear that they wont never have representation be outside of their own colonial legislatures, although they are willing to recognize the supremacy of parliament in the empire. That concession uses the english, because the english look at parliament as a sovereign body, in fact it is the protector of liberty. It is the instrument that they have honored. It is white curbs the crown, which is a sort of tyranny. So they are confusedthe argument starts overrepresentation, the english say, you, the americans say they are not represented and they say yes you are, you are virtually represented. But they refused to accept that notion, even though the english say, we have towns like dunwich, slipped into the north sea and nevertheless, the people in manchester and birmingham with 50,000 people have no representation in the house of commerce but they are nevertheless represented because the criterion of representation is not a process but a consideration of the welfare as a whole. The americans, having a different experience over 200 years of colonial history, have come up with a different notion. For them, the electoral process itself becomes the determinant of representation. And that has its own consequences. In some sense, you could probably make an argument that virtual representation accounts for the majority rule. Whereas the notion that you have to vote for somebody, actually vote for somebody to represent you really opens up the problem of, why should you defer to a candidate you didnt vote for . The english have a solution to that problem. The americans really dont have a solution. Where the notion of actual representation, which says you must actually vote for the person if you are going to be represented. It starts with representation, but by the late 60s, it shifts into a question of sovereignty because the english come back with this doctrine of sovereignty which runs through the whole revolutionary area and comes back to haunt the federalists later in 17871788. They say there must be in every state, one final supreme lawmaking authority and for the english, that is parliament. Kingdom parliament. The americans cannot accept that because if they do, you cant be, as the english pamphleteers say, you cant be half in on parliament sovereignty, if you accept one iota of parliament authority then you must accept all. And since the americans have already accepted parliaments right to regulate their trade, they must be under parliaments authority. And if you are outside of parliaments authority, even in one little respect, then you must be totally outside of all parliaments authority, which to a good wig, seems absurd, no one would choose to be outside of parliaments authority, that is how the debate goes. The americans confronted with that alternative decide, okay, if that is our choice we are outside of parliaments 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 recognition whatsoever of parliament authority over them. It is not a very accurate portrayal of their experience. But they are forced into it by this doctrine of sovereignty. So that when you come to the declaration of independence, 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 back, the coercive acts, parliament is not mentioned accept you, the king, king george is the source of all tyranny so they say, you have done this, that, and you have conspired with others, meaning parliament. So this is the argument, it is very legally minded and the break comes solely from the crown at that point, because we americans have ceased recognizing any authority of parliament over us. Thats a brief summary of that first chapter. Fascinating and crucial and you have introduced us to this idea that for colonists, the idea of two sovereignties is with a state within a state, imperium within imperium. And they struggled to relocate sovereignty from parliament where it was not written to allegiance to the king, and then eventually as you tell us and other chapters, the the genius of james wilson, in the people themselves. So edward j. Larson, help us take the story that gordon has layed out, in the 1760,s to the declaration. Youre describing your wonderful book, franklin and washington the Founding Partnership, franklins own gyrations about sovereignty is located, maybe taxes are okay if they are imports but not exports, trying to split the difference. But eventually, he came around to independents and he liked the others, decided that sovereignty was in the people. Building on what gordon has already said, there was a struggle to understand how to draw these lines. Of virtual representation. Because they understood the terms representation, and the british were using them, and they could say, and some did, well, we are virtually represented, just like women our virtually represented, and they would use that of women being represented by their husbands by not voting, we are like manchester. Manchester had grown to be the second or Third Largest city in england and it had no representations in parliament because it did not exist to them, they divided up the seats. You are represented like manchester, as long as we are treated the same. So if its regulatory, they can look back, if its a regulatory law, its tariffs on something coming into the empire, english people are paying that as well as english people in america. Therefore, you are virtually represented like the people in manchester. But if its attack solely on the colonies, as the stamp back was, then how could we be virtually represented . They would use this terminology which was as extreme then as it is today. He said, we are slaves, Nothing Better than slaves. If you could impose attacks just on us, only on us, you are not posing it on other people in england and therefore we are not virtually represented for that tax. Now, i agree with gordon, absolutely, then they carried on to the point that, well, they are pushed to the point to say, well then we are not represented in parliament for anything. But their original stopping point, if you look at the writings from delaware, or the writings of maryland, wherever delaney was from, and dickinson, from here or delaware, depending on when and where he was representing, they couldnt draw those lines. But if you pushed him beyond, and thats where franklin was trying to draw a line very trying to draw a line not very successfully, i would agree with gordon on that as well. Then we get to the point, okay, if we are not parliament, wheres sovereignty . Now you can go way back in the colonial tradition. The original model, as gordon probably knows and you probably know, the original motto of virginia and i hope we get it right, was, it was in latin. [speaking foreign language] virginia the fourth. The point was, virginia was the first colony and therefore, it was equivalent to scotland. It was an independent domain like scotland, and thats what was their motto. Virginia makes for, if you translated. And the other one is scotland, and i think the other one is whales. And the point was, we are just under the king. And our assembly should be equivalent to parliament. And that is where the other place they tried to come down at one point wouldbe franklins argument, lets have representation in tht england, that i agree in that British Parliament that did not fly for quite a few reasons. We are each equivalent of england, just as scotland was, and this would be the analogy they would use, just like scotland before the union in 1787. That scotland has its own parliament, under the king. The king was the electoral hand hanover and he was a ruler there. Lets be like that. And that is why, as you are pointing out, when they have to transfer sovereignty, and they have a very difficult idea of splitting sovereignty, that is going to be a problem on the constitution. How do you split sovereignty between the states and the Central Government . The idea is, the only thing, if we already conceptually view ourselves as the equivalent of scotland before 1707, or as hanover, we are only under the king, the only person we have to break from is the king. And that is why jefferson very artfully, 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, finance papers or any other pamphlets, writings by hamilton or jefferson earlier, they were all directed towards the parliament. Then they dont have the sovereignty problem. But now, if they are breaking with the king, suddenly, whos sovereign . Because they have this history of each colony, slash state, having sovereignty through its assembly to the king. Versus the idea of, if we dont have a king, wheres 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 17, i think 1782 he wrote that, 1783, i think that was the most important political document between the declaration of independence and the constitution. He was pointing to that the Central Government has to have all power over everything that is common to all the colonies of the states. Well, if thats the case, 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 a spouseing, and you can find it in franklin as well you can find it and wilson. Then, well, whats sovereign . Madison is already playing with ideas where we can have joint sovereignty but they didnt think that way. And so, ultimately, if youre reading it is, and i think they go into the Constitutional Convention with this puzzle and thats where Roger Sherman is saying no, weve got to keep the states sovereign, or wilson thinking, no, and thats why hes pushing for the people, pushing on the people and pushing the direct election. , no we have to have the Central Government sovereign. And thats a funny thing floating around washington circular letter to the states. Where, ultimately, once we break from the king, who is independent . Washington repeatedly makes that argument. We werent granted independence under the peace treaty with england, we werent granted independence as 13 individual states granted independents. We were granted independence as a whole union. In contrast, at the declaration of independence, you could make a possible argument that 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 and who isnt . And if its the United States, is the United States a singular noun or plural noun, when it comes down to it, in a way. And that is an issue that continues beyond the constitution. But its an issue of, where does a sovereignty lie if it no longer lives with the king . Perfectly phrased. Lucas, you have written so passionately about lincoln and the founders. 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 would 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 constitutional history . Well, i agree that james wilson was the legal mind at the Constitutional Convention, theres no doubt about it. His lectures are still read to this day, as has been said. But my reading of lincoln, of course, whether its a gloss on wilson or others that he read, its unclear to me at least, in all my time reading lincoln, that he ever read the federalist papers. I dont think he ever did. But what lincoln argues in his first inaugural address, when he talks about secession, he only grants it arguendo. That is why he only grants the idea of it having to be an agreement among the states to deny that any particular stay can unilaterally leave the union. He only grants that in order to show that, even if you were to believe in the theory of states where the cells at a state by state level didnt have the right to secede, the American People, as lincoln understood it, where 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, as it were, borrowed powe