2 - 3 - In the Beginning, Part 2 (22:48).txt

[BLANK_AUDIO]
Welcome back.
We're talking about the preamble to
the United States Constitution, that first
sentence.
Again, the word preamble doesn't appear in
the sentence but that's
what everyone calls it, that, We the
people of the United States...
Do ordain and establish this Constitution.
We're talking about that sentence, and I
tried to make the case in our last lecture
that this preamble announces and
actually performs, does, and acts nothing
less than the
most democratic deed in the history of
planet Earth.
People, up and down a continent, getting
to talk about
this proposed constitution, this plan that
has been hatched in Philadelphia.
Getting to talk about it, deliberate about
it, and
then vote on it in elections, up and down
a continent.
Elections that allowed an unprecedentedly
large number of individuals to participate
in the process I claim that more people
were allowed to vote,
up or down, freely on the constitution,
than had ever been
allowed to vote on anything before in the
history of the planet.
That ordinary
property qualifications that ordinarily
applied, for example, in ordinary
elections, in eight of the 13 states,
property qualifications were lowered
or abolished, compared to the ordinary
rules.
For example.
In New York.
All adult free male citizens were allowed
to vote
for the convention that decided whether to
ratify the constitution.
So, no race test, no property
qualification.
No religious qualification.
And if we judge those by those fact's by
today's standards, we, we
might yawn and say, well so what, that's,
that's how we run elections.
Yes, that's how we run elections today,
that's not how New York ran elections in
1786 or 1785, the year before the
constitution.
There were more restrictions: property
qualification, for example, for ordinary
elections.
Then there was, for this special
constitution ordainment
and establishment, we the people do
election in 1787-88.
It what was true of New York, it was true
in seven of its sister states.
Again,
property quaifications lowered or
eliminated,
compared to what they were ordinarily.
And that's the perspective that I'd like
you to keep in mind, and thinking about
these words, We the people of the
United States, the perspective of what
happened before.
because of course, from today's
perspective, we see all the inadequacies.
Women, as a general rule, didn't vote.
Maybe a few married an,
a few widows may have been allowed to vote
in, in New Jersey.
But as, as a rule women didn't vote.
So there were some property qualifications
in some places.
In some places there were race tests.
so, what do you mean, We the people of the
United States?
Well here's what I mean.
Again, we have to judge this in it's
historical context.
Women didn't vote in 1787 because they
didn't vote in 1786 or 1785.
They had never as a general matter voted
in
America or anywhere else in the world, for
that matter.
The, the places that had democracy had
never had women voting.
They didn't vote in Athens, they didn't
vote in pre-Imperial
Rome, or Florence, or Switzerland, or they
didn't vote in Britain.
So they're eventually going to get the
vote.
And
I claim they're going to get the vote in
part because of the extraordinary
democratic momentum created by the
Preamble, by the Constitution itself.
It's going to, it, it's like the Big Bang
that's going to generate a
certain momentum to the universe and
we're still experiencing that democratic
momentum.
So, eventually women are going to get the
vote
and they're going to get the vote in a
process really
that begins in the Preamble.
The amendments are going make amends, for
some of the flapses
and the, the flaws, and the sins, of the
founding fathers.
We're going to get a series of amendments
from
the beginning that add rights, a bill of
rights,
saying the people, the people, the people,
cause they're
coming from that preamble process of
ordaining this establishment.
And, then, eventually we're going to get
amendments ending
slavery and promising Blacks equal
citizenship and equal suffrage.
And, women equal suffrage.
18 year olds, in my lifetime get the vote.
In a process that continues that preamble
idea of allowing more people to
participate.
Than were allowed to participate the day
before.
There's another reason that woman don't
vote at the founding.
Not just history and tradition.
And it's, linkages between national
secur-, security and democracy.
so, women don't fight.
They don't bear arms, in a military
context.
And so they didn't vote at the founding.
They were tight connections.
Between arms bearing, military arms
bearing and, and democracy.
One of the reasons that unpropertied
people are allowed
to participate in the process, the
property qualifications in
general were lowered during the American
revolution and,
and lowered further in this special
preamble process.
One of the reasons for that is that
unpropertied persons
had fought for the American Revolution and
if you were
loyal enough to fight for the American
Revolution well why
shouldn't you be allowed to vote on the
American Constitution.
That's what Ben Franklin said and thought.
Later we're going to see that, that idea
carried forward in American history after
the Civil War.
When Blacks in blue were a key part of
the Union victory, 180,000 black soldiers
in the Union army.
That's what I meant Blacks in blue you're
going to get black men voting with the
15th Amendment.
Women weren't in combat, and so they don't
get to vote, then they
do get it during World War 1 as a war
measure, in fact.
Woodrow
Wilson says in effect women are part
of the economic efforts supporting World
War 1,
so they deserve a vote then and yes
other war related reasons for supporting
women's suffrage.
In my lifetime 18 year old's get the vote
because if your old enough to fight and
die in
Vietnam, you're old enough to, to vote on
whether
we should be in that war in the first
place.
So there're connections between democracy
and national security.
And I'm going to move to those connections
in, in just another minute.
But before I do, I do need to say a word
or two about slavery, because that's the,
the elephant in the room.
Women's suffrage wasn't really on the
table in 1787.
That, it wasn't a realistic prospect
historically.
It would be later on, by the time of the
Civil War, women
are agitating for full participation in
the vote, in a way they weren't at
the founding.
There aren't women prominently asking for
the vote in
1787, there are at the end of the Civil
War.
And eventually they're going to get it.
Elizabeth Katie Stanton and, and Susan B
Anthony will eventually
be redeemed with the, the suffrage
amendment in the 20th century.
And, but there aren't quite Susan B
Anthonys and, and those Elizabeth Katie
Stantons asking for the right to vote very
prominently in the founding era.
But there were people at the founding who
said slavery is wrong.
It would be the death of us.
And those voices weren't fully heeded at
the founding.
So for all this we the people of the
United States, I want
us to remember before we start talking a
little bit more about national security.
Who's not included?
We the people of the United States is, is
good for the United States and people
who are part of the United States project,
full citizens of the United States.
But this project is not necessarily
designed for the benefit of other people.
It's not designed for the benefit of the
British people, and we're going
to talk about that in just a minute, about
the national security dimension.
To talk about democracy and popular
sovereignty, also, we
have to think about, well who, who doesn't
count?
So, this is not for the benefit
of the British, it's for the benefit of
the people
of the United States, not for the people
of Britain.
It's not designed for the benefit of the
Spanish, or the French, or
the Mohawk or the Iroquois um; or any of
the other uh; Indian tribes.
And it's not designed for the benefit of
slaves, slaves are
seen as aliens as in effect that the one
classic theory
of slavery was that if you fought fight a
war, a
just war against another society and you
conquered them on the battlefield.
Instead of killing them on the battlefield
you
can enslave them, instead they're seen as
aliens.
Now, this theory is kind of preposterous
when you think about it because that
doesn't
explain why you can enslave their great,
great
grandchildren yet unborn who in fact also
might
be your great, great grandchildren because
you
there's inter relations between masters
and slaves.
Female slaves.
So but the, the theory is slaves aren't
part of the people.
They are other.
This is to be distinguished from free
blacks.
Free blacks actually are part of the
American project from the beginning.
They fight at Bunkers Hill and in
Washington's army.
They actually vote
in various of these of, elections on the
constitution in places like Massachusetts
and New York.
So free blacks are part of the people,
from the
beginning, the Dred Scott case is going to
say otherwise and
it's wrong when it says otherwise in 1857,
it just gets
its history wrong, we'll talk about that
later in the course.
We'll talk a lot about Dred Scott slavery,
but for now, I just want you to realize
that as admirable as this project of we
the people is and as impressive as is, is,
as it was that, that minorities got to
participate,
that even the anti-Federalists got to have
their say.
People who opposed the Constitution,
they're called
the anti-Federalists, they got to have
their say
and they weren't suppressed, and in
effect, some
of their ideas become the Bill of Rights.
So they lose the in the ratification
fight they, they fight to, they oppose
ratification.
And they lose that state by state, but
then
they're the winners in the next round to
some extent.
The Bill of Rights is added, that
accommodates some of their concerns, so
the majority
prevails but the minority is heard, but
that's within the people of the United
States.
I want you to remember that there are
other peoples
involved and, and the constitution is not
necessarily to their benefit.
It's not really for the benefit of the
British or the
Spanish or the French or the Native
Americans or the slaves.
And we're going to come back to that point
again and again in this course.
But for now, I just want to focus a little
bit more
than I have on the national security
elements of this whole project.
Because the United States Constitution is
not merely
the most democratic deed on the history of
the
planet earth, and, and when I use that,
I said the Constitution, it's not just a
text.
It's a deed, a doing.
A constituting, an act of ordainment and
establishment.
And it's not just the most democratic
thing ever to, to
happen to the planet and the world will
never be the same.
It's also the world's largest corporate
merger.
Thirteen previously independent states
that were only loosely allied together
in an, the Articles of Confederation in a
kind of a treaty, a league, a compact.
Kind of like
NATO, not that different from the UN
today.
That's what the United States was in 1786,
just a loose alliance, a, a treaty, a
confederation.
And what they are agreeing to by ratifying
the
Constitution is a more perfect union, an
indivisible union.
You don't have to say yes to the
constitution
and if you don't you can go your own way.
North Carolina is allowed
to say no and they are not part
of the project when George Washington is
elected President.
And Rhode Island says no initially and
they
sort of float off on their own, because
they are sovereign states and they are
allowed to go on their own if they want.
They can't be bound by the other states.
That's the understanding.
But, once you're in, you're in.
if you say yes, you're part of a more
perfect union.
If you say yes, we do.
We do ordain and establish this
constitution.
If you say yes in Virginia,
or in New York, or in Connecticut.
Then you are going to be part of a more
perfect indivisible union in which once
you're in you're in.
So the world's largest corporate merger.
These.
Eventually all 13 will, will, will come
aboard.
These 13 previously independent sovereign
nation states
combining to form one indivisible union,
that was,
that's why in the end of the day, at the
end of the day, I'm with Mr. Lincoln.
The Civil War conflict was about that
question.
The preamble helps to answer it, it says a
more perfect union.
Where are they getting that idea, of a
perfect union?
From the union of England and Scotland in
1707, and uh; and
uh; let me tell you a little bit about how
that was
the model for the United States
Constitution, and why it was the model?
because at first you might say why would
they ever agree to do that?
because, it's going to make first of all,
democracy
has never existed on a continental scale
before.
Warm weather and cold weather people
getting
together, different time zones as America
unfolds.
Why not, just have democracy exist on a
much smaller scale with, with people
from cities or, or, or, or states
governing themselves and being friendly
with their neighbors.
But, but not being part of some
indivisible union.
Why would you, we ever go for a
continental democracy, the
likes of which have never been seen before
in human history.
That's the question that the Anti
Federalists ask.
And they ask it again and again and again.
And before we get to the Federalists'
answer, let's
just ponder, just let's focus on, on the
stunning fact
that never, ever, ever do the Federalists
say
the following: Well, actually, it's not an
indivisible union.
You can join the thing and if you don't
like it you can leave.
They never say that in the entire year.
Now think about that, they, they, lose
the,
the vote for ratification in Rhode Island,
and
in North Carolina, they barely win in New
York, the final vote was 30 to 27.
They barely win in
Virginia, and New Hampshire uh; and
Massachusetts is very close, and there's
a bunch of people on the fence, and
wouldn't it have been
an overwhelmingly powerful argument to say
to those people on the fence;
look Virginia, look New York, why don't
you give it a try?
Give this new plan a try, this
constitution, if you
don't like it, you can always leave, money
back guarantee.
And the Federalists never say that.
Not once.
And in fact, on the contrary, they insist
that
it must be a more perfect union.
In the language of Federalist number Five
Federalist papers
are a series of newspaper essays designed
to, to
explain the Constitution and to and to
persuade people to vote for it.
And Federalist says, number five says, no,
we're actually going to have a union,
that's
a perfect union on the model of Scotland
and England which is an indivisible one.
Scotland can't unilaterally leave that
one.
Federalist 11 talks about a strict and
indissoluble union, indissoluble.
In New York, anti-Federalists say, well,
we'll vote for the thing, but if
there's no Bill of rights, we'd like to be
able to reserve the right to leave.
And the Federalists say, no dice.
Ratification most be, must be, this is a
direct quote, actually it was
drafted by James Madison, in, ratification
must be quote, in toto and forever.
Unquote.
Once you're in, you're in.
All sales final.
So why would they insist on that, the
Federalists?
Given that that's going to make the
project sort of more difficult
to accept.
And you'd never had anything like that
before in world history.
The world's largest corporate merger, this
more perfect union.
And the answer is because only that kind
of indivisible union will
establish the main purposes of the
preamble, which are, among other things to
provide for common defense and secure,
secure the blessings of liberty.
And here we've come finally
to the geostrategic argument for
the constitution, the national security
argument.
Here's how it went.
And you see this in the early Federalist's
papers.
It's summarized in the Federalist, number
eight.
But you see it as early as The Federalist
number two and five and six.
And if you want to read these Federalist
papers, which
are short little newspaper op-eds, I
commend them to you.
Here's what The Federalist Papers
say, here's what the Federalists, the
supporters of the Constitution, say: Look
around
the world, who's free in all the world,
other than we in America?
Basically the British and the Swiss.
Why?
because Britain is an island, and once un,
Scotland, and England formed an
indivisible union, that island became very
easy to defend against, enemies.
You only needed a small navy, and navies
don't threaten
domestic liberty.
Why is Switzerland free?
because it's got a natural, it's got
defensable borders.
It's got the alps, all around.
It's hard to charge up a hill.
Britain has a moat called the English
channel.
The rest of the world is unfree because
you've got one entity, it's got sort
of hostile neighbors all around land
borders until
it builds up an army to defend itself.
And the neighbors build up a bigger army,
so it builds up a still bigger army.
You have arms races develop.
And then strong men, military figures
emerge and
they use those armies to squash people
domestically.
That's the world.
Britain avoids it by creating a union of
Scotland and England because
before they were united, Hadrian's wall is
no Great Wall of China.
It's no Alps.
It's no, impenetrable border.
So the Scots are fighting the Brits.
And the English, the English are fighting
the Scots.
They have Mel Gibson
coming down.
And no one's free because your in armed
camp,
because your constantly in the state of of
war and
and you have a army domestically
suppressing people, but
in England and Scotland create a perfect
union in 1707.
They're an island nation.
We want to do the same thing in America,
create sort of an island nation.
And here's what will
happen if we do that.
If we're 13 separate nations, we're
going to start fighting with each other
over who controls the West, because
there's gold in them thar hills.
Britain will come in, will play one state
off against each
other, and we'll be just like the rest of
the world.
We'll start fighting and killing each
other and, and the big armies.
And there wont be liberty, but if we can
create an
indivisible union on the model of the
union of Scotland and England,
a strict and in decidable union, here's
what we will be able to do.
We'll be able to have a very small, we'll
have the
entire Atlantic ocean as our moat, our
English channel times 50.
That maybe won't threaten Americans.
We won't need a big army.
A very small army.
An army that won't threaten, liberty will
suffice.
5000 people to kick the British out.
To kick the Spanish out of the new world.
To kick the French out eventually.
Frankly to kill the Indians, or at least
tame them.
to, to, to prevail over the entire
continent, from sea to sea.
Manifest destiny.
The Monroe Doctrine.
We will be free, we will, we will, we will
have the New World to ourselves.
Free from
the old powers of Europe, the tyrannical
powers.
And, and, and, that in order for all of
that to work, we need to create a
more perfect union, an indivisible union,
on the model of Scotland and England.
I give lots of evidence for this in
Chapter One of the book,
America's Constitution: A Biography, if
you
want to see more evidence for that
thought.
Here's how I conclude.
First this idea of the indivisibility of
the Union, even
though I think it was clearly understood
at the founding,
later generations bickered about this and
the Civil War came
because some people contested this and
we're going to talk about.
That contest and the Civil War.
It's going to be a, a big theme of the
course.
Second and relatedly, this project which
is all about preventing Americans from
fighting
other Americans.
Creating a system of common defense.
It ultimately fails.
We're going to have Americans fighting
other Americans
on American soil about who controls the
west.
The very thing that the constitution was
designed to prohibit will eventually come
about.
We call that the Civil War.
And we've got people fighting, Americans
against Americans, about who's going to
control the west.
And that's because, basically of slavery.
So we the people of the United States as
admirable as it was.
Coexisted for the regime in which some
people were excluded by definition from
the project.
They say well, you're not part of the
people, you're slaves, you're others.
And that in the end will almost be the
death of this extraordinary American
project this preamble project.
We'll talk a lot about that
in later chapters in later lectures.
But for now, I hope I've told you enough
about the big
preamble themes of democracy and national
security to at least get us started.
And in our next session, we'll do
something a little bit
more conversational and informal, and
complete our conversation about the
preamble.
Hope you can join us.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
[MUSIC]