- We, the people of the United States,
in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice,
ensure domestic tranquility,
promote the common defense,
promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty
for ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
James Madison at your service.
In the summer of 1787,
the people of America,
well, find themselves engaged in a battle
for our nation's very soul.
Through such regard, 11 years
ago the people of America
embarked upon a singular experiment.
One that philosophy has waited for,
one that humanity has sighed for
from the most remote ages
of our common experience.
13 separate and distinct
heterogeneous assemblies,
crafted systems of government derived,
not from the power of kings
or the privilege of monarchy,
but rather instead, the
legitimate power of the people.
And through the course of this experiment,
we have witnessed great victories
at the battle of Yorktown.
We have witnessed systems
of government reared
by the philosophies of
John Locke and Montesquieu.
And we were fixed with the opportunity
to choose for ourselves
whatever system of government
was most conducive to our
liberty and our happiness.
And we have failed.
The situation in America
is at this present moment
without parallel.
For six years these 13 separate provinces
have operated under the
Articles of Confederation,
a system of government, which, young,
has proven deficient in regulating
this body of government into one people.
Now having delivered
this unfortunate news,
I'm here with a message of hope,
hoping that it will mingle
into your proud hearts
with whatever weight might be
derived from good intentions.
Through this past summer
in Philadelphia city
an assembly of some 55 gentlemen
from 12 separate provinces
have united to do the impossible,
to craft a system of government
the world has never seen
and an example that may yet be
fortunate for our posterity.
In some, a convention which may allow
this American experiment to endure
beyond the scope of our generation.
And in some create something
that by this new preamble
written by Gouverneur
Morris is not perfect,
but certainly is more perfect.
Now I am pleased upon
this occasion to join you,
to speak of the various
debates upon the floor
in the Constitutional Convention,
pleased equally to reflect
upon my own history,
as well as to share my own thoughts
and principles of government.
And those of you who do know me will know
that I am wholly deficient
at public speaking.
Whatever eloquence might be
derived has often been fostered
by pen rather than personality.
I have not a great many of the
virtues of my contemporaries.
I have not the fortitude of a Washington,
or the dynamism of a Henry,
the wisdom of a Franklin,
nor, I think the romantic
appeal of a Jefferson.
But I do have my words.
And before, friends, I open
this conversation to you,
I wished to share several
of my own thoughts
regarding the spirit of government.
Knowing full well, a system of government
ought be derived from liberty.
I think that to begin this
conversation, we must, of course,
begin with that self-same spirit.
Now, no government is perhaps
reduceable to a sole principle
where the theory approaches
nearest to this character
at different or heterogeneous principles
mingle their influence
in the administration.
It is useful nevertheless,
to analyze the several kinds of government
to characterize them by the
spirit which predominates them.
Now Montesquieu, the Baron de Montesquieu,
has resolved the great
operative principles
of government into
fear, honor, and virtue.
Applying the first to pure despotism,
the same tyranny that we fled
from in our ancient regime.
The second principle to
monarchies, the third to republics.
Now by that the principle of virtue.
The portion of truth
blended with the ingenuity
of this system sufficiently
justifies the admiration
it bestowed on its author.
Now Montesquieu in
politics was not a Newton,
not a Locke by that same principle.
But in the same respect
that Francis Bacon sits
the greatest of moral philosophers,
Montesquieu lifted the veil
upon these various political principles.
And should any wish to examine
the roots of government
you need look no further than him.
But simultaneously, how might one describe
these various republican principles
in where a system of government
might derive its virtue?
Now first a government operated
by a permanent military force,
which at once maintains the government
and is maintained by it.
Which at once the cause
of burdens on the people
and of submission in the
people to their burdens.
Such have been the governments
under which humanity
has grown through every age.
Such are the governments
which still oppress
in almost every country of
Europe, the quarter of the globe
which calls itself the
pattern of civilization
and the pride of humanity.
Can one derive virtue from this?
Now secondly, a government
operating by corrupt influence,
substituting the motive
of private interest
in place of public duty,
converting its pecuniary
dispensations into bounties
to favorites or bribes to opponents
accommodating its measures to the avidity
of a part of the nation instead
of benefit of the whole.
In a word, enlisting an army of partisans
whose tongues, whose
pens, whose intrigues,
and who's active combinations
by supplying the terror of the sword
may support a real domination of the few
under an apparent liberty of the many.
And such a government,
wherever it may be found in
the new world is an imposter.
It will be both happy and
honorable for the United States
if they never descend to
mimic the costly pageantry
of its form, nor betray themselves
into the binal spirit
of its administration.
Now, in this example, can one find virtue?
Now thirdly, a government
deriving its energy
from the will of society
and operating by the
reason of its measures
on the undertaking an
interest of the society,
such is the government
for which philosophy
has been so patiently searching.
For which humanity has
been so desperately sighing
from the most remote ages.
Such are the republican governments,
which we endeavor now
in America to invent.
And pray that it should
be her unrivaled happiness
to possess.
That the great desideratum of government,
ladies and gentlemen,
is a modification of sovereignty,
to keep the few from
the insults of the many
while simultaneously ensuring
that a majority of the
people's voice might rule.
Gone are the days where one
or a privileged select few
may make decisions.
But instead where a
people may collectively
with one clarion voice
move through the roads
in which they follow.
And what responsibility should
then belong to a people?
And from there it should be remembered.
Finally, that it has ever been the pride
and boast of America,
that the rights for which she contends
ought be the rights of human nature.
By the blessings of the
author of these rights
and the means exerted for her defense,
she has prevailed against all opposition.
Endeavors, at present, to form
the basis of a great nation.
And in no instance has
heretofore occurred.
Nor can any instance
perhaps be expected to occur
in which the unadulterated
forms of republican government
can to pretend to so fair an opportunity
as justifying themselves
by their own fruits.
In this view, the citizens
of the United States
are responsible for the
greatest trust ever given
to a political society.
If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude,
and all of the other qualities
which enable the character of a nation
fulfill the ends of government,
be the fruits of our establishment,
this cause of liberty will
acquire a dignity and luster
which has never yet been seen.
And an example will be
set which could have
the most favorable influence
on the rights of mankind.
If, on the other side of our governments,
the unfortunate experience be blotted
with the reverse of these
cardinal and essential virtues,
the great cause for which
we engage to vindicate
will be dishonored and betrayed.
The last and fair experiment and favor
on the rights of human nature
will be turned against them
and their patrons and friends
exposed to be insulted
and silenced by the votaries
of tyranny and usurpation.
We sit at this present moment
in the most fascinating era
a man has been afforded.
And we see, friends,
where governments die.
We see, at present,
where these Articles of Confederation end.
So rarely over the course of human history
have we watched where
a government can begin.
Upon that I think it proper
that our conversation should begin.
And as I said, I am
uncomfortable in public speaking
and should wish instead to hear from you,
the people of America, regarding
the current oppositions,
the current victories in the
Constitutional Convention,
or equally to speak upon whatever topic
I may be at your service
to render and expound upon.
With that, ladies, gentlemen,
I conjure your minds,
I conjure your intellects,
and, will through the proxy
of my dear friend, Mr. Smith,
I welcome this conversation.
Good day, Mr. Smith.
- [Mr. Smith] Good day, Mr. Madison.
It's a pleasure to have you here.
It's a pleasure to have your mind here.
- It should be a pleasure, sir,
that after rendering my great oration,
it should still be a
pleasure to speak with me.
- [Mr. Smith] Nay, it
was only 11 minutes long.
- Was it 11 minutes long?
- [Mr. Smith] You haven't
heard Mr. Henry speak lately,
have you?
- Oh, I thank God for that.
- [Mr Smith] We have a question, sir,
regarding the form of this government.
The question is from Miss
Ann Stoltz of Chesapeake,
and she being a woman and being disallowed
from the conversation that is
being had behind closed doors
has some fear.
And her fear is that perhaps what has,
what is being held behind closed doors
is the presentation of another monarchy.
Can you talk to us about
what's going on in that room
and what has been discussed
about the form of this government?
- A very good question, Miss
Stoltz, and I thank you for it.
And no doubt you are not the sole citizen
across this country who
wonders upon such regard
what this grand scheme in Philadelphia is
at this present moment.
Indeed, when we arrived
in the spring of 1787,
there was great anticipation
that the body of men
were solely tasked
with rendering the Articles
of Confederation proper to,
in a word, amend that document.
When I arrived in Philadelphia,
I had already decided that
would not be the case.
After a labor of spending
the better part of a year
reading systems of ancient government,
it was rendered that
there is far more danger
in slowly granting powers
in government over time
than giving enough power at its genesis.
Now, when I arrived in Philadelphia,
there was no quorum yet.
Meaning, to wit, enough
delegates had not yet arrived.
And indeed, even when we
commenced at a quorum,
the delegation to Georgia
had still not yet arrived.
Rhode Island would inevitably,
and is likely inevitably
to not send any delegates.
Which is fine, because with
55 gentlemen in the room,
we likely had the whole
population of Rhode Island
to begin with.
That is no offense to
any who may be watching
in Rhode Island.
But upon that, the great question is
what system of government
have we been building?
Now, of course, in a term,
the Articles of Confederation warranted
a federal system of government.
Federal meaning, to wit,
a collection of republics
united together, formed
by some legislative body,
restricted in its powers,
but ultimately subordinate
to its state legislatures.
A federal system of government.
I will say, to ease whatever
worries might be rendered
amongst the ladies of America,
the system of government that is proposed
is one of a national government.
Now upon that, we still operate
in the moats of federalism
whereby the state
legislatures are reserved
of their various powers and authorities.
But what we endeavor to do at present
is with a single writ document,
create a supreme law of the land.
A supreme law by which the
states shall be subordinate to,
but limited in its power.
This federal system of government
will be supreme in its powers,
yet still derivative and limited.
It will be limited
because only which is expressly
writ in the Constitution,
the various powers of our lower houses,
higher houses, executive, and judiciary,
in whatever forms they
inevitably come into
will be simultaneously supreme
and restricted in its powers,
while respecting all other powers
to be reserved to the states.
Now, there is equally a great question
as to why a body of some 55 white men
should make a decision
for the whole of America.
There is validity in this question.
In many regards it contradicts
the very note of democracy,
and make no mistake, Miss Stoltz,
over the course of the deliberations
there have been a great many gentlemen
who do not wish to see
the shores of America
peppered with democracy.
Now I am not one so bold as to say this.
Democracy, make no mistake,
is a problematic form of government.
I have often written
if every citizen of
Athens were a Socrates,
it still would be a mob.
But regardless of the republican forms
of government crafted,
we must utilize democracy in all exercise
to ensure that our system of government
rests solely upon the
foundation of the people.
How that is being done
is through a series of
checks and balances.
But I might say first and foremost,
as someone wiser than
I might one day render,
when put forward, whether
we are giving a monarchy
or a republic, I can say with confidence
that we are giving a
republic, if you can keep it.
And we find a great diversity
over the course of the
American suffrage laws.
We see various states put forward
by which there are no provisions
against property for the vote.
We see in the province of New Jersey,
the vote not withheld to the female.
But upon that, when we put to
our words in our Constitution,
"We, the people," the
question must be asked,
who are the people?
And so though this
government will be written
by some 55 men, you may rest with assurity
it will not be ratified by the same,
but rather instead by a
careful, deliberate people
to decide if it should
be their government.
And I thank you for the
question, Miss Stokes.
- [Mr. Smith] Thank you, Mr. Madison.
We, as we are already in discussion
about state's form of government
and a federal form of government,
Pat Brown would like to know
what are your thoughts on
the Articles of Confederation
as they stand, perhaps opposed to
or in conjunction with the Constitution?
- A very good question.
I should say, first and foremost,
that no discredit is due to the authors
of the Articles of Confederation.
They were written in a crucible of war,
written in York, Pennsylvania, in 1777,
by a Congress who was
consistently fleeing the British.
To answer in brief, the great dilemma
with the Articles of Confederation
is that they have no power
to tax the states directly,
and no power to provide
for a common defense,
and in short, no sanction
that ensures a unity
of the people.
No measure by which the
states can be correlated
and corralled together.
So upon that, some greater
sanction is necessary,
be it of law or of blood.
Additionally, under the
Articles of Confederation,
there is only one branch of government,
one branch conducting the work
of executive, legislative, and judiciary.
Now philosophy teaches
this is problematic.
Wherever the power in
government lies with one branch,
there can be only tyranny.
And so instead, an extension
of the sphere is necessary.
Not only a separation of powers,
but equally a separation of functions.
In sum, a system of checks and balances.
And it is my sincere hope
that this new Constitution,
once it is finished, it will provide
those various separations of powers.
I thank you for the question.
- [Mr. Smith] Mr. Madison,
we have a question from Gary,
and I know that you
have had the opportunity
to write on a constitution before,
to be a part of a constitution before.
Speaking specifically of your
home country of Virginia.
And not just a constitution,
but a bill of rights as well.
And Gary wants to know about a gentleman
who was on that project with you.
His name is George Mason.
Gary wonders, what is
your opinion of Mason,
specifically his take on constitutions?
- Well, I thank you for
the question, Master Gary.
And I should say you're equally fortunate
to ask me regarding George
Mason rather than George Mason.
Because I might give
you a more candid answer
to his brilliance.
Colonel Mason is a notoriously modest
and less social man than me.
You're entirely correct.
In 1776, the Virginia
Declaration of Rights
and Virginia Constitution
were crafted in committee.
Crafted predominantly
by men like George Mason
and Thomas Ludwell Lee.
Now we are fortunate at this
Constitutional Convention
to have several of those
same framers within the room,
writing our federal Constitution.
Edmund Randolph, a
child of the Revolution,
sat there with me in Williamsburg in 1776,
along with George Mason,
also attending the
Constitutional Convention.
Now in 1776, true history was made
because before a single
power was enumerated
in our new Virginian government,
before a single statute was revised,
a bill of rights was crafted for Virginia.
The system of government would not begin
with a power in government,
but rather instead with what
liberties might be owed.
Now, Mr. Mason is a
brilliantly self-taught man.
Self-taught upon the
principles of John Locke,
Algernon Sidney, the great
republic of philosophers
that through this enlightened age,
we are able to absorb.
Now upon that, Mr. Mason is
not the only one to borrow
from Mr. Locke.
Should any of you have picked
up a newspaper in 1776.
It was John Locke who spoke
of those natural rights
of life, liberty, and
you guessed it, property.
Mr. Jefferson would of
course improve upon that
with the pursuit of happiness.
But these various principles
do not belong to one mind.
Government is not the work of one mind,
but rather many heads and many hands.
So upon that these various principles,
the same principles for
which I spoke of earlier
with Montesquieu, all influence our mind
into a system of free government.
I've had some disagreements
with George Mason of late,
particularly regarding the
necessity of a bill of rights
upon a federal level.
But I think that, well, a
question for another time.
- [Mr. Smith] Speaking of
another time, Mr. Madison,
and I hate to continue to
hound you upon your opinions
of men of your time,
but this might be a bit
of a forward reflection,
but just bear with me here.
There's a gentleman by the
name of Alexander Hamilton.
And Dick would like to know
if you could ever foresee yourself
perhaps riding alongside Mr. Hamilton.
Oh, I, yes, I suspect I could.
I did just yesterday.
Now, Mr. Hamilton, the
gentleman of New York
has, of course, an
illustrious political career,
but more than that,
one of the most brilliant political minds
and embodying in every instance
one of the greatest virtues of America,
that it matters not your
parentage or where you were born,
the quality of your blood,
but solely instead the
courage of your heart
and the brilliance of your mind.
Mr. Hamilton received
great fame, of course,
at the Battle of Yorktown.
The seizure of Redoubts 9 and
10 with the French forces.
But I first met the worthy gentlemen
in our mutual time at Congress.
And Mr. Hamilton and I
striking a great alliance
in the firm belief that a, well, a greater
and more powerful national
government was necessary.
And Mr. Hamilton has found
some great frustration
at the Constitutional Convention
because the delegation of New York,
so jealous of their power,
has ensured that their
votes would be split.
At this present moment in the proceedings,
much like all matters in politics are,
we vote as one state.
And meaning to wit with each
resolution that is put forward,
the delegation comprised
of five or six individuals
should inevitably vote
as one voice, una voce.
Regardless of Mr. Hamilton's
prowess as an orator,
the brilliance of his mind,
he has consistently
found himself frustrated
as New York ensures the votes are tied.
I will say Mr. Hamilton conducted
one of the most brilliant
political maneuvers
that I have ever witnessed in my life.
And though he is a New
Yorker and I am a Virginian,
I will hesitantly admit that.
Now earlier this summer two
rival plans of government
were put forward.
The Virginia plan authored
predominantly by me,
and a New Jersey plan.
And the New Jersey plan
offered forward an amendment
to the Articles of Confederation.
Again, a single branch
government in every regard,
a mirror to the previous system.
We debated contentiously
amidst the heat of summer,
the windows nailed shut,
until an afternoon in June
where Mr. Hamilton set
forward with the floor.
He would eventually speak for six hours
upon his ideal system of government
when analyzing both of those plans.
He spoke about an executive
which would serve for life.
He spoke of a financial system
that mirrored great Britain's exactly.
He spoke in every instance
of tyranny, privilege, and monarchy.
For six hours.
The following day the
Virginia plan was adopted.
Now, some might wonder whether Hamilton
was speaking in earnest.
Others might assume, in every instance,
it was merely a brilliant
ploy of politics,
a sortie by which the
freer of the two plans
might be put forward.
And in that estimation I
should ever believe the latter.
And I will say with confidence,
there is no way I can foresee me
and Mr. Hamilton's friendship
ever falling apart.
- [Mr. Smith] You have
a beautiful, bright view
of the future, sir.
- I thank you, sir.
I just don't see it happening.
- [Mr. Smith] No, no, how could it?
- How could it?
- [Mr. Smith.] Absolutely.
- Absolutely.
Additional questions?
- [Mr. Smith] Very good.
Gina would like to know
since you're already
speaking of collaboration
with the Constitution,
Gina would like to know
what did that collaboration look like?
What other voices were involved
in the drafting of this thing?
- Yeah, I thank you for
the question, Miss Gina.
There are some already
who have referred to it
as an assembly of demigods,
the most prolific of political
minds this age has witnessed.
And make no mistake, we are men.
I have often written if men were angels,
no government would be necessary.
And what is government,
if not the purest
reflection of human nature?
And so upon that, we find minds
who wish to see a stronger
national government.
Men like James Wilson of Pennsylvania.
Men like Edmund Randolph,
George Mason, myself,
Alexander Hamilton.
We see a delegation of careful men
whose experience is honored,
even if their suggestions are not.
I speak of course of Benjamin Franklin,
the oldest of that assembly.
We see veterans of the late war,
General Pinckney of South Carolina.
We see conservative men
who at every instance
wish to see their wealth preserved
and mankind disenfranchised.
Now, out of honor, I'm
reticent to name them.
But a particular gentlemen
of South Carolina
by the name of Rutledge has
said time and time again,
he should not adopt any constitution
that does not guarantee
the institution of slavery
and the disenfranchisement
of blacks ad infinitum
should he see a constitution adopted.
We are made, Miss Gina, of
a multiplicity of factions.
We are southerners, planters,
in league with farmers,
merchants, bankers, soldiers.
Throughout the history of the world
we see various factions
move against one another.
But upon that, I will
say with full estimation
and with full hope, there
was not a group of men
charged with so great a task
who are more pure in their intentions.
There are some already who would label me
the father of this would-be document.
And I am, I find any credit to that
discredits the work of committee
and to the very nature of democracy.
Many can do much more than one.
And monuments to many should
ever be worth so much more
than monuments to one.
I thank you for the question, Miss Gina.
- [Mr. Smith] Mr. Madison,
we have a question
because you are on the topic already
mentioning South Carolina and Mr. Rutledge
and the abhorrent practice of slavery.
Mandy would like to know
that if the government
is the work of many hands and many minds,
do you believe that
the opinions of all men
should be included in
this new Constitution?
- A very good question, Miss Mandy.
And I should say once more
we are built by factions,
factions of diverse opinion.
We've seen the mere distinction of color
made in this most enlightened
age, the justification
for the most oppressive
dominion of man over man.
Now upon that in suggesting and rendering
the opinions of all men into one document,
we must put forward
first, the complication
that a republican system of
government does not foster
full notions of democracy,
but rather the filtration of democracy.
To put it in greater terms.
Each of these gentlemen were appointed
by their various state legislatures
rendered with instructions.
In that mechanism, there
is some metric of democracy
since those various representatives
were elected by the people at large.
And yet still, we do not find the voice
of all mankind in it.
We might say upon this,
that the Constitution
will be ratified by the people.
And yet still when those people move
to move and vote upon it,
that voice will still not be all people.
So how then can a system of government
whereby many are disenfranchised
incorporate a voice of all people?
Now upon that, that is the
very notion of representation.
That is the very government in
which we aim to put forward.
Whereby whichever voice is
missing from this table,
the responsibility of
those whom have a voice
is to put forward the voiceless.
Should it eventually
be in this conversation
where all Americans can be incorporated?
I will speak in candor and
say, not at the beginning, no.
But perhaps one day.
If a people advocate for
those who have no voice.
If, in every instance, a
majority can be stopped
from encroaching on the
rights of a minority,
then slowly over the scope of time,
a system of government can slowly include
the voices of all men.
But it's not done in the
work of committee chambers
or great halls of government.
It is done in the streets.
It is done through the press.
It is done through determination.
And it is done through the
consistent practice of liberties,
not just for yourself,
but for all mankind.
I should say upon that, I
should be a little better.
My family owning some over 100 people
over the course of our life,
the institution of slavery
has been a practice I have
sat uncomfortable with,
but participated and profited from.
I thank you for the question.
- [Mr. Smith] Thank you for
your honesty, Mr. Madison.
It sounds to me like
what you're suggesting
is that men in power
should vote on behalf,
not just of their selves,
but of people not currently
in seats of power.
- What a very novel concept, Mr. Smith.
And yet we see over the
course of human history
that has not been the case.
Men of government have,
seek to their appointments
for three reasons, ambition,
agenda, public good.
Public good being the least frequented.
We might expect with this Constitution,
to first elect enlightened statesmen,
but enlightened statesmen will
not always be at the helm.
This, in every instance, shows
the necessity for a people
to be enlightened, awakened and united.
At every instance, to
keep the men of government
their magistrates and their trustees.
I beg your pardon.
That was not a question by
your part, but a comment.
But all the same, one that I find hope in.
- [Mr. Smith] Mr. Madison,
you need not apologize
for issuing your mind upon us.
We thank you for it.
Speaking of politicking
and men who sit in seats
in halls of power, we
have a few questions.
One specifically about parties, factions.
Do you feel that they might
benefit national interests
or further subjugate man?
- A fascinating question.
When we, when we look to human history,
we have seen both move forward.
What was the distinction
of a Tory versus Patriot
if not a distinction of party?
What were the ancient wars
between the Hanoverians
and Jacobites, if not a
distinction of a party?
What were the ancient battles of politics
between Whig and Tory
where the spirit of party
at every instance has excelled
beyond the spirit of government?
Now we might say there is no greater evil
than a system of government
than that of faction.
The problem that exists
is that there is no cure
that is worse than the disease.
For sure as man's mind is made free,
for sure as conscience remains
man's greatest property,
man will find a unity
amongst the fellow man
who shares their opinion,
who shares their conscience.
In every instance, philosophy has taught
that man will not live happily with those
who have opposite views of him.
And so from that natural factions
in a system of government
are an inevitability.
This has led certain philosophers to say
that republics should be homogenous,
that everyone should be the same
fixed by one occupation,
one religion, one belief.
This is a fallacy.
It is this spirit which
has seen in every instance
the few punished by the many.
And philosophers over the
course of all human history,
endeavoring to solve.
Now, David Hume said something
far more fascinating.
He said, "Rather extend the
sphere, encourage diversity,
"a multiplicity of factions
to ensure, in every instance,
"all might be protected."
Now this is natural faction.
What of artificial faction?
Political party?
Well, from that, that
exists for one prime reason.
To make one party a check to another.
To ensure at every instance
that opinion might be forwarded,
but that those men of government
do not overleap the great barrier
to the rights of the people.
And upon that, what
does the common American
have a need for artificial faction
when already we find
ourselves so multiplied
by the common distinctions
which unite and separate us?
Any government that would
seek to divide a people
based upon an artificial notion of faction
does so solely to keep a people divided,
and thus easier to maintain and regulate.
A people at every instance
must regulate their government.
Not the other way around,
upon the purposes of destroying liberty.
I thank you for the question.
- [Mr. Smith] Mr. Madison,
that question was from Stan.
I believe I neglected his name,
but we thank you, Stan, for that question.
And this next question is from Tracy.
And she's wondering about the
recording of these sessions.
She asks are these sessions recorded?
And I can only assume that
Tracy is talking about
the sessions at the Congress,
at the Convention rather?
- Oh, I see, I see, a very good question.
Well, yes, but that's
not exactly a good thing.
Now you see, when we
adopted our rules of order,
it was decided the
deliberations of this Convention
would be secret.
Would there be a daily record of them?
And upon that, several of
those notes and recordings
found their way outside of Freedom Hall.
You can imagine the scandal this caused
when General Washington,
presiding officer of that Convention,
the next morning placed
the notes that he found
upon the table, asking any
gentlemen to step forward
and claim them.
To no great surprise, no one did.
And we have been much more
frugal with our notes since.
Now that being said, there has
been a particular curiosity
that I have held over the
course of these deliberations.
Now, as I said, at the beginning,
we have seen where governments die.
So rarely have we seen
where they are born.
In such regard, the
genesis of such structures
and scriptures of government.
And so upon that, it has been my hope
to record the various
proceedings at the debates.
What has been recorded?
What has been said?
And the gentlemen happily
agreed to this mechanism
provided that it not be
published until all of them die.
So I have to outlive all of them.
Now I have a short hand of the
seven languages that I speak.
Whichever word is the shortest
in that particular language
is the one that I use.
I have a small and comfortable place
at the front of Independence Hall
whereby I might listen
with ease and access
to the various debates.
And then the labor of my evenings
is spent transcribing
those various things.
Now you might ask upon that, why?
Why this curiosity, and why this labor?
So that should America endure,
and it is my sanguine hope it will endure.
At every instance, the
future might revisit
these various debates.
And from that find not only a comfort
that government is never in
every instance a fait accompli,
always conflict, but in every instance
the past will have more
answers in such regard
than those same problems.
That has been my project as of late,
but the only measurement by
which these various things
have been recorded.
I thank you.
- [Mr. Smith] Sir, we only
have a few minutes left.
- Oh, very good.
- [Mr. Smith] But we have so
many questions from folks.
I should warn you,
some of them might be
quite far into the future.
Would you be all right with
stepping into the future
along with us?
- Well, I should see no opposition to it.
I should welcome, and
moreover should likely confide
to the whole of this, I'm
not really James Madison.
I know, take it in.
My name is Bryan Austin.
I play James Madison here
at Colonial Williamsburg.
I want to welcome you to another one
of these Facebook sessions on a topic
that is as important today
as it was several hundred years
ago, our U.S. Constitution.
Now with that said, let's
go into a rapid fire round
with the time that's left.
Let me have it, Mr. Smith.
- [Mr. Smith] Very good.
Since you're already
somewhat out of character,
we're going to do a, maybe
an out of character question.
Christian wants to know, Christian says,
"Let's assume you could travel maybe 100,
"200 years into the future
and could look back.
"What might you expect the
Constitution to evolve to?"
- That's a very, very
good question, Christian.
I don't know.
I really don't.
Now Madison, I think was
expecting in every instance,
the Constitution to be
followed very, very strictly.
And it's what eventually
caused the party politics
of the 1790s.
Madison was very guarded at inferring
what the Constitution could or couldn't do
because he didn't want it
to grow so much in power.
Now, Madison, even at the
Constitutional Convention
was talking about North and South
dividing against one another
and engaging in a bloody war.
It could be argued the U.S Constitution
was the first preventative
to stop a civil war.
So Madison, looking back, I think,
through the window of time
and seeing that happening
would be disheartening.
But the fact that we're still operating
under that same federal
Constitution, 27 amendments later,
that it has been able to
incorporate, to enfranchise,
to free a people.
And that, despite the various
tensions we face every day,
it still operates under
the frame of we, the people
sparking a national debate,
I think is something
that would astound any of
the founding generation.
That's a great question.
- [Mr. Smith] Anita, thank you,
this may be a question for James Madison.
- Oh, very good.
- [Mr. Smith] Anita would
like to know, Mr. Madison,
I understand that you and Dolley
are frequent visitors to Monticello.
Where did you first meet Mr. Jefferson?
And what was your impression
of your now dear friend?
- Oh, that's a very, very good question.
So Madison and Jefferson
meet here in Williamsburg.
They meet in 1776,
but their friendship is completely
solidified here in 1779.
Jefferson is, of course, the
second governor of Virginia.
Madison is one of his eight counselors.
He becomes his advisor.
Then he becomes his friend.
Then he becomes his collaborator.
And their relationship carries on
for the rest of really
both of their lives.
It's said by Paul Jennings,
who was Madison's enslaved man servant,
that no two brothers were as close
as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
It's a great question.
- [Mr. Smith] America's first bromance?
- You could call it that, I think.
- [Mr. Smith] Thank you, Bryan.
Mandy would like to know,
can you tell us about Madison's time
at the College of New Jersey
and why he chose to study there
as opposed to Williamsburg?
- I would love to.
This is great,
because there's a lot of
primary material on this.
So Madison was a very sickly young boy,
and equally he was a very
severe and serious student.
Now the College of William
and Mary in Jefferson's time
had the brilliant William,
Short or Small, Curt?
- [Curt] What's that?
- Was it William Small or William Short?
- [Curt] Oh, well they both existed,
but are you talking about Dr.
Small at William and Mary?
- The teacher at William and Mary.
- [Curt] Yeah, Dr. Small.
- Yeah, Curt's, no, not,
Jefferson's teacher,
not Curt's teacher,
sorry, didn't mean to break that illusion.
But from that he had left
William and Mary at that point.
And William and Mary had
developed somewhat of a reputation
of being a bit of a party school.
And so Madison's father wasn't
terribly happy to hear that.
Also this area,
Williamsburg, for any of you
who are local and have
stepped outside today,
it is hot.
It's, in the 18th century
was notoriously really bad
for your health.
And Madison being
hypochondriacal avoided that.
And so instead his tutor advised to go
to the College of New Jersey,
specifically because of
one man, John Witherspoon.
John Witherspoon was a signer
of the Declaration of Independence,
a prolific political mind.
And it's no wonder then,
that the majority of the signers,
or the College of New Jersey
had the most signers of the
Declaration of Independence
than any other American college.
And it's because of the
teachings of John Witherspoon.
And Madison was, in
every instance, soaked up
in that idea and spirit of liberty.
He spent what would have
been five years of study
and completed it in three
years, spending his third year
studying politics and theology
directly under John Witherspoon.
That's a great question.
- [Mr. Smith] Thank you.
Before we get to our final
question, we have one more
and it must go to a
seven-year-old named Harper.
And Harper wants to know
were you really the
smallest president to date?
- Harper, that's a great question.
So Madison was around
between five foot four
and five foot six.
It's not something they can agree on
because, unfortunately, he
never got measured in his time.
What was known was that
he was about 120 pounds.
So his wife Dolley famously called him
the Great Little Madison.
He was a very, very small
man, a very, very frail man.
And I think, when chalked up
to a lot of the other American presidents
who are over six feet tall,
I think Madison still
ranks as the smallest.
So I have to spend a lot
of my time slouching.
(Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison laughing)
- [Mr. Smith] That, that got me.
So our last question is an
amalgamation from several folks
who essentially have
asked the same question.
And I'll give them credit
where credit is due.
Ken would like to know,
would you be amazed
that the Constitution could have survived
for more than two centuries?
Would you equally be amazed
at how many amendments there are?
Coral and Christian also would like to ask
to what extent should men
interpret such a document
for modern problems?
So I think all of those
may be wrapped up into one
as what advice might you have
for a people, any people,
who are pursuing a system
of self-government for all?
- That's a great question.
We could engage in a debate
all day about what works
and what doesn't work
about the Constitution.
What's really incredible about it
is that it works so
long as you work at it.
Not just those in government,
but the citizenry of the United States.
When Madison died, he was the
last founder of his generation
to pass away.
And he wrote something down
that he put in an envelope
and wished to be opened
after he passed away.
It was a small, brief sentiment of hope
for a country that he'd
spent his entire life
trying to build.
And it's, "The easiest thing
that I can leave you with,
"which is the advice nearest to my heart
"and deepest in my convictions
"is that the union of the states
"be cherished and perpetuated,
"that the open enemy be
regarded as the Pandora
"with its box opened,
"and the secret one, the serpent,
"creeping with its deadly
wills into paradise."
At every instance, the
United States has seen
a great deal of strife, of turmoil
over the course of its relatively
short history as a nation.
But at every instance, the
thing that binds us together,
the thing that might persevere
beyond party or faction
or whatever division we can find,
is division's opposite,
which is union, unity.
Thankfully, we're able
to practice that here
at Colonial Williamsburg
and continue to tell all
of America's stories,
the good ones and the bad.
So stay tuned for future live feeds
that are coming your way.
Come visit us in the historic area
and never stop learning
from both myself and myself.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
These live feeds are thanks in part
to the many wonderful and generous
Colonial Williamsburg donors.
