[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]
