0:03

Hello friends, I'm Jeffrey Rosen, President

0:05

and CEO of the National Constitution

0:07

Center, and welcome to We the

0:09

People, a weekly show of constitutional

0:11

debate. The National Constitution Center is

0:14

a nonpartisan nonprofit, chartered by Congress

0:16

to increase awareness and understanding of

0:18

the Constitution among the American people.

0:21

In the fall, historians Carol Birkin

0:23

and H.W. Brands joined me for

0:26

a great conversation about political partisanship

0:28

and nationalism in early America. We

0:31

looked at the election of 1800 and traced

0:33

the history of partisanship to today.

0:36

Enjoy the conversation. Hello

0:40

friends and welcome to the National

0:43

Constitution Center. I'm

0:45

Jeffrey Rosen, the President and CEO of

0:47

this wonderful institution. Let's inspire

0:49

ourselves as always for the discussion ahead

0:51

by reciting together the National Constitution

0:53

Center's mission statement. Here we go. The

0:56

National Constitution Center is the only

0:58

institution in America, chartered by Congress

1:00

to increase awareness and understanding of

1:02

the U.S. Constitution among the American

1:05

people on a nonpartisan

1:07

basis. It

1:09

is now such a pleasure to

1:12

convene two of America's greatest

1:14

historians to discuss the rise

1:17

and history of political parties in

1:19

the U.S. This is a crucial

1:21

question and both of them have

1:23

superb new books out that

1:26

cast great light on the topic and I can't wait to

1:28

share the discussion with you. Carol

1:30

Birkin is Presidential Professor of History,

1:32

Emerita of Baruch College and the

1:34

Graduate Center at the City University

1:36

of New York. She's

1:39

written so many wonderful books including

1:41

A Brilliant Solution, Revolutionary Mothers, The

1:43

Bill of Rights, and her most

1:45

recent book which we're here to

1:47

talk about today is A Sovereign

1:49

People, The Crisis of the 1790s

1:51

and the Birth of American Nationalism.

1:54

And H.W. Brands holds the Jack

1:56

S. Blanton Senior Chair in History at the

1:58

University of Texas. at Austin,

2:00

he is the author of acclaimed

2:02

and wonderful books,

2:04

including the first American, errors

2:07

of the founders, the

2:10

second generation of American giants and our

2:12

first civil war. And

2:14

his most recent book, which is about

2:16

to come out, and I just can't

2:18

wait to share with you, is founding

2:20

partisans, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams,

2:22

and the brawling birth of

2:24

American politics. Thank you

2:26

and welcome Carol Birkham and

2:29

Bill Browns. Bill, let's begin with you

2:31

because you begin at the beginning of

2:33

this story. You,

2:36

in your wonderful narrative history, you

2:38

trace the rise of partisanship and

2:41

political parties back to the

2:43

initial split between

2:45

Federalists and Anti-Federalists between

2:48

Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians that

2:50

arose in the conflict between

2:52

Hamilton and Jefferson during

2:55

the Revolutionary War. Tell

2:57

us about the broad fissures

2:59

between nationalism and states' rights,

3:01

agrarianism and urbanism that manifest

3:04

itself through the stories of

3:06

Hamilton and Jefferson during that early period. Sure,

3:09

Jeff, delighted to be here. It's

3:11

important to keep in mind the American Republic was

3:13

born amid a war and America's

3:16

first attempt at creating institutions of

3:18

state and national governments took place

3:20

amid war. And so

3:22

there was this sort of external

3:24

force that was compelling Americans in

3:26

some ways to, well,

3:29

perhaps feed more authority to the central

3:31

government than they might have under

3:34

other circumstances. Because as

3:38

Benjamin Franklin said, if we're signing the

3:40

Declaration of Independence, we've got it, we all have

3:42

to hang together or we might be hung separately.

3:45

So the

3:48

states, first under the Continental

3:50

Congress, then under the Congress of the

3:52

Articles of Confederation, they were America's first

3:54

national government. And they sufficed, I

3:57

could say, but barely to win

3:59

independence. for the United States. And

4:01

a lot of this depended on the goodwill of

4:03

the states. But even then, it was

4:06

clear to certain people, Alexander Hamilton

4:08

and James Madison, foremost among them,

4:10

that this government, this

4:13

essentially a military alliance, wasn't working

4:15

well enough. There wasn't enough strength

4:17

at the center. So demands to

4:19

create what became the Constitution of

4:21

1787 originated as

4:24

early as 1780 or 1781 out of concern that

4:29

maybe we'll win the war as a result

4:31

of this, but then we have to deal

4:33

with the peace after that. And so this

4:35

question, the fundamental question, the first question that

4:37

gives rise to what would become the

4:39

partisan split is how much authority

4:41

do the states cede to a

4:43

central government? And the states were,

4:46

many people in the states were very jealous of

4:48

the rights of the states. They conceived themselves as

4:50

independent countries, as indeed they were. The

4:53

central government of the Articles of Confederation

4:55

had almost no coercive authority over the

4:57

states. But to people like Madison and

4:59

Hamilton, who had viewed the operation and

5:02

the failure of operation of Congress from

5:04

the inside, they said, this

5:06

will never allow this union to last.

5:08

So we have to create a stronger

5:10

central government. Again, there were those

5:12

people in the states that, no, no, no,

5:15

we don't want anything stronger. We'll just repeat

5:17

the problems of the government we had under

5:19

the British Crown. So that's where the split

5:21

originated. A stronger central government or

5:23

not. Looking to the center

5:25

or looking to the states. Wonderful.

5:30

Carol Birkin, what would

5:32

you add to that account of the initial

5:35

split between those who want a stronger central

5:37

government and those who didn't?

5:39

And maybe take us up

5:41

to the account

5:43

of Madison in the Federalist

5:46

Papers of factions, obviously, in creating the

5:48

Constitution. The

5:50

founders are afraid of faction. What was

5:52

a faction for Madison? And did he

5:55

expect the new government to have political

5:57

parties or not? Let's

6:00

start by talking a little bit about the

6:04

difference in experience that the

6:06

men who would become Federalists

6:08

and Federalist leaders had from

6:10

the men who were first

6:14

Anti-Federalists and then Jeffersonians.

6:17

And the differences were striking.

6:20

Many of the Federalist leaders

6:22

like Hamilton and Patterson and

6:24

others were not born in

6:28

what became the United States.

6:30

And so their loyalty did

6:33

not run as deeply

6:35

into the state as

6:38

so Patrick Henry's did or

6:41

Jefferson's did. There was a

6:43

big difference between those who, I'm

6:45

talking about the leadership now,

6:49

between those who had been born abroad

6:51

and those who had been born here.

6:53

There was also an enormous difference about

6:56

where they were educated. Those

6:58

who were educated in France like

7:00

John Jay or educated in England,

7:02

in the ends of court, so

7:04

many of them, the pink knees

7:07

in private schools, developed,

7:09

as many of us do the

7:11

first time we ever travel, a

7:13

kind of perspective on

7:16

the vision of their country

7:18

is really quite different. And they tended

7:20

to see the country as a whole

7:23

instead of their individual states.

7:26

And finally, among these people,

7:28

many of them had been officers

7:30

in the Continental Army. And

7:32

so they had traveled the length and breadth

7:35

of the United States, what

7:39

became the United States. And

7:41

they saw the similarities. So that

7:43

the parochialism or the

7:46

provincialism that you see in

7:48

the anti-federalists and to some

7:50

extent that you see in

7:52

the Jeffersonians was

7:54

not present in the leadership Of

7:58

the Federalist Party. I think

8:01

that's important to see because

8:03

while we say it, he

8:05

our G N N n

8:08

on. A political.

8:10

Ambitions saved. The

8:13

development of the two party system

8:15

to some extend it's really a

8:18

difference in our. Personal

8:21

history that brings some

8:23

of these men to

8:25

be a of Federalist.

8:27

And. Supporters of the strong

8:30

constitution. As opposed to those

8:32

who were opposed to since Patch

8:34

occasionally only left the junior once

8:37

in his was moved to Philadelphia,

8:39

didn't like it and came home

8:41

a man like Hamilton. That

8:44

had grown up in the West Indies,

8:46

had lived in New York, Ah, had

8:48

traveled with Washington in the Army, and

8:51

so they had a really very different.

8:54

Conception of what was

8:56

possible and and it

8:58

struck me very deeply

9:00

when when I. Started.

9:04

Looking at political parties?

9:06

Ah. Of thing

9:09

he image so. He.

9:11

Went from anti federalists. To Jeffersonian

9:13

on you have. It.

9:16

Is a little simplified the

9:18

to a going to send

9:20

it to the people who

9:22

saw the American Revolution of

9:24

the War when they said.

9:27

Ah, no taxation without representation.

9:29

What they meant was no

9:32

taxation without a. Local

9:37

representation. They only

9:40

wanted to be governed by

9:42

people who. Say

9:45

or their economic. Interests.

9:49

Earn. Their living in a similar way

9:51

to the average. Voter. Ah,

9:56

You. Could keep an eye on

9:58

your local assembly. See what it's

10:01

doing? Said that he couldn't become tyrannical.

10:03

Are corrupt. They did not think

10:05

that that meant for all America

10:07

it meant. Their state

10:10

And that. Concept.

10:12

Of. No. Taxation

10:14

without representation means

10:17

government, local citizens,

10:21

Stands: In contrast to the kind

10:23

of. Nation: Building

10:26

That A man like

10:28

Alexander Hamilton and dish

10:30

mean Hamilton and Madison.

10:32

That the time Hamilton

10:34

and Madison both saw

10:36

the possibilities of have

10:38

a. Strong.

10:40

Nation and certainly

10:42

Hamilton was. Above

10:45

anything else, a nation daughter

10:47

from the for the war.

10:51

Was woman he was. Writing letters

10:53

to friend saying okay this is my

10:55

since the how we can become competitive

10:57

with a England. A in

10:59

is a generation. And

11:01

he hamilton never had any

11:04

doubts about his ability to

11:06

solve all problems. He had

11:08

doubts about people who didn't

11:10

understand they should get in

11:12

to him. ah of but

11:15

he he already and vision

11:17

national expansion said of trade

11:19

and seat at the table

11:21

with the great European powers

11:23

and so the contrast between.

11:25

These provincials. Ah,

11:28

N the who who held

11:30

the principles of the revolution

11:33

to be determined by people

11:35

who they knew who they

11:37

lived among and the people

11:39

who wanted to build a

11:41

nation is I think them

11:43

central theme of the seventeen.

11:46

a decent seventeen and it's.

11:49

So. Interesting! Thank you so

11:51

much for bringing together. The.

11:54

Influence of background as well as.

11:57

Ideology. On this fundamental splitting.

12:00

sum it up so well that the

12:02

clash between Federalist and Anti-Federalist Hamiltonians

12:05

and Jeffersonians includes splits

12:07

about provincialism versus national

12:10

power, strict construction

12:12

versus loose construction,

12:14

agrarianism versus urbanism,

12:17

Virginia versus New York, and all of

12:19

this is rooted not

12:21

just in Hamilton and Jefferson's personal

12:23

experience, but in the personal experience

12:25

of their followers as

12:28

well as their ideology. So Bill Brandt,

12:30

now that we've put on the table these

12:32

basic antithesis and set them up after the

12:34

war, which you do so well, help

12:36

us understand the evolution

12:38

from the time when Madison says in

12:41

the Federalist Papers the main goal of

12:43

the Constitution is to avoid factions or

12:45

class-based or ideology-based

12:47

politics to the period

12:49

very early in the Washington administration as you describe

12:52

it, where the

12:55

split between Hamiltonian Federalists and

12:57

Jeffersonian Republicans is beginning

12:59

to emerge. Madison's

13:02

a key figure here because

13:04

he is the driver of

13:07

the movement to create a new Constitution, which

13:10

is going to replace the Articles of

13:12

Confederation, this very loose central government, with

13:14

a much stronger, more coherent one. And

13:17

he is, of course, one of the writers of

13:19

the Federalist Papers along with Alexander Hamilton and John

13:21

Jay. So he really

13:23

isn't, as much as anybody else,

13:25

he is the creator of the Constitution. And

13:28

while he's arguing in favor of ratification of

13:30

the Constitution, of course, he's going to argue

13:32

that a new,

13:34

stronger central government will be a

13:37

good thing for American self-government. And

13:40

he does this, famously in Federalist 10,

13:42

by arguing, by pointing out that factions

13:44

will exist in any political entity, and

13:47

the role for a government or

13:49

a Constitution, whoever's designing the system,

13:51

is to minimize the deleterious effects

13:53

of factions, because factions, the

13:56

term that they would use instead of parties, he, at

13:58

that point, would be a good thing. argument that

14:00

these are a negative influence on politics.

14:02

So how do we corral them? And

14:04

he says that in an extensive republic,

14:07

one that goes from South Carolina to

14:09

Massachusetts, it's easy to keep them under

14:11

control because no faction will be able

14:14

to gain a majority or strong influence

14:16

all across the nation. And maybe a

14:18

faction could gain control in New York

14:20

or Virginia or Massachusetts, but

14:22

it would be offset by other influences

14:24

elsewhere. So at that point, he's saying

14:27

very clearly, factions are a bad thing

14:30

and this new government will keep them

14:32

under control. Now he

14:34

wins the argument, the Federalists win the argument,

14:36

the Constitution takes effect. And

14:39

before too long, he's changing his

14:41

view because he's coming

14:44

to realize that well, in

14:46

competitive politics, especially

14:49

in political situations where

14:51

votes are either yes or no, where you

14:53

have a binary choice, it's one or the

14:55

other. It's not a multiple choice test, it's

14:57

basically a true or false. Political

15:01

expediency requires people,

15:03

encourages people to form alliances wherever they

15:05

can. And so people with different ideas

15:07

voted in favor of the Constitution just

15:10

as people with different ideas voted against

15:12

the Constitution for different reasons. Once

15:14

we get the government, then all of American politics

15:16

are based on this, you get 51% of the

15:19

vote and you win, you get 49% and you lose. So

15:22

there's nothing like proportional representation in American

15:24

politics in those days, which would allow

15:27

a minority to grow over time. And

15:30

so as Madison's

15:32

views begin to shift from

15:34

this really strong view

15:37

in favor of a stronger central government

15:39

to something more subtle, some of

15:42

this comes out of

15:44

the arguments during the ratification process

15:46

over a bill of rights. So

15:49

Madison, being the principal author as he

15:51

saw it of the Constitution, took

15:54

the typical author's attitude that every word is

15:56

perfect, don't touch a thing to, okay, well,

15:58

it's If this is

16:00

the only way we're going to get the Constitution passed, we

16:03

have to agree to have a Bill of Rights. We go,

16:05

okay, we'll do it. But

16:07

I'm going to write the Bill of Rights. And so

16:09

he does, and the Bill of Rights is added to

16:11

the Constitution, the first ten amendments. And

16:13

in doing this, he begins to realize

16:15

sort of the depth of suspicion of

16:18

this new central government. And

16:20

as he watches Hamilton

16:22

develop these very strong

16:25

programs of federal

16:27

authority, assumption of

16:29

debt, the creation of a

16:31

national bank, various other things that are

16:33

going to centralize control, then Madison starts

16:35

to think, I don't know, maybe we

16:38

went too far. Or at least maybe

16:40

I don't want to go as far as

16:42

Hamilton wants to go with this. And so

16:44

Madison basically shifts sides. He

16:47

was an arch-federalist, but

16:49

then he becomes eventually

16:51

Jefferson's principal lieutenant in

16:53

the anti-federalist Republican Party in the 1790s.

16:57

And this is, it's all about the

17:00

issues that emerge with the new government, but

17:02

it's still, it betrays its underlying

17:04

philosophy. If you are comfortable with a

17:06

strong central government, you're likely to be

17:08

a federalist. Now there are various things

17:10

we'll feed into why you are comfortable

17:12

with a strong central government. And if

17:15

you are less comfortable with that, and

17:17

if you are more comfortable keeping, as

17:19

Carol said, keeping power close to home

17:21

with those elected officials that you can

17:23

keep your eye on, then you're going

17:25

to lean toward the Republicans. So

17:29

interesting. Carol,

17:31

please do, you know, amplify and

17:34

help us understand that crucial period

17:36

around 1790, as

17:38

Bill said, the debate over the national bank, over

17:40

the assumption of state debt and the report on

17:43

public credit is one where briefly

17:45

Madison and Jefferson make a deal with

17:47

Hamilton in the famous room where it

17:49

happened to relocate the capital to the

17:51

Potomac in exchange for the presumption of

17:54

the debt. But soon after that open

17:56

partisan warfare breaks open, there are partisan

17:58

newspapers that each of them them start

18:00

up, Madison changes minds and start

18:02

defending parties. So help us understand

18:04

that period and what role

18:07

Madison shift had in the rise of political

18:09

parties. I think we should go back a

18:12

little earlier than that. I

18:14

don't think we should call them

18:16

Federalists until the 1790s.

18:19

They were Nationalists. They

18:21

were Nationalists and Madison

18:23

was a strong Nationalist

18:27

in part because of

18:30

the crisis that having

18:33

the Confederation had produced. I mean,

18:35

there were enemies all around them

18:38

around. I mean, there was good reason

18:40

to want to rethink 13

18:44

separate States acting separately because

18:48

the post-war economy was

18:50

in terrible shape because each state

18:53

passed tariffs and restrictions on trade.

18:55

So if you wanted to sell

18:57

something from Massachusetts to Virginia, you

18:59

had to go through different currencies.

19:01

It was just like Europe before

19:03

the common market. I mean, you

19:05

have to change money. And

19:08

so the economy was not booming. The

19:11

economy in terms of European imports

19:14

was not booming. And there was

19:17

Native Americans to the right of

19:19

them, Spanish to the south of

19:22

them, English to the north of

19:24

them. It was a

19:26

critical period. And this is what

19:30

more than anything else drove

19:32

people to the Constitutional Convention

19:34

because they thought maybe the

19:36

country would be taken over

19:38

piece by piece. And

19:40

they were not wrong because in fact,

19:42

on the eve of the Convention meeting,

19:45

the French minister to America is writing home

19:47

to the King, what part of the United

19:49

States would you like when it falls apart?

19:53

States were almost at war with one

19:55

another. I mean, there were issues that

19:58

led many people. Other

20:01

than just the abstract idea

20:04

of where should taxing power

20:06

lie, led many people

20:08

to be nationalists. And

20:12

it's interesting to look at Madison's career.

20:15

He is a chief nationalist. He

20:17

and Hamilton, in fact, at

20:20

one point Hamilton writes and he says, I

20:22

miss the cooperation

20:24

that Madison and I had.

20:26

We had a real working

20:29

synergy together. All

20:33

of a sudden Madison thinks

20:36

when the first report

20:38

on public credit comes out, he

20:41

says, hmm,

20:43

this is going to benefit the North

20:47

much more than my home

20:49

state of Virginia that

20:51

I love. And

20:53

I never intended for

20:56

the Yankee traders, as

20:59

in treating, not traders, to

21:03

dominate and take

21:05

over from Virginia, which after all

21:07

is the largest, most populous and

21:09

richest of the

21:11

states. And he becomes, he

21:15

finds his Virginia roots again.

21:18

And the reason this

21:20

is possible is because

21:22

the constitution has been

21:24

passed and it solves

21:26

many of the crises that the

21:29

government was about to face, had

21:33

been formed to face. I

21:35

mean, they get a uniform currency,

21:37

they get trade regulation, they get

21:40

domestic trade that is, you

21:42

can't set the tariff barrier

21:44

between Maryland and Virginia, who incidentally

21:46

had gunboats aimed at one

21:48

another on the Potomac to

21:51

make sure smuggling didn't take place.

21:53

All of that begins to be

21:55

solved. And then

21:57

when Hamilton goes further. With

22:00

his plans to build what is

22:02

basically an imperial

22:04

state that is a powerful state

22:08

Madison says hmm. I don't know

22:12

This is gonna hurt, Virginia This

22:14

is this is not what I wanted

22:17

and he he withdraws from

22:19

being a nationalist to being a localist

22:22

and the second thing I would like to

22:24

say is this

22:27

Image that people feared a powerful

22:30

central government that government wasn't

22:32

powerful I mean if

22:34

anything you can read

22:37

George Washington's two terms

22:40

as a Hard

22:45

Effort to try to

22:47

get people to even accept the

22:49

national government even though the Constitution

22:52

had been ratified you

22:54

know the the Congress passes

22:56

a tax on whiskey and Basically

22:59

people in West what became

23:01

West Virginia and people in

23:03

Pennsylvania go We don't care what

23:06

Congress says. We're not going to do that. I Mean,

23:09

this was not a government that you know

23:11

could bring out the

23:14

long arm of the bureaucracy they

23:16

were not especially

23:19

Powerful what was

23:22

worrisome to the people who were

23:24

forward-looking like Madison If they saw

23:26

the writing on the wall, they

23:29

saw that if the bank was Was

23:32

approved it certainly

23:34

wouldn't benefit seven planters They

23:36

saw that the report on public

23:39

credit was really something that would

23:41

favor northern Mercantile

23:44

activity and banking So

23:47

what they were worried about was what was

23:50

going to happen down the line Much

23:53

more than they were worried about

23:55

the immediate present of an overpowering

23:57

government. I don't I don't I

24:00

think certainly Washington

24:03

did not feel his government

24:05

was overpowering when the

24:07

whiskey rebellion was over and

24:09

it was finally put down. Hamilton

24:14

wanted to send the army in

24:16

immediately to crush the rebellion. And

24:19

Washington, who turns out to be a brilliant

24:22

administrator, says, I

24:26

don't know whether, you

24:28

know, that would look very good for

24:31

people who are afraid of

24:33

tyranny in the national government. Let's

24:36

try other things first. So they

24:38

try, you know, negotiations,

24:41

they try court cases,

24:43

and finally they send troops in. Washington

24:47

then issues a

24:49

statement saying, I apologize,

24:53

I overstepped my

24:56

limits because if

24:58

it was an emergency and Congress

25:00

wasn't in office, I'd

25:02

like the Senate, representing

25:04

the states, I'd like the Senate

25:07

to confirm that what I did

25:09

was all right. So

25:12

it's not as if they are yet

25:15

an overbearing state. And I

25:17

honestly, if you look at

25:19

Madison, you can see that

25:21

what he feared was

25:23

what Hamilton was laying down

25:25

for the future. And

25:28

this fight about states'

25:30

rights and national rights

25:32

is, I think, to a

25:35

great extent a fight about whether

25:37

agriculture or trade is

25:39

going to dominate the

25:41

country. Trade didn't dominate it

25:43

yet. I mean, agriculture, it's

25:46

not as if the farmers were

25:48

all trying to become merchants. But

25:51

he saw the future. He

25:55

was one of these men, Madison,

25:57

one of these hypochondriacs that he

25:59

was. and who thought he

26:01

wouldn't live until next week most of

26:03

the time, Madison

26:06

saw that what

26:09

Hamilton was laying down was the future.

26:12

And so I

26:14

don't think that the 1790s can

26:17

be wrote as a great conflict

26:19

between nationalism and provincialism. I

26:21

think it can be read as a

26:24

slow effort of the national

26:26

government to establish its

26:29

legitimacy. That's

26:31

what Washington was trying to

26:33

do. That's what Adams was

26:36

trying to do, to get

26:38

Americans to accept the legitimacy

26:41

of the central government. So

26:45

interesting and so powerful for

26:47

you. You used the first of your four examples,

26:49

the Whiskey Rebellion as an example

26:52

of that slow effort by the national government

26:54

to establish its legitimacy. And

26:56

your really interesting point about how Madison

26:59

changed his mind because of ultimately

27:01

the fight over whether agriculture or

27:03

trade would dominate is

27:06

crucial. Bill Granz,

27:09

help us understand concretely what happened

27:11

after the bank

27:13

bill passes.

27:15

Hamilton said that Madison had changed

27:18

his mind on the assumption and

27:20

he's upset that Madison is breaking

27:22

with him. Then

27:26

Jefferson and Hamilton start up the

27:29

National Gazette by Prineau as

27:32

an opposition paper and start publishing a

27:34

tax on Hamilton. Hamilton responds. How

27:38

does Madison justify his embrace of parties

27:40

in the National Gazette? And as

27:42

you think about this conflict, who is more

27:44

responsible for the rise of the parties? Hamilton

27:47

on the one hand or Madison and Jefferson

27:49

on the other? Well, in answer to

27:51

the last part of your question, they each pointed the finger

27:53

at the other. In fact, it's

27:55

been a long time before anybody

27:57

in the United States acknowledges the legitimacy of

27:59

the United States. of partisan activity on the

28:01

other side, they defend their own partisan

28:04

activity because this is necessary. We're right and

28:06

they're wrong. And it's really

28:09

going to be a lot before Americans

28:11

embrace the idea of the need for

28:13

a strong opposition party. I

28:15

want to bring up an issue that was crucial during

28:18

this period, but we

28:20

haven't really spoken directly to it yet. And that is

28:22

the influence of foreign affairs. Because

28:24

once you start to talk about my

28:26

group and your group, it

28:29

is tempting to say that we

28:31

are the real patriots. We're the

28:33

real Americans. And there's something wrong

28:35

with you. When war broke out

28:37

in the early 1790s between France and Britain, another war between

28:39

France and Britain, and

28:43

when Jefferson in particular, people of Jefferson's

28:46

persuasion, began to look favorably on

28:48

the French side in this because

28:50

they still had a fairly positive

28:52

view of the French Revolution, even

28:54

though they recognized it had gone to

28:57

some extent. And people on the other

28:59

side, Hamilton, most conspicuously, said, American

29:02

interests lie with Britain and

29:04

we ought to forge closer connection to

29:07

Britain. Then you have the possibility, and

29:09

the temptation becomes greater, to

29:11

say that those bad people on the other

29:13

side are going to sell us out to

29:15

a foreign country. And so when

29:19

Jefferson and Madison would talk about Hamilton

29:21

and his party as the Anglo-Mains, these

29:23

are the ones who are going to

29:26

invite King George back into America. I

29:28

mean, no, that was an exaggeration. But still,

29:31

the idea that, wait a minute, we fought this

29:33

war for independence against Britain, and now all of

29:36

a sudden you're saying we ought to mimic

29:38

Britain, we ought to join arms with

29:41

Britain against France. And on

29:43

the other hand, there were those, when Hamilton

29:45

is critiquing Jefferson in his view, you

29:48

think we're going to line up with

29:50

those crazies who beheaded their king and

29:52

who drove France to anarchy and mass

29:54

violence? So there is this element of

29:56

you're not simply of a

29:59

different political. political persuasion than

30:01

me. You are potentially a

30:03

traitor to the American cause.

30:05

And that really gives bite

30:07

to this. Now, as long

30:09

as Washington is president, this

30:11

stuff sort of keeps under

30:13

control because both Jefferson and

30:15

Hamilton are trying to persuade

30:17

Washington, but they recognize that

30:19

he's not going to buy

30:21

into any of this partisanship.

30:23

And Washington considers himself above

30:25

parties. Now, he did lean

30:27

toward Hamilton on several important

30:29

issues, but both

30:32

Hamilton and Jefferson, the

30:34

leaders of their opposing sides, as they

30:36

refer them from the part, they implore

30:39

Washington not to leave after one term

30:41

because they're afraid of how this is

30:43

really going to split the

30:45

country. And it's important to bear in

30:48

mind in all of this that the

30:50

constitution isn't yet half a

30:52

decade old in operation. And

30:55

they've seen the first American constitution,

30:57

the artist's confederation, it was junk before

30:59

it was five or six years old.

31:02

And so the biggest concern of all

31:04

these people is that the country not

31:06

follow art, even the Republicans, the ones

31:09

who are in favor of

31:12

leaving power with the state, they don't want

31:14

to see the United States break

31:16

up into 13 separate states. They

31:19

realize just as Carol pointed out, that

31:21

there are foreign countries that are circling

31:23

around would love to peel off one

31:26

or the other. But within that realm,

31:28

within the realm of the union, where

31:30

does the balance of power lie? Does

31:32

most of the, does the initiative lie

31:34

with the state? Does it lie

31:36

with the central government? And then you add this

31:38

foreign element, whose side are you on? Are you

31:41

going to marry us to

31:43

the British? Are we going to stay with

31:45

the French? Then it really sharpens this difference

31:47

of partisan opinion. So

31:50

interesting. You mentioned a crucial role of

31:52

foreign policy and Carol Birkin,

31:55

two of your examples have to

31:57

do with foreign policy, the crisis

31:59

involving Jeanette in

32:02

France and also over the Jay Treaty. Tell

32:05

us about Jeanette who I gather made

32:07

you laugh unexpectedly and what those two

32:09

foreign policy crises did to solidify the

32:11

growth of parties. Before

32:13

I do that, which I really want to do,

32:16

because it's rare that you end up laughing

32:19

when you're writing a book like this, I

32:22

want to say that we

32:24

have to look at, I don't

32:27

want to sound like a materialist, but

32:30

Hamilton did not especially

32:33

love the British. What

32:36

he loved was

32:38

increasing trade and

32:41

borrowing from British

32:45

investments in American

32:47

growth. And he thought

32:49

he could get those things. He

32:51

thought that the alliance with Britain

32:53

simply made more economic sense.

32:57

I mean, French wine was nice, but

33:00

that was not where the investments

33:03

in the Bank of the United States

33:06

were going to come that would help

33:08

entrepreneurs build the American

33:11

commercial success.

33:14

And so his attachment

33:16

to England had

33:19

more of a quality

33:22

of where can we

33:24

get the best deal than,

33:26

oh, I love British

33:29

royalty. And there was none of

33:31

that really in Hamilton. The

33:34

affection for France, I

33:37

have to say, was Jefferson's

33:39

neurosis. I mean,

33:43

he had seen the terror. You

33:46

know, Gouverneur Maris said, who had been

33:48

in France, he said, you

33:50

know, people's hands were being chopped off

33:52

right and left. If this

33:55

is not like the

33:57

American Revolution, this is

33:59

not. a sister revolution to

34:02

ours. This is an absolute,

34:04

it's going to become a tyranny. And

34:06

of course, Napoleon, you know, it's

34:09

not going to be a democracy. Jefferson

34:13

cloned to the

34:15

idea that the French Revolution

34:17

was a continuation of the

34:19

principles of the American Revolution

34:21

because, you know, rhetoric became

34:24

in his mind really important,

34:26

whereas reality, which was an

34:29

absolute raw power and violence

34:31

did not seem to move

34:33

him. Hamilton had a

34:35

calmer view. He said, you know, it's

34:38

good for business. It's good

34:40

for American business if we align

34:42

ourselves with Britain.

34:45

But to go to your

34:48

question about Jeanette, there

34:50

was a personal example of the fact

34:52

of the weakness of the federal government in

34:56

the early 1790s.

34:59

Jeanette comes

35:01

over as the

35:03

representative from France

35:05

before the Jacobins take over.

35:08

He's coming over from

35:10

a more moderate group. He's like 26 years

35:13

old. He's never

35:15

had any real experiences

35:18

in diplomats. He's

35:20

a showman. He arrives

35:22

in a ship that's flying

35:24

the French flag and the

35:26

American flag. And he says,

35:28

we supported you in the

35:31

American Revolution. Our blood and

35:33

your blood was shed together.

35:35

You know, he doesn't

35:37

come in quietly. He

35:39

does not present his credentials to

35:42

Washington. You

35:45

know, a foreign ambassador comes in.

35:48

Today we would expect them

35:50

to present it. Oh, no,

35:52

he goes to South Carolina

35:54

and he starts fundraising to

35:56

build ships, pride the tears

35:58

to fight. under the French flag

36:02

on their side against England. This

36:07

is an invasion of American

36:09

sovereignty. And that's how

36:11

Washington saw it. He said, either

36:15

there's a sovereign government

36:17

here, then Genet

36:19

sets up French courts in

36:22

New York and in Philadelphia and South

36:24

of French courts for

36:27

when these poverty is bringing

36:29

in talks of British

36:31

ships to decide what to do with

36:34

the ships. What

36:38

happened to American sovereignty? What happened to

36:41

American courts? What happened? Washington

36:44

sees very clearly

36:47

that he has to do something about

36:49

this because

36:51

otherwise South Carolina can have

36:53

its own foreign policy and Virginia can have

36:55

its own foreign policy and New York can

36:58

have its own foreign policy and

37:01

it will be chaos. Genet

37:04

meanwhile finally makes his way

37:06

from South Carolina up to

37:09

Philadelphia where the federal government

37:12

is. And he's greeted as

37:14

a hero and

37:16

he keeps stressing how French

37:19

blood and English blood have

37:21

been mingled in this war

37:24

for liberty, equality. I mean, he just

37:26

goes on and on and on and

37:28

the crowds eat it up. They

37:31

really do. He

37:33

then proceeds to send

37:35

these really hilarious

37:37

letters to

37:40

Washington that are bombastic

37:42

and filled with visions

37:44

of the unity

37:46

of the souls of Americans

37:49

and the fact and tells

37:51

Washington that he ought to fund

37:56

the privateers for support

37:59

France. Washington

38:01

says, you know, we

38:04

are neutral. I've just issued

38:06

a proclamation of neutrality and

38:09

Jeanette won't accept this.

38:12

He throws a temper tantrum and

38:14

he says, what

38:16

are you doing? Do you support the people

38:18

who are pressed through and

38:20

his letters are hysterical. They

38:23

really are. I just sat

38:25

and laughed at this flowery

38:27

language and finally Washington

38:30

says, you know, Hamilton wants

38:33

Jeanette driven out of the

38:35

country. Hamilton's,

38:38

Washington says, rights to

38:40

the French government family.

38:42

He builds a case against

38:44

Jeanette. Now

38:46

the Jacobins have taken over and

38:49

they want Jeanette

38:52

recalled so they can behead him. So

38:55

they can use him. They

38:57

see him as a traitor. And

38:59

then Washington does the loveliest

39:01

thing. This man has

39:04

been an aggravation, a thorn

39:06

in Washington side caused

39:08

so much trouble, caused so much

39:11

embarrassment. And

39:13

when Washington learns that

39:15

the French government is going to

39:17

arrest Jeanette, he grants

39:19

Jeanette amnesty and allows him to

39:21

remain in America. He moves to

39:24

New York. He marries governor Clinton's

39:26

daughter. He becomes a landowner in

39:28

upstate New York and you never

39:30

hear from him politically again. People

39:33

ask Washington, why did you do

39:35

this? And Washington, who

39:38

I have come to just so

39:40

admire before this

39:42

book, I thought he was, you

39:44

know, a secondary character, a figurehead.

39:47

What a fabulous man he says. When

39:50

he represented the French government,

39:52

he was a danger. As

39:55

a private citizen, he is

39:58

no problem at all. So

40:01

this episode with Janay

40:03

shows you the primary

40:06

thrust of Washington's administrations,

40:09

which is to establish

40:11

the legitimacy of

40:13

the central government over

40:17

diplomacy. And he

40:19

tells South Carolina, you

40:21

can't sign contracts with

40:24

a foreign power. No, no, no,

40:26

that's not allowed anymore. My

40:29

government, the executive is in charge

40:31

of setting clear in policy like

40:33

that. And he

40:36

achieves it. I mean, what is really

40:38

quite amazing is that

40:40

Washington, who is very patient, achieves

40:44

what he is trying to do, which is

40:48

building the sovereignty

40:50

and the authority and the

40:52

legitimacy of that central government.

40:56

And Janay, I

40:58

think Janay becomes a federalist in

41:00

the end. I mean, he's just,

41:02

he's, but as

41:04

a young man, you can

41:07

imagine Washington looking at this

41:09

26-year-old twerp, right, who's,

41:12

you know, all, what is the

41:14

Texas, all hat and no coddle

41:16

when it comes to really his

41:23

bombast. And when

41:26

he's no longer the representative of

41:28

France, Washington just feels bad for

41:30

him. Wow,

41:32

what a great story. And the fact that he

41:34

becomes a federalist in the end is a Hollywood

41:36

ending. Bill

41:39

Brands, your book ends with the revolution of

41:41

1800 and beyond. So we're

41:43

now ending the Washington administration. Take us

41:45

up through the Adams administration to that

41:48

crucial election of 1800. It

41:51

includes both conflicts over the

41:53

treaty with England as well as the Alien

41:55

and Sedition Acts, but what are the major

41:57

events and how do the parties? solidify

42:00

in the way that in 1800

42:02

we have our first contested partisan

42:04

presidential election when

42:07

washington retired after

42:09

the 1796 election it

42:12

basically took the lid off of

42:15

The emerging partisanship in politics and

42:17

the partisans began to act more

42:20

and more like partisans now partly

42:22

This was that there was no

42:24

longer this person that everybody

42:26

respected Sort of keeping

42:28

things under control, but also the

42:31

1796 election was the first presidential

42:33

election. It was contested. So washington

42:36

was voted in by

42:38

acclimation in 1789 and again in 1792 He

42:42

decides he's had enough. In fact, he's

42:44

been criticized enough by the jeffersonian press

42:47

that he said, okay enough of politics

42:49

i'm out of here and

42:51

so he leaves and The

42:54

1796 is the first election that is

42:56

really contested and the leaders of

42:58

the two sides are john adams the incumbent vice

43:00

president and thomas jefferson former

43:03

secretary of state and

43:05

this is all confused by

43:07

the original method for

43:09

choosing presidents where the electors all

43:11

had two votes and

43:15

Apparently the thinking on the part of some

43:18

of the framers of the constitution as to

43:20

how this would work was okay We've got

43:22

this national country where people in massachusetts don't

43:24

know people in south

43:27

carolina and And

43:29

we're never going to get A

43:31

vote in favor of a majority. So what

43:33

we do is we'll give everybody two ballots

43:36

And presumably one of the ballots will be

43:38

cast for the local Favorite

43:40

son and then the

43:42

second ballot will be somebody

43:44

who has national reputation so

43:47

this way everybody all the strong

43:50

Advocates of virginians and new yorkers and

43:52

pennsylvania and so they'll get to cast

43:54

a vote for their guy But

43:57

then who's your second choice and quite

43:59

likely? The second choice would be

44:01

the one who would become president. But

44:04

what it meant was, the way they arranged

44:06

it though, was that when the electoral votes

44:08

were counted, the first-place candidate,

44:10

if he had a majority of the

44:12

number of electors, he would become president.

44:15

And the runner-up, his principal rival,

44:17

would become vice president. Now,

44:20

it sort of makes sense if you

44:22

think, well, okay, America ought to get

44:24

its first choice as president and its

44:26

second choice as president in waiting in

44:28

case something happens to the president. But

44:31

it certainly made it difficult, indeed

44:33

impossible, for a president and a

44:35

vice president to work together. In

44:37

fact, they had every incentive to

44:40

work at cross-purposes. And

44:42

this became very clear

44:44

during Adams's presidency, when

44:46

the war between Britain

44:48

and France heated up to the

44:50

point where Adams persuades

44:52

Congress to fund an

44:55

undeclared war against France.

44:58

Now, there was just as

45:00

much reason for Americans to go to

45:02

war against Britain, because Britain's depredations on

45:04

American shipping were just as

45:06

bad as the French depredations. But

45:09

the Federalists, they inclined toward

45:11

the British and against the French, so that's the

45:13

way they're going to go. In

45:16

the process, the Federalists

45:18

take the position that criticism of

45:21

the Adams administration, criticism of the

45:23

government during this period of war

45:25

amounts to sedition. And

45:27

so they approved the Alien and Sedition Acts.

45:30

And the alien part of it is so

45:32

that foreigners can't come in

45:34

and meddle in American elections the way Edmund

45:36

Genet tried to do. I mean, not just

45:38

elections there, but in American affairs. Now,

45:43

the Sedition Acts says that

45:45

it is illegal to criticize

45:47

or bring into dishonor members

45:49

of the government. And

45:51

it appears on the face of it, it's

45:53

a clear violation of the First Amendment to

45:55

the Constitution. The question

45:57

then is, who will rein in?

46:00

the central government, the federal government, if

46:03

it oversteps its bounds. Now, from

46:05

the distance of the 21st century,

46:07

we have agreed, we Americans collectively

46:10

agreed, you take it to the

46:12

Supreme Court. But nobody knew

46:14

what the Supreme Court was supposed to do in the

46:16

1790s. What is it

46:18

supreme over? It's supreme

46:20

over the other federal courts, okay,

46:23

but does it have authority over

46:25

the states? Does it have authority

46:27

over the federal government? Can it

46:29

declare a federal law unconstitutional? This

46:32

had never been done and nobody knew if it could be done.

46:35

So Jefferson, the vice president of

46:37

the United States, feels

46:39

that on behalf of the rights of the

46:41

American people, he's got to take some action.

46:44

The government has clearly abridged the

46:46

Constitution. What do we do about this?

46:49

So Jefferson and Madison, working

46:52

largely in secret, they

46:54

draft what come to

46:56

be called Virginia and Kentucky results

46:58

or resolutions. And they outline

47:01

a method for the states to

47:03

rein in the federal government. And

47:06

it will give rise to the

47:08

doctrine of nullification. If the state, excuse

47:10

me, if the federal government passes a

47:13

law that a state finds obnoxious, then

47:15

the state will nullify the law. The

47:17

state will refuse to enforce the law

47:19

within its boundaries. Now this

47:22

turned out not to have

47:26

very negative effect at the moment,

47:28

but it did form the philosophical

47:30

basis for a further nullification crisis

47:32

in the 1830s and it would

47:34

become the basis finally for secession

47:37

in the 1860s. So

47:39

things had gotten pretty extreme here

47:41

and it's quite ironic that

47:44

Jefferson had been a federalist at the

47:47

time of the debate over

47:49

the Constitution. He wanted the Constitution to

47:51

take effect. James Madison had helped write

47:53

the Constitution, but he was especially sensitive

47:55

to abridgments of the First Amendment because

47:57

he was the author of the First

47:59

Amendment. And so he

48:02

is, they conspire to

48:04

undermine the government of

48:06

the United States on this crucial issue of

48:09

how will laws be enforced and who will reign

48:11

in the federal government if it oversteps.

48:15

So interesting. Carol, you offer the

48:17

illness edition crisis as

48:19

an example of the fact that although, as

48:21

Bill said, Jefferson and Madison are taking

48:24

strong states rights positions

48:26

that lead ultimately to nullification and secession, it

48:29

was the reaction to the Alienist Edition

48:31

Act that actually establishes and

48:33

extends national authority. Tell us about that story

48:35

and then take us up to the effects

48:38

of the state of parties in the election

48:40

of 1800 and beyond. Let

48:43

me start here. Much

48:49

is made about the, the

48:52

Alien Acts are very easy

48:54

to understand. The Jeffersonians were

48:57

mobilizing the German voting population

49:00

and the Irish radicals who

49:02

would come over, intellectual radicals,

49:05

who had in fact meddled

49:07

in foreign policy. And

49:10

in order to stop

49:12

this, one of the acts said that you

49:14

had to live in America 14 years before

49:17

you had the right to vote. And

49:19

this was a really

49:22

straightforward effort to

49:24

destroy this voting

49:27

bloc potential that

49:29

had been used in

49:32

Pennsylvania and in New York

49:34

and in other areas where

49:36

there was a German population

49:38

and the French,

49:41

the Irish intellectuals.

49:45

The Sedition Act, which is what

49:47

everyone talks about, you have

49:49

to take a look at what happened. I

49:51

did a very careful

49:54

count of all the sedition cases. First

49:56

of all, it was to end in

49:58

1800. It

50:01

was not permanent, to end in

50:03

1800, which

50:05

is sort of interesting since that's when

50:07

Jefferson took over the government. Of

50:12

all the cases, there were maybe

50:14

20 cases. Maybe

50:20

it's been less since I did this book, so

50:22

I might not have the number exactly right. Five

50:25

people ever went to jail, and

50:28

they were allowed five editors

50:30

of newspapers. They were

50:32

allowed to continue to edit their

50:34

newspapers while they were in jail.

50:37

That is, the Sedition

50:40

Act did not clamp a

50:42

lid on protests in America.

50:47

It was ineffectual in effect.

50:54

And what's interesting is the Federalists,

50:56

who really believed a Sedition Act

50:59

was important, believed

51:01

in the rule of law. So you

51:03

had to be arrested. You could get

51:05

out on bail. They had to

51:07

bring charges against you.

51:09

You had to have a jury trial.

51:12

And almost no one was convicted. And

51:16

the ones who were convicted were

51:18

told, okay, while you're in jail,

51:20

you can still edit your newspaper

51:24

or your magazine.

51:28

So it's not as if the

51:30

Sedition Act was really

51:32

a powerful statement

51:35

of a government oppression. John

51:38

Adams never, the Alien

51:41

Acts, never did anything.

51:43

He refused to enforce them. So

51:47

what's the phrase today? It was

51:49

a big nothing burger in a

51:51

sense, right? But

51:54

the Virginia and Kentucky

51:58

resolutions. not

52:00

only introduced the concept of

52:03

nullification, and Jefferson said, if

52:06

worse comes to worse, blood must be shed.

52:08

I mean, he was always ready to shed

52:10

somebody's blood, as long as

52:12

it was in his. But in

52:17

writing the two resolutions,

52:20

they acknowledged that

52:23

the Constitution was the law of

52:25

the land. And the

52:27

reason they had to write these was

52:30

to correct an abuse, they

52:33

believed, of the Constitution,

52:35

including the Bill of Rights. And

52:37

in that sense, both

52:40

sides wound up resolving,

52:43

finally, the anti-Federalist-Federalist

52:46

debate. Both

52:49

sides conceded that

52:51

the Constitution was the law

52:53

of the land. One

52:56

might find

52:59

one way to prevent its excesses,

53:02

the other might find another way,

53:05

but they both acknowledged the

53:07

legitimacy. And that, in

53:09

many ways, that

53:11

decision is the crowning moment

53:13

of American nationalism, not

53:16

the kind of nationalism today,

53:19

the kind of recognition that

53:22

there was a nation. This

53:26

becomes so

53:28

well established that I found

53:30

this very interesting. People

53:33

refer to these

53:35

United States of America,

53:39

not the Union, after the War

53:41

of 1812, they

53:43

began to call it the

53:45

United States of America. And

53:48

that is the final triumph of

53:51

a national identity, is

53:53

after the War of 1812. But

53:58

the Virginia and Kentucky resolution... both

54:03

introduced the snake

54:05

in the garden of nullification,

54:08

but they also acknowledged that

54:11

they were not attacking the

54:13

Constitution as the legitimate

54:15

source of the national government. So

54:19

it's a really, I

54:21

think, a striking turning

54:24

point in the rise of

54:26

a belief in

54:28

the national government. So

54:31

interesting. Time for concluding

54:33

thoughts in this marvelous discussion.

54:37

Bill, when you take

54:39

stock, as you did in your wonderful book, was

54:42

the rise of parties a

54:44

failure of vision on

54:47

the founding surprising the idea

54:49

of neutral adjudication that Madison laid

54:51

out in Federalist 10? Or

54:54

is there a more optimistic account that Madison

54:57

said that both factions and parties were

54:59

inevitable, that you could mitigate their effects, and

55:02

despite all the factiousness, there was

55:04

a steady growth of nationalism that

55:06

led to the Arab good feelings

55:08

and securely established the union with

55:11

parties rather than in spite of them? How

55:13

should we think about this crucial question?

55:16

As I suggested earlier, it took a long

55:18

time for Americans of either party to acknowledge

55:21

the importance of the opposition party.

55:25

But eventually Americans did. One of the

55:27

reasons that parties developed and became such

55:29

a sturdy influence in American politics was

55:31

precisely that the Constitution is so spare

55:33

in explaining how stuff is going to

55:36

take place. And so it says nothing

55:38

about how, for example, presidential candidates will

55:40

be nominated. And that became a major

55:43

deal in what parties do. It says

55:45

nothing about how Congress is going to

55:47

organize its affairs. So we organized Congress

55:49

by parties. So parties

55:51

have developed into these institutions. Madison

55:55

did acknowledge, yeah, it's probably inevitable.

56:00

have people who have different ideas. And they're

56:02

going to try to gather with people who

56:04

have similar ideas and try to win a

56:06

majority. So a party certainly

56:08

do seem to be inevitable. They seem to

56:11

be permanent in American politics. And one way

56:13

of looking at it, when we look at

56:15

the partisan politics we have today, is that,

56:18

oh, man, it's never going to go away

56:20

because it's been there since the beginning. On

56:22

the other hand, we've lived to it

56:24

that the country has thrived under the

56:27

parties, maybe despite the parties. But they're

56:29

part of American history. And

56:32

whether they were inevitable, quite possibly.

56:34

But they're part of what developed. And

56:37

if you want to blame problems

56:39

in America, you can't point at

56:41

the parties solely. You have to

56:44

look at the people who are involved in

56:46

parties. You can't say, if

56:48

we didn't have parties for five minutes,

56:50

we'd develop parties shortly thereafter, as long

56:52

as we have competitive politics. And that's

56:54

the thing. So parties are an indication

56:56

that the system of self-government

56:58

is working. There's a role for the

57:00

opposition. Wonderfully

57:03

said. Carol, last word in this great discussion.

57:06

To you, are parties inevitable or

57:08

not? And did the American experiment

57:12

succeed, at least initially, in spite of the

57:14

parties, or along with them? Well,

57:16

I have a different view on

57:18

why parties had to

57:20

develop. The original idea of

57:22

18th century men, who

57:25

were not professional politicians, but

57:28

were men of a certain social class

57:31

that believed with their obligation to serve

57:33

in government. They

57:36

thought that once you were

57:38

elected, each person should vote

57:40

his own individual judgment and

57:45

moral position. That

57:47

everyone was to vote

57:50

as they independently thought.

57:53

Well, if you did that, you'd never pass any law

57:55

at all. Unless

57:58

you could link the law. lower

58:00

house to the Senate, to

58:03

the executive in some fashion,

58:07

you would have 100 different views,

58:10

100 different percent, and no

58:13

bill could ever pass. So

58:15

in a sense, political parties operate

58:18

to make the government work.

58:22

That is, they operate so that a

58:25

block in the House can pass a

58:28

law and a block in the Senate

58:30

can approve it, and the president can

58:32

either veto it or support it and

58:35

administer it. And so

58:37

in a sense, political parties are

58:40

the gloom that hold these highly

58:42

disparate segments of the government together.

58:45

And the idea that you

58:47

vote your individual conscience is

58:51

very high-minded, but it doesn't

58:54

really work. And

58:58

I think that as long as we

59:00

have both the

59:02

division of power in federal government

59:04

and then the division of power

59:07

between the state and the federal

59:09

government, you really need political parties.

59:13

You really need political parties as a

59:15

powerful note of optimism, perhaps, to

59:17

end this great discussion on thank

59:20

you so much, Bill Brans and Carol

59:22

Birkin, for illuminating and teaching

59:24

us so much about this crucial

59:26

period in American history. Dear

59:29

friends who are watching, thank you so much

59:31

for taking an hour out of your day

59:33

to learn about American history, and please read

59:36

Bill Brans and Carol Birkin's books,

59:40

beginning with, but certainly not ending

59:42

with, their most recent ones, founding

59:44

partisans, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and

59:46

the sprawling birth of American politics

59:49

by Bill Brans and the sovereign

59:51

people of the races in the 1790s

59:53

and the birth of American nationalism by Carol Birkin. Bill

59:56

Brans, Carol Birkin, thank you so much for

59:58

joining. Today's

1:00:06

episode was produced by Taneya Tauber, Lana Ulrich,

1:00:08

and Bill Pollack. It was engineered by Kevin

1:00:10

Kilburn and Bill Pollack. Research

1:00:12

was provided by Samson Mastashari, Cooper

1:00:15

Smith, and Yara Dureza. We

1:00:18

the people, friends, thank you so much for

1:00:20

your notes about the pursuit of happiness. I

1:00:22

really appreciate your nice words about the book

1:00:24

and the podcast and would love to send

1:00:26

anyone a book that would like to have

1:00:28

one. Please email me

1:00:30

at jrosen at constitutioncenter.org. And

1:00:33

also, of course, please recommend the show to friends,

1:00:35

colleagues, or anyone anywhere who's eager for a

1:00:38

weekly dose of historical,

1:00:40

constitutional illumination and

1:00:42

debate, because that's what we have here

1:00:45

every week on We the People. Sign

1:00:47

up for the newsletter at constitutioncenter.org/connect. And

1:00:50

always remember that we're a private nonprofit. We have

1:00:52

a grand congressional mandate, but no

1:00:55

federal funds. And we rely on the

1:00:57

generosity of people from across the country

1:00:59

who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission

1:01:01

of constitutional education and debate. Support

1:01:04

the mission by becoming a

1:01:06

member at constitutioncenter.org/membership or

1:01:08

give a donation of any amount to support our work, including

1:01:11

the podcast at constitutioncenter.org forward

1:01:14

slash donate. On behalf of

1:01:16

the National Constitution Center, I'm Jeffrey Rosen.