people come together, they associate with each other, they form compacts to create society and governments and that they appoint officials to serve their ends. the ideas are summarized very neatly in the second paragraph e of the declaration of independence, that all men lived once in a world where every manq was his own king and that the inconveniences of that world or the desire to protect people's rights in a more durable way brought people together to form governments, and governments are created to protect those rights, to serve the people's security and their interests, and ifir they -- a government failed to do that, it is the right of the people to reform them or toe replace them.hem. ..irst book, "from resistance to revolution, colonial radicals and the development of american opposition to britain" you write

that the colonists sought a british revolution, one that would reconstitute the british government with new rulesest rulers and a firmer establishment of basic rights and there by save not only america, but britain, too. >> well, their comprehension of the political situatio >> their comprehension of the situation was that the problem was not just there's. it corrupted the parliament, and absolute power. but the people at home in the british isles were also affected by this. i traced per the efforts have across the sea efforts, american

radicals, the bill of rights, to support the radical jobs bill. that correspondence existed was a surprise to me. when i first discovered it was when i was a graduate student writing a seminar paper and basically the book followed the dissertation from that discovery that was very interesting crossing the correspondent. >> who was john wilkes and why do you call him a radical? >> john wilkes was an opponent of the british government. he argued for greater political rights. he was worried about the corruption of parliament. he criticized the king for period of time over this.

and his struggle, parallel events happening in america at the same time. it was four times, elected by the freeholders of middlesex county and he was thrown out on the left and eventually they ceded his opponent. it would have been rousing. if americans were concerned about the fate of their assembly they would have reason to think the problem was not just there is. at one point a group of his supporters that the army fired on, it sounded like the boston massacre to americans. they sense a signatory of issues that they work together to get rid of the ministry and get into parliament. they could get to the root of the problem. >> host: colonial radicals and the development of american opposition to britain, 1765-1776," linda free governments were people nervous, spirited and ready to react

against unjust provocation. as such, popular insurrection could be interpreted as symptoms of a strong constitution even when they indicated lesser shortcomings in administration. >> guest: hard to tell. we need to remember. jealous is into something that you have. they were sensitive. they reacted. it somebody did the wrong they didn't just take it. they responded. they spoke up. >> host: can you give us a snapshot of america in 1775?

>> guest: it was a different place in 1775. it with a number of different places. we tend to think north to/south. this was the path to the civil war. it was a much more complex place and that. new england had a kind of common system of governments. a common religious tradition. within the new england states. is you go further south, new york, new jersey, delaware, pennsylvania, farming, a little further south you get maryland and virginia. very different place. now you have plantations rather than family farms producing tobacco. slaves, a larger slave force but

slaves were not unique to the south and chesapeake and a little further to the south you would have south carolina and georgia. i left out north carolina which is between the two. something like 40% of the population and virginia, a majority since then the girl turtle 1708 in south carolina but slavery was everywhere. not just in new england. the remarkable part of it was it wasn't much criticized. the real opposition to slavery came -- except for quakers who saw it was wrong earlier -- because it violated the principles that were expressed for example in the declaration of independence. i don't know if that is what you mean but there is no one picture of the united states in 1775 because there were so many

different united states. it is in the united states yet. they are the colonies and they have distinct cultures, distinct economies. >> host: >> host: with a similar political mood? >> guest: how could act together? they could act together because they have the same political assumptions and values and a common enemy. there is nothing like an enemy to pull diverse elements together. to the extent that britain had begun to try to tax the colonies although they were not represented in parliament and when the colonies resisted followed with other metrics, they pulled together. they understood that anyone colony was the interest of others and if we could get by destroying the assembly of new york because it had resisted --

refused to supply british troops and if they could do that in new york they could do it in any other colony. the colonies were so diverse they would never get together. >> host: in your 1997 book "american scripture: making the declaration of independence," you write in the decade or so after 1850 undiscovered the document the declaration of independence began to assume a quasi religious and tribute later institutionalized without a shadow of subtlety as enshrined in the laboratory of congress and more recently the national archives. i confess that i have long been and remain uncomfortable with the use of religious words and images for what after all are things of this world. at practice strikes me as idolatrous and also curiously at

odds with the values of the revolution. >> i don't know if i would write in such strong terms now. for a began that book thinking the decoration of the descendants -- i knew it from 1776. nine 2 from 9 studies of the revolution. it was a work a day documents for the continental congress. it was only when i wrote the book and wrote the final chapter to understand how vat became transformed by american culture that i really understood what was going on. it stated principles the

americans held dearly in the revolution but that was not stated clearly in any of the legal documents. the constitution does not say that all men are created equal. it doesn't have the declaration of rights that all men are borne equally free and the independent. they changed that slightly. jefferson took the words from the second paragraph of the declaration of independence largely from the virginia declaration of rights. but these ideas were common. they were expressed in many state declarations of rights. they appeared nowhere in the constitution and the first ten amendments that were ratified in december of 1791 nobody called those the bill of rights at the time. if you look at the whole panoply

of amendments that congress proposed in 1789 knew what understand why. the first two don't look like they're part of a declaration of rights. one had to do with a plan by which representation would be increased as population grew and the second was the twenty-seventh amendment papers for congress. americans who value those rights turned to the declaration. it became our bill of rights through the greater part of our history. >> host: you writing this book that the declaration of independence -- >> guest: a way of telling the american people what congress has done. the critical vote was on july 2nd. and the congress spent two days editing a draft declaration. we tend to date independence

july 4th because that is when the declaration was approved for dissemination by the second continental congress but the critical vote for independence was july 2nd. we should celebrate a anatomists the second of july with all kinds of festivities and that was an argument for john adams. kind of an accident. >> we didn't release it right away. they didn't release it until they edited it. in the second continental congress or early june, they debated it seriously and decided that although it is okay to have a majority that they really need to be manifest, if they delay

the vote that fought would be closer to unanimity, go out and fight the great military power in the world unless you have your ducks in line. there's a tremendous effort between june 10th at the beginning of july to try to get all the states in line. i should explain there are several states that instructed their delegates to congress that they could approve anything so long as it led to reconciliation with britain. they wanted to address the grievances and reconciliation but they wanted to remain british. they ended up accepting independence only because they thought they had no viable alternative and the news that the king had hired the chairman argued forcefully for execution.

>> host: you write in "american scripture: making the declaration of independence," pauline maier, that the continental congress did not send out the declaration of independence to the state's -- [talking over each other] >> host: until 1777. >> guest: we have various versions of the document. what they approved on july 4th, was the text. than they had it printed immediately. which people can see. it is printed in block letters. there is no signature except john hancock's name on the bottom and charles constant attesting to the signature of john hancock. he was president of the congress. these signatures on the block letters, it is printed. it is printed in block letters.

that was sent out broadly. it was brought to disseminated, it is possible to say that this is -- so that the people -- members of the army would know that they're called have changed dramatically. noaa they were fighting not for reconciliation of grievances but independence. that circulated largely domestically, and it was in prince, was ordered to get to the french court. congress doesn't do it, it was done by committee and they do it in the most like a difficult way, it was on one ship. if it is important, you put it in two ships. maybe you would like to translate it, i should think so. it got lost somewhere and was

intercepted. there was another one, and i present this to french court and didn't even send it, very seriously, congress really thought the declaration was a domestic audience. a familiar document to people broadside, new york did not vote yes on july 4th, and -- >> host: the only colony to -- >> guest: the only one that did not vote. week later, was not enthusiastic about this. we were up too which meant

congress could having gross. a copy of the book, the background of the book was such a familiar document to people now, inscribed tendency -- this was signed, and the unanimous declaration of the united states of america -- [talking over each other] >> guest: that is the one in the national archives. >> host: we are showing that on the screen. >> guest: they didn't distribute it. war was going poorly in 1776. in brooklyn heights, and in man hadn't, crosses the delaware. even as he says it looks like it

is all over. only after the victory in trenton, did they issue a copy of the signed declaration of independence, to the records. >> host: welcome to the monthly program in depth where we feature one author in his or her body of work. we are pleased to have with us an idea history professor pauline maier, author of four popular books and worked on a few textbooks of course. here are her four books. opposition to britain, 1765-1776," 1980 "the old revolutionaries: political lives in the age of samuel adams" which we will get into as well, "american scripture: making the declaration of independence" came out in 1998 and then her most recent book on the constitution because the "ratification: the people debate the constitution, 1787-1788" came out last year. what do you teach at mit?

>> guest: american history to 1865 and 90 johnny american revolution and i teach a course on right at strikes in american history and another class called american classics which of the good parts we should have read but probably haven't. >> host: with all this information, history being taught and memorization of dates, what is the best way to teach history? >> guest: we are trying to figure out the best way. we did not have this huge haul of people, small business people and we read the documents and we talk about them. students often remember what they think, not what they are

told. let's discover the past through the documents. this is the way i like to teach it. it is especially good for the humanities. >> host: 202-037-0001. if you like to participate in the conversation with pauline maier. for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zone. you can send an e-mail at booktv, booktv@c-span.org or send a two to twitter.com/booktv. you can send a question as well to professor maier. september 17th, 1787. why is that date important? >> guest: what some people call the philadelphia convention adjourned.

and told the country what it had been doing. [talking over each other] >> host: what did they do? >> guest: they were supposed to propose amendments to the articles of confederation which had been called and authorized. what they did instead was to write an entirely new type of government which is of course our federal constitution. >> host: if there's one person responsible for going amendments to articles to a brand new constitution who is that person? >> guest: the virginia delegation was the most important. included george washington. i am doubtful whether the convention would never have met. the fact that his name was on the virginia delegation, the convention was going to be an event of significance and that

encourage other states to send important delegations as well. george mason, one of the leading constitutionalist in the country who had ridden virginia's constitution and the state declaration of rights, the young james madison who we like to think of as the father of the constitution but god bless the man, he said the title was inappropriate. it was the work of many hands. it was a very impressive delegation. and and randolph, the governor. this was a group -- >> host: why was virginia so responsible? >> guest: fed is an extraordinarily good question. i suspect washington's presence had something to do with it. madison who had been in congress and understood firsthand how debilitated the government of

the united states was, was a very important figure. madison served his out and was back in the legislature although to congress again, this period of being -- couldn't serve any more. when that was over he went back again. he was probably one of the most forceful people but he couldn't have done it. he had the support of the government of virginia who is and and randolph and i think he probably had substantial support in the legislature as well. >> host: your book opens with september of 1787. where does it go from there? >> guest: the book itself starts -- i have a preludin where i look at the background because i couldn't just start with we have to figure out what to do with

the constitution. we have to figure out why there was a constitution, why people thought was important to do that and let do that through george washington, who had retired in mount vernon, i start with his getting notice of his election to the convention and his effort to get out of it. and how randolph and others decided he should go. this is my way of explaining the situation of the country and giving some idea about what people were thinking previous to convention but once washington found the torch and the convention happened there was a gap. the convention happened in the first chapter. want the convention adjourned, there was just a proposal and a proposal that the convention was

not authorized to produce. if that wasn't enough, told the country how it should ratify this unauthorized constitution. if it had been proposing amendments to the articles of confederation those amendments would have had to have congress's approval and the approval of all 50 states. the convention didn't even ask the congress to approve it. it submitted to. but said that the constitution should be submitted especially to specially elected conventions in the state's and when nine states approved ones into effect, what would happen to the other four? the reconstituted government left federal members behind. needless to say this was a shocking proposal but from that point on the congress look at it and said what are we supposed to

do? and they debated. we should fix it. and particularly from virginia and we had some obvious problems. we sent it out. what do you have in mind? he flew the list of changes too much. said they simply send it out and one by one over the next ten months to states did call conventions and they debated the constitution and decided whether or not they would ratify it. this was the equivalent of the first natural election. it didn't happen in one day. is more like a primary. where one state needs to vote and states had their own peculiar traditions. what are the iowa caucuses? could see people in south carolina saying what are they

doing? the convention was covered fully in the press throughout the country because it was very important. somebody in south carolina following an event in massachusetts knowing their future is tied up, nationalizing the event, it was profoundly exciting. it filled the newspapers. these conventions too where very different from the federal convention which was secret. they locked the door and didn't tell anyone and the delegates were told you can't see what is going on until we are done. convention was to act in the name of the people. you couldn't keep the people out. they were crushed to hear the debate. >> host: in the various states. it took two years?

>> guest: it did not. on june, 1788, at the time new hampshire voted, both virginia and new york were also meeting, virginia voted soon thereafter and new york, and july and one more convention, north carolina voted in july not to ratify but the first amendment to the constitution, when the constitution finally in september of 1788, the congress met the turtle confederation congress and declared the constitution ratified and set up procedures for the first federal election for the congress since the presidents of it took roughly year, four days or less. september of 1787 or 1788, at that point in north carolina and

rhode island they came in later. >> host: when did they start saying states rather than colonies? >> host: >> guest: 1786. the language is peculiar but the words united states appeared in the declaration of independence. >> host: this e-mail is from bob leapa, sports elevator from a newspaper. >> guest: politics with the first court. >> host: you compare it to the world series. could you please talk about the role of the press during the colonial period. how influential was the printed word and how widely read where the papers of that time? also could you give us your thoughts on benjamin franklin and the role he played in helping to establish the american press? >> the first one, in the media,

and in the medium that was impressed. it was the only communication for a mass audience. and the audience is relatively limited compared to what they are today that the press would be published within -- with a city or a town. the accounts were offering capitals as well although some were published in the interior and had a limited perimeter of circulation. sometimes there was a river they would go and expand the readership in that way. and get to a larger audience and your voice could carry. the problem and the surprise to us, how one side -- most of the

newspapers were published by those who want to the constitution ratified by federalists, they were in port cities and ports cities were profoundly a favorite of the constitution because they wanted stronger national policies to support american commerce and the economies would start to recover and get some business and they saw their future tied intimately to strengthening of a national government. the whole sea coast was difficult so those who saw problems with the constitution to get their ideas in circulation and i don't think they did it very successfully until october of 1787 and there were only a handful of newspapers that published substantial numbers for the

constitution. franklin, franklin's career was tied up with the fact that his brother had been a printer and in his biography he talks about what trade he should apprentice young ben and to and decides to apprentice him to his brother off to head the second newspaper published in the colonies. he was a good writer. he retired from active work in the 1740s. it was sort of like murdoch. he helped set up other places and had a stream of income from that. that is why he went into politics and did scientific work. his role for the constitution is not one as a printer. he was the oldest person at the federal convention.

calling on people to pull together even if they had doubts. is one greatest advice to his country men which we should all remember doubt a little of your in fallibility. >> host: you write that 12 of 90 newspapers and magazines were critical of the constitution during the ratification. do you know what the literacy rate in the state's work? >> it was reasonably high. i don't have figures. literacy was highest in new england from the beginning because people had to read the bible. they were talked to read from a very young age so we have substantial evidence of ordinary farmers who could read and also could write. it gets a lesser and if you are talking about the back sections

of the carolinas. but by and large there is substantial evidence that people were aware of the arguments that were being made. people read the constitution and they had fought on this. they had previous experience debating constitution's. they had staged -- new hampshire's case at an early state constitutions so people said -- the articles of confederation on this or that. they're quite capable of coming to a decision.

>> host: pauline maier is a history professor at mit and author of four books most recent of which is called "ratification: the people debate the constitution, 1787-1788". tim in palm desert, calif.. please go ahead. >> caller: this is tim johnson of palm desert. good afternoon. when we hear people argue for the 0 original meaning or or original intent of the constitution and it seems it is usually conservatives who make that argument almost invariably they seem to believe that the 0 original intent exactly matches their own interests. but as you note the authors of the constitution often did not share the same intent at all. so when might ask can we honor the intent of those that the founding who sought to establish a fair and just society, or are we simply stuck with the

original intent of slaveholders and other conservatives? that is my first question? >> host: we have to leave it there. pauline maier. >> guest: if you look at the literature on original isn't you understand it looks a little bit like medieval theology. it is my understanding people like and and and scalia talk about original understanding, not original intent. it doesn't count for anything if it is not in the words. he wants to understand what the words of the constitution meant. my sense of the original understanding and the broader sense is that the founders understood full well that in the world was going to change and the constitution had to be adapted to those changes. they even gave a mode of adjustment which is called the amendment process which is in article v. they had no idea they could

predict the future and had no idea that slavery was going to last forever. did not use the word slave in the constitution. they put a 20 year protection on the slave trade but after that they understood that it would in all likelihood be made illegal. they anticipated the end of slavery and anticipated there would be other changes that would be necessary along the way in order to make a constitution serve its basic ambition which was stability, freedom overtime. >> host: bob franklin e-mails when did the revolutionary war come to be known by that name? >> that is a good question. we debate the terms still. a revolutionary kind of war or a war for independence, people did

speak of the revolution. that is clear. they spoke of their political quest as a revolution because they were founding a republic which is a dramatically different form of government that when they had been under in the past. did a colony revolutionary war? i can't give an of 40 of answer to that because i haven't looked carefully at the terminology. >> host: joel davidson, good morning to you. >> caller: your opening snapshot of the united states 177511 dow north carolina. i had to bring that -- by asking you, what the declaration of independence really happened or

is it a fictitious -- >> guest: one version is fictional and one is accurate. >> host: what is the mecklenburg declaration? >> guest: a alisha company had passed resolutions which call for independence long before the united states did it. in fact they did take a radical stand simply declaring independence. >> host: what is the true version? >> guest: the true version is more of modest than what was alleged. >> host: was there any danger following september 17, '87 of some of the states becoming independent? >> guest: there was a possibly. road ivan did not coming until it was forced to by the threat of commercial coercion. maybe congress would pass laws

that set anybody would be subject to some severe punishment and would have to pay a revolutionary that right away and of course it is a tidy little place that couldn't solve the problem by dividing between connecticut and massachusetts. clear the road island thought better of taking on the risk. virginia, patrick henry took virginia as the largest stake in the union at the time. girl turned the territory and population it could not be an independent country. it was the california of its time. he seriously argued that the virginia didn't have to ratify right away. he did see why it could be an independent nation and others answered very quickly arguing

that the union was the union of trading and because it needed help from other places to defend itself. it had a slave population, didn't have sufficiently high militia to take on its own defense. the argument in this issue is an important part of the virginia debate. i don't think he wanted to stay out of the union forever. then there is new york. new york, the constitution had been ratified by the time knew york decided what it was going to do. a lot of it was arguably a majority, certainly a majority going into the convention thought that it should be rejected or not adopted a less certain changes were made before hand. there was a real problem with

states left out. think how strange the united states would look without new york or virginia. without rhode island it would have been less of an issue. >> host: who was patrick henry? >> guest: what thomas jefferson called the greatest orator who ever lived. a leading figure in and virginia. living in an age of oratory. they did not have microphones or voice enhancement systems. a speaker who could project, who could speak dramatically the purchase will could command great audiences. that is one reason why people were crowding into these conventions to see the performance of the greatest orators and thomas jefferson called him the greatest orator who ever lived. jefferson hated henry but politics were 180 degrees, and

later he told patrick henry's grandson and his grandfather was a mean-spirited person. >> host: what did he do for a living? >> guest: he was a lawyer. he also had a plantation but mostly he made his money by law and jefferson said he was not a very good lawyer either but obviously he was effective before the jury because he could speak. >> guest: is it fair to say -- >> host: in "american scripture: making the declaration of independence" you call him the most overrated founding father. >> guest: people have not beaten him by now. at that point he was sort of god. i never understood how much jefferson's education turned around a declaration of independence. it is the cornerstone of his education and many americans

basically assumed the declaration is like a piece of legislation written by jefferson, you and i would not be created equal, would not have certain inalienable rights etc.. that was the story -- much more complicated than that. >> host: can you call the draftsman and not the author? >> guest: if anyone the author of a public document like the declaration of independence? he did was drafted by committee appointed by congress. the committee said that is perfect. let's send it to congress with changes. the record does not support that. there was a letter to benjamin franklin who was on the committee and said i have shown this draft to the committee

which asked me to makes changes and i made them. now i am sending it to you. could you please read it and have it back by morning because i have to show it to the committee again. the committee he intervened. go back a step. when the committee first met its seemed likely that they discussed what the declaration would say and john adams divided it into articles. we would say basically outlined that. now you write it up. we have no support, the second account because nobody was interested until 50 years later and other people -- it makes sense to me. we have sat on committees. can you imagine being on a committee to write something where you walk into the room and sit down and say you write it,

now we are off to lunch, you would talk about it a little and the committee did. i am persuaded by john adams's account that this is what happened. jefferson never disputed that point. we have a committee that outlined and intervened with the text and asked jefferson to make some changes before approving it and send it to congress which after independence spend two days editing the document. jefferson was very uncomfortable when that was going on. his pride of authorship was injured by all of this. they took out huge chunks he was very clearly proud of. and produced the document we know and love. i think most modern readers will say that congress improved the text of the jefferson draft. i would call him a draftsman. he had a lot of help in the

committee. he had a lot of good editorial help from congress. this was as much as the constitution a work of many hands. no one author. >> host: next call is from bill in seattle. [talking over each other] >> caller: have to come to the defense of president and jefferson, enabling it forces in the barbary wars. here's my question. most americans think between 1783, and 1787 how much happened. we think georgetown happened and the next day we had the constitution. do you have a book i could read to talk about the development of the articles of confederation and that whole period between 1783 at 1787? >> >> guest: there was a book on the articles of confederation

written by the university of wisconsin named merrill janzen. also a fine book in stanford on the origins, the beginning of national politics. >> host: give as a snapshot of 1783-7087. what basically occurred. his a huge snapshot. >> guest: the government under the articles of confederation, the articles had not gone into effect until march 1, '78 one -- march 17th -- march/1781. without work force in the state's tuned come together, the outside enemy was gone. when push came to shove can we hold the nation together and it was by no means easy to do.

the articles of confederation created a form of national government even as a confederation, the government had no capacity to tax. all money had to come from the state. they could not put duties on imports. there was an effort to limit that power to tax imports and have independent stream of revenue. it could not get unanimous consent of the states so that failed. it had no money. those were the two major problems with the articles of confederation. they defaulted on interest payments on the french alone. in 1786 they could look forward to a big chunk of principle that was going to have to be paid with what? we were only paying the dutch loan by borrowing more money to pay where we vote on the previous one. a a sort of bernie madoff style ponzi schemes which was not

sustainable. but there were more problems. in order to exercise the most important power the confederation had to have the consent of nine states. nine states represented in congress and if there were nine you would need unanimous consent to do anything. the state had to have two to seven delegates and only had one vote. so if maryland had only one person on the floor he couldn't vote. if there were two maryland and they had opposite opinions maryland was -- through the winter of 1786/87 when shea's rebellion was fought in massachusetts confederation congress was basically incapable of doing anything because it didn't have states represented.

it was represented in february '87. it was designed in a way that turned out to be nonfunctional. it needed unanimous consent to make any change that turned out to be impossible to get and a majority could not rule. it needed redesigned. this became powerful the clear by 1786. >> host: was made of 1787 the last gasp to save the country? >> guest: people saw it that way. people were terrified by the insurgencies which were in massachusetts because of shea's rebellion. >> host: what was that? >> >> guest: an uprising by farmers largely in central western massachusetts. restarted -- their problem was state taxes that had to be

collected, that they didn't have. there were basically unrealistic pressures being put on these people and they feared they were going to lose their farms. they also couldn't pay any debt because there was a system of deflationary. there was no circulated medium in massachusetts and they couldn't get hard money because everything -- deficit and trade. they didn't have a gold or silver. how are they to pay their debt? they couldn't. they feared the tax collectors went into court and how do you support your family? they petition for redress of grievances. legislature decided to be very conservative fiscally and they said you just pay. they tried to close the courts snow their farms could not be

foreclosed and ultimately a segment of the rose up against the government. this was extremely frightening to people because through studying history they had concluded republics failed because of popular unrest. if the people rule who will be ruled? if they will not be ruled happens? what happens is take a stronger. think of caesar in england in the 1650s. they would take a cromwell. go to the french revolution and napoleon. they clearly couldn't know that but they saw that sequence being played out and they feared that this would be the failure of the republic and the whole revolution was going to be proven cause to be a failure.

>> host: what was the bull to recommended? >> guest: merrill jensen on the articles of confederation wrote a book on congress and the latter is the more modern book. >> host: that covers it? >> guest: it covers congress. >> host: next call for pauline maier, author of the people debate the constitution, 1787-1788" and "american scripture: making the declaration of independence" is david in new york. >> caller: i am reading "american scripture: making the declaration of independence" now and i think it is a wonderful book and i am enjoying it. my question to dr. maier is there is a controversy about how much the iroquois confederate role model for the formation of the united states. what is your opinion on that? >> guest: it was of no significance. you look hard at madison's notes at the convention for a reference to iroquois confederacy. there is no significance at all.

>> host: we have this question for you. this is from red forced. what was the significance of alexander hamilton's plan to exchange u.s. debt for state that? >> guest: profoundly important. this went into effect. all of the unrest in the states was in part a response to the taxation of the 1780s where the states were trying to retire their revolutionary war debt by taxes on land, a multiple of what they had been before and the people were very rested but hamilton proposed a brilliant idea, that all the state debts would become a natural death. national debt. he would issue bondss on the

united states. a 4% rather than 6%. and didn't have to pay the principal we believe. all you had to pay was the interest. you could do that on the revenue that was coming and on the imports plus some excise taxes and the unfortunate run on whiskey. if basically what he did was to relieve a component of their budget which was the majority what we were raising money for. when the state and loggerhead to pay off their revolutionary war debt they no longer had to impose these taxes and the country became much more peaceful. >> host: next call from john in dallas. >> i'm reading about the history of propaganda in america. stuart speaks of massive

propaganda machine of woodrow wilson administration and fdr and postwar for corporate propaganda machine that has thrived ever since along with corporate domination of media campaign financing and lobbying to the degree that he says we don't truly have participatory democracy any more today that the engineering of consent by corporate elite 5 and hamilton thought that this was the wife of fbn should be run but jefferson would have seen it the other way. do you have any thoughts on that? >> we are used to people trying to tell us -- we should have a more sophisticated population of agitated people that we don't take seriously. we take these things with a

grain of salt and with some discretion. i am not sure i see this as a threat to participatory democracy that one might charge, the influence of corporations with representative institutions, lobby and another issue to discuss. they had no real experience at this. all we can do is put words in their mouth. they repair concern with corruption. turtle having private interests in representative institution. no doubt they care about that. with a particular form that occurs in our day, most often a person says or what they think. is another question of their politics being put into the mouths of people who never understood the situation.

>> host: this is booktv's index program. we are live. barbara in seattle. you are on with pauline maier. >> caller: what would washington have wanted the revolutionary war without thomas paine's common sense? >> guest: common sense called for independence. that certainly was important. i am not sure it was solely important for independence. the argument for independence in the declaration as a whole series of local statements why people supported independence in the spring and early summer of 1776 don't always repeat the argument. his argument was the british form of government was flawed and any reconciliation to a flawed constitution, we should start over. that has a lot to do