importance. we are in our group and we deserve to be studied and we also deserve to have our personal stories told so i and courage everybody to learn about the industry from a different vantage point and death i would like to give you the last word. if there is anything that has been said that you want to comment on or anything our anything that you forgot to say, have at it. >> is 126 thank you laura and the aclu for having me here today and all of those in the front row who made the book possible. if you find a book interesting their stories are the ones that are in there. it's not me talking about what i think should be done but talking about what they do every day in their lives so thanks everyone for coming. >> thank you. [applause]

rick, and it is so great to be here tonight. good evening ladies and gentlemen thank you so much for coming. i can't think of an event that i would rather be moderating more on my first and the job is the new president and ceo of the national constitution center than this wonderful discussion of bricks superb new book. rick as you know has been a stalwart of the constitution center. he has provided intellectual and historical guidance. he gave me so much good advice and friendship as they begin the exciting prospect of leaving

this place -- leaving this place and i'm thrilled to be here with him. rick embodies for me the best of what the national constitution center's mission is which is to provide a platform for bipartisan debate and conversation about the constitutional issues. the great strength of this book is that there is no ideology and it. it's cold enough narrative way and rick brings to life the constitutional debate the animated the early republic. he does it by sharing the personalities and the temperaments of the founding fathers and he stresses the role of leadership and also contingency. one thing that emerges from this great book is that it could have come out differently and it didn't have to be this way. the fact that we have the declaration of independence which genesis he describes so well and ultimately the constitution had to do with leadership and choices of particular people at a particular time.

i hope we are going to have a lot of these debates over the coming months and years. this is the national and international center for debates of the constitutions where citizens of all political inclinations can set aside their politics and be exposed to the best constitutional side of any issue and make up your mind and their own mind and in our conversation is going to be a model for that sort of discussion so thank you for joining us. let's just jump right in with the wonderful portrait she paid of individual framers. the book begins and it has a cast of characters and they are the main players and he has these beautiful little portraits is of these paintings of the temperaments and characters of the framers. help us understand what made them tick so we can begin anywhere. i think i have to begin with john dickinson both because he was such a stalwart of the philadelphia delegation. he does not appear in sinus

hault when i saw this afternoon saw ben franklin and governor morris but the real john dickinson and your riveting telling, dickinson's choice, his moral dilemma, his patriotism and leadership was really central to the whole constitutional story so tell me about john dickinson. >> i'm happy to begin. how many of you have ever heard of him? okay, we have philadelphia. i think if if i went to any other city or any other state in the united states it would just be a couple of people raising their hands. before i talk about john dickinson and this is supposed to be a serious critical minded discussion of this book and not a lovefest but -- i really must say as someone who

has devoted more than 10 years of his life to the constitution, before it opened in july of 2003 i am just so delighted that jeff rosen is coming in as our ceo. we have a constitutional scholar most of the time the easy life of academia. [laughter] and to run a place like this was just so inspiring to all of us who spoke with him. we have really had some terrific times at the constitution center. [applause] so john dickinson and john adams who are really do want to say quite a lot about tonight, john dickinson called him that -- little genius.

he was john adams chief adversary during the 22 months between september of 74 and july july 41776. dickinson was when this book begins and the book essentially, it initially begins with the boston tea party because that really was the kind of event that really ticked the british off and convince them that they had to do something to put these americans down. but the main focus of the book really is the 22 months in which the continental congress met. at the time the continental congress met, john dickinson was probably the most respected political writer and thinker in america. his letters from a farmer in pennsylvania really spelled out the american constitutional position and the denial of the right of the vision parliament tic tacs him. he was in every respect john

adams polar opposite. he was thin, rather reserved in manner. and a man of great caution both in his thought and his speech. and the really important and decisive in difficult moments in john dickinson's life did, on july 1 and july 2, 1776 in which going against the sentiments of most of his colleagues in the continental congress, he spoke lengthily and passionately against independence. for a friday of reasons. one was that i do think he was a devout believer in the quote chair principles of the english constitution and wasn't ready to cast it overboard quite yet. but the other reason was that he wasn't all sure that americans

were sufficiently prepared to win a war against the british. they hadn't forged an alliance with the french or the spanish get. and so earning the antipathy of a good many of his fellow delegates, dickinson voted against independence but two weeks later he was leading a battalion of pennsylvania soldiers in the battle against the british to fight for the patriot way. so dickinson for me is a really a model of a principled opposition but ultimately coming together for the common good. he ultimately although he really was not willing to sacrifice his principles to vote in favor of independence. he supported it very much. in 1787 in fact he did serve as delaware's representative to the constitutional convention. he was not present on september 17 to sign it as he

was ill back in delaware but his name is on the constitution. >> well, that is a riveting story and before you go any further i think you do a quite memorable and person i soon. >> i do. >> can you share it with us? >> i'm sorry i cannot because i'm not in costume. i have retired from him but until recently i had a modest budget at the university of pennsylvania part of which i used to get costumes to dress as figures in american history. so for example, i dress and full buckskin to do a davey crockett imitation. i'm sorry, not imitation. an impersonation in the american history survey course. until 9/11 i was able to walk across campus carrying a rifle,

but they stopped me from doing that. [laughter] >> that's your constitutional right. >> actually one of my favorites is -- and there i dress as the philadelphia artist and that one of my favorites here at the constitutional center is john dickinson. to be john dickinson i have to be more reserved than is my normal personality. i also do jonathan edwards. you are all going straight to hell, no mistake about it. [laughter] >> dickinson as you tell the story although he voted against independence nevertheless have a sense of patriotism with true behind the bar so is a vote did not count in the final tally but independence. could that kind of civic mindedness and devotion to

country exists nowadays? is there an analog and mullet -- modern politics to that sort of decision? >> not too many, that's for sure. i have been writing and speaking on the founding fathers lessons in political leadership for our day. there are a lot of lessons that we can learn. i really do believe the most important of all is humility. and dickinson genuinely believed in his principles and he wasn't ready to sacrifice by voting in favor of independence that he has so fervently opposed. but he knew the people of pennsylvania favored independence. and he was the decisive voice in the pennsylvania delegation. so by drawing himself behind the bar, that is if you walk into the room of independence hall today you will see that hard that keeps visitors from walking into where the founding fathers

were doing their deliberations. he left that part of you know, the main part of the assembly room and withdrew himself behind the bar along with his colleague robert morris. giving a bit bare majority of the pennsylvania delegates the ability to vote in favor of independence and to make this the unanimous declaration of the united states of america. i really do think that humility and that understanding ultimately for the need to come together is something that a good many of our congressman not to mention our supreme court justices could benefit from. >> i know your next book has the working title the founding fathers are spinning in their graves. [laughter] and your and just adding questions about channeling or

translating their principles into the modern era. what is different nowadays that allowed the john dickinson then to make this principled decision for his own sake and at the same time to put the interests of the state first and foremost and make it harder for politicians to break party lines today? >> well i think there is a long list. one is that the delegates of the continental congress and the constitutional convention deliberatdeliberat ed in secret. nothing that we could do today. and imagine one of these bodies convening today and every day the delegates walked out and cnn, "fox news," "msnbc" microphones in their faces. i think what that causes today is the delegates to take hard positions that are even hardened by their public defense of them in front of the media.

whereas back in the 18th century these folks were deliberate adding in secret. they didn't have their egos as much on the line but most important of all and i will say, i'm sorry this is a decoration but i gave this speech that i did on the founding fathers 1787 lessons in political leadership that has given all of the country but the most anxious moment i had was when i gave it to the 100 chiefs of staff of the 100 united states senators in which basically is how rotten their parses -- bosses are compared to 1787. and it was actually at the very few en's dinner party with lots of good food and wine but i looked out and they said you i d you know one of the problems is you are not drinking enough and honestly it really was the daily

conviviality and particularly the delegates to the continental congress of 1774 and 76. this gathering was a gathering of strangers. at one point he said a dozen ambassadors of the dozen most belligerent powers in europe have more in common than do the delegates to this cotton in the congress. that is their situation as they came together in september of 74. but day after day after day, after their deliberations first and carpenters hall and then in the pennsylvania statehouse, they go to the city tavern and eat and drink and get to know one another. with a few exceptions john adams never met with john dickinson. with a few exceptions, even when

they disagreed on important issues they have some respect for their colleagues. i'm old enough to remember a time in washington when edward dirksen and lyndon baines johnson who might i disagree on the senate floor but then they would get together in the evening and work out a deal or tip o'neill and ronald reagan even. so there is something i think that we need to do something about that. not have these folks drive home every thursday afternoon and raise money for the next election campaign. >> and compulsory alcohol. [laughter] >> that's right. >> my favorite story if you will allow me about chief justice john marshall was it sounds like you did the exact same thing. he persuaded his colleagues to live together in same boarding house and they would discuss supreme court cases over the marshall's favorite drink which was madeira and all would get

busted all the cases were unanimous. [laughter] then of course there was the famous moment when marshall looks out the window and says our jurisdiction is so broad it must be raining somewhere. [laughter] so this principle, the madura principle is important to leadership and yet we don't want to romanticize it because as you show so vividly in the book not all of your main players are convivial. john adams was certainly obnoxious and disliked as we learned from 1776 my favorite musical and you give lots of examples. his ideas and emotions were always on display in vivid accounts. tell us about john adams. >> john adams consistent violation of the letters of

abigail that let us know as much as we do about what was going on with congress. they really were bound by the rule of secrecy but john adams never obeyed it so that is helpful and it is also the case that his emotional commitment to independence much earlier on than most of the delegates drove all of that forward. but believe me there were times when his fellow delegates just wanted to wring his neck because he really could be obnoxious in his passionate advocacy of his own points of view. and i will say you know because, two of our founding fathers thomas jefferson and john adams had these dozens and dozens and dozens of volumes of correspondence, so we know what they thought about everything and in the john adams case we know what he thought about everyone. if you didn't like you he would let abigail know about it.

so therefore we historians know about it. on this book is not and anti-david mccullough book but i must, and i love the hbo series on john adams but i really did feel that it was looking at john adams through the eyes of john adams. >> is favor point of view. >> that's right. and in particular since adams and dickinson were always -- adams was i speeding on dickinson and dickinson was always too frail to beat up on adams. some of this book is to give the quieter personalities, gives some there too. >> patrick henry considered america's connection with great britain to solve than the colonies living in a state of nature. the question i have fun reading your great description of patrick henry nowadays would he

have been tea partier occupy wall street? >> i'm so glad you asked me this. i do like to imagine which politicians today, these folks and 74 to 76 would be most like. i just have to go back to john adams. arnie frank. [laughter] barney frank. intelligent, passionate, abrasive. john adams i don't think was -- but other than that i really think john adams -- barney frank's is the john adams of our 21st century. i think patrick henry is rand paul. i think truly the two parties would love patrick henry. in the opening days of the first

continental congress he made this speech arguing for proportional representation in the congress which he was defeated saying we are not just virginians or new yorkers. we are all americans and that gives an impression of henry as the continental minded politician but what he was mainly concerned about was protecting the interest of the most popular colony of america, the colony of virginia. all of his career his primary devotion was to defending the interests interests first of his colony and then of the sovereign commonwealth of virginia. so i think ian rand paul would get along pretty well. i really do think of all the 18th century politicians the one consistently through his career who is most consistently supporting of the tea party ideals is patrick henry. >> so what distinguishes temperamentally dickinson from henry dickinson the compromiser

at least the person willing to set aside ideological purity in the service of legitimacy and henry we should call and the ideologues who just won't compromise at all? >> but also henry the virginian as opposed to dickinson ultimately, not just pennsylvania but america. and that i think is another important part of his story that i'm trying to tell. these folks not only came together as strangers but as representatives, as delegates from their individual colonial legislatures and they were very much bound to do what they're legislatures told them to do. for example the new york delegates at the cotton in the of the cotton in the congress were not able to vote in favor of independence until five days

after the declaration was adopted, july 9 because the new york legislature hadn't given them permission to do so. over the course of those 22 months i really do believe that most of these delegates began to think like americans. so although the continental congress is a congress, it's an extra legal body. it has absolutely no legal constitutional legitimacy but over time, they really do and by the way they first called themselves a general congress whatever that meant. except by the way a congress, the term congress itself, i'm sorry but we are at the constitutional center so i've got to get into some of the sort of knit picking constitutional issues. a congress by definition what is a body of delegates representing individual sovereign states. it was not like our federal

congress today. it really was representing the various colonial legislatures but over time, so it's called the general congress, a collection of delegates from these individual colonies. then they started calling it a small seed continental congress and then by independence they were calling it a c. cottenden a congress so they really had america's first national congress speaking for the people of the united states. whether it's the first time the words were officially used them of course being in the final paragraph of the declaration of independence. >> the riveting narrative here is independence was not inevitable and you reject that conventional view and it came about because people in particular events. what were some of the tipping

point is that where? >> again i go back to john adams on july 3 he wrote two letters to abigail on july 3, the day after the vote in favor of independence. one of his letters a quite famous quote in in which he predicts that july 2 will forever be celebrated as america's great anniversary festival missing it by two days. but he also said to abigail that heaven has dictated that these two countries will be a sundered forever at flying a kind of define inevitability. certainly american politicians from that time forward on july 4 in their speeches often speak about the inevitability of american independence. most of us, although my academic

colleagues would chastise me for this i am an american exceptionalism. i do believe our history is a unique one and it is a history marked the initial amounts of freedom and unusual amounts of opportunity. but in the mid-18th century, americans didn't feel that way. they love their king. they left their identity as subjects of the british king. they had framed portraits of king george iii in their dining rooms, and so this remarkable development between 1763 when the conflict with the british first begins in 1776 by which ultimately thomas jefferson is calling george iii a devil and a tyrant is really an audacious move forward. >> you so vividly show how these americans who are so devoted to

king george change their mind and i love the detail. you talk about benjamin rush the great philadelphia physician it goes to the house of lords and sees king george's pahrump. he decides he really wants to sit in it. he felt i am walking on sacred ground. he asked his guide if he you might be able to sit on the throne and the guide told them initially was out of question the question but such was the intensity of russia's appeal that they guy allowed them to do so. take that tsa security. [laughter] when he first sat down the throne he is over palms with a feeling, the feeling, the crowd of eight years of the golden period. his passions aspire beyond the throne but then he goes to the house of commons and feels only anger because his this is the body that passed the detested -- these are people who thought of themselves as monarchs. >> rush is in england at the

time in the constitutional conflict between the colonies and the british parliament in particular is heating up so he is very angry. but when it goes to the house of lords and he sits on the throne and is so overcome with emotion, i think that really, it is such a wonderful example of the process that americans would have to go through in the coming years. so it was not an easy decision to make. >> couldn't have gone the other way? were there one or two moments where that may have, differently there would have been -- >> well, the people of canada did it. the people of the british west indies did it. people of australia did it much later soap wasn't the only solution. it is the case that you really do have a steady escalation of the conflict. when those three groups of

mohawk indians toss 92,000 pounds of tea in the british harbor the british colony had pretty much had it with those fanatics and pass the coercive acts and that really does up the ante. that is what precipitates the calling of the continental congress and then of course april 19, 1775 is not a trivial date. once americans are engaged in military conflict with the british, then reconciliation certainly becomes more difficult. but, what really is so striking is that right up until certainly january of 76, most americans are doing everything they can to find that path toward reconciliation. and they have already reached the constitutional jumping

point. i think they have reached the constitutional jumping point by october of 1774 when they were denying all parliamentary authority. it was really the psychological that was the difficult one. >> lets talk about jefferson and the role of the declaration being permanent. you have the riveting chapter in the drafting of the declaration. what were some of the differences between deck rations rations -- jefferson's -- jefferson's declaration the first draft and what you call ultimately the declaration?