friendship during her white house years was with elizabeth keckley, an african-american seam stress, someone who supported her and i think we need to get a new view of this fasfating -- fascinating first lady. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you.

this is -- it's great to be here. but it's an extraordinary honor nd privilege to be here with rick. rick really was the intellectual behind the t creation of the exhibits which as magnificent as the is, tecture of this place the exhibits are its heart and soul. and over the conversations in hall office over many, many months, the story of we the people" really took shape. the unsung hero of that, by the named s rick's then dog chief justice john marshmallow. book as y and read the steve urges and i also urge, you'll see that abigail adams is new -- plays that role now. has an heroic intellect. i'm looking forward to the conversation i hope you enjoy it

and enjoy the conversation you'll have with rick as you read through the pages. he first question, rick, is really the dog that didn't bark. why hasn't there been a book katherine drinker bowen of philadelphia 40 years snag. ago. years ago -- 43 years -- he was a fill del fl philadelphiian? >> i'm going to answer this question. be a lovefest between bonnie & clyde or whatever. to echo what steve frank said about joe and a errific relationship we have had over the years and all you that window,ok out that spectacular vista, and look amazing institution that joe built. he is the founding father of the constitution center and endo ount it as the greatest thrill

of my life to be part of it. >> thank you. [ applause ] go easy one going to me now. >> i was going to go easy on you before that. it's going be -- > 40 something years have allowed since there was a full of the e history constitutional convention. i think that time elapsed katherine drinker owens's book was a terrific book. in fact, i was first inspired to love the constitutional earlieron by reading an book in "the great rehearsal" as a school child. first-year a graduate student, i read book.rine drinker bowen's although in fact the academic reviewers were a little hard on as they're inclined to be. i thought it was a wonderful book. it inspired me. i'd gone back to it over the years. learned the years, i

more about the constitutional conventi convention. i think the scholarship on the constitutional convention has changed. perhaps time to bronze se wonderful statues over there inside designer's hall. perfect likeness. you'll never see a better rendering of the founding than -- fathers than the statues in designer's hall. i wanted to take them and bring life.to not as mythic figures but as real men. title of the book, plain onest men comes from the convention delegates governor morris of pennsylvania. morris was reacting against a tendency apparent a few months convention adjourned to make these folks larger than life.

two important letters this.buted to the first was from thomas jefferson to john adams. convention was going on, adams was serving in paris ambassador to france and he said i'm given to understand the demi gods has gathered in philadelphia. i think that jefferson meant that somewhat sarcastically. person to he kind of believe in demi gods or much in inspiration. the other letter is the famous washington toorge the marquis de la fayette and he standing miracle that the founders could create a little liable to well founded objections. and katherine drinker bowen her book with those words and went on to add that miracles by accident. they are prayed for.

compelling notion. they came close to the truth. inclined to give it a more earthly explanation. work eve that it was the plain honest men. plain.eren't so they were mostly wealthy, white, privileged 18th century americans. >> and young. >> remarkably young. average age of 44. brought franklin at 81 that average age way up. so i wanted to tell the story of making of the constitution through the eyes and actions and thoughts, not of larger than life dem gods, but of real men. not 21st century men, mind you,

rip men.cent it's very important to understand them in their historical context. can't rep cyst saying that. so i'm trying in one sense to demystify them. but every year i come away with greater respect for them. i joked with my students in be the courses. of them are out in the audience, for which i'm very in that if you gave me a choice between the very best 5 members of the current congress and the 55 guys who were gathered in the assembly pennsylvania state house, and mind you, there were a few losers among that 55 in state house. i'd take the 55 in the state house any day. -- he in his book says says he spent 40 years thinking about this book. my h, by the way, by

calculation works out to about a page a month. if you can't hear? we have a problem? up a bit?mic this been d i have never accused of failing to project. >> the e-mail i was going to give you. i'll give it to you now. >> take that one off? >> can people hear me? >> yes. about m much happier that. is it on yet? is it on now? >> yes. try projecting. >> speak up. >> rick, the book talks about these g he's lived with

founders. and he talked about how happy -- still take the not, okay. what do you need? > joe and i had the same attitude toward technology, the highly adversarial one. now.t's try that now -- i think i still can't hear. me?you hear no. i feel like i'm in a spring commercial. >> there you go. >> on. >> of the founders that you for four years, we know you take the best but what you view to be the first of them. 'll say rick is hard on alexander hamilton, which i grew up thinking was one of the great of the convention.

talk about hamilton, but also you about over time who did who did ike less and more. e >> fair enough. i'm running the risk of sparking hostile questions later in the program. deservedly praised for the work as secretary of the treasury in the 1790s. going to rank the founding fathers in terms of iq, up there at d be the very top. but if you're going to rank the convention in 1777 in terms of eq, i think hamilton bottom. close to the he was just fundamentally out of in which the direction the nation was moving. he was add a disadvantage of a new was part york delegation which included two other delegates who were

opposed to any effort to strengthen the central government. outvoted in the delegation for every single issue. to the this provoked him extremes to which he went. but on june 18, he stands up in convention and gives a ix-hour speech in which he basically argues that we should re-create the british constitution. that we should install a president for life, that we elect a united states enator or actually that the legislature should select united states senators for life. folks.bout that, would you like harry reid and itch mcconnell to be your senators for life? and -- >> you're going to get me in adventure.my >> joe's running as democrat, so ie half of that will be okay, think. in any case, he was just out of step.

he gives this overlong speech. at the end of the speech, one of delegates, william samuel johnson of connecticut comments speechexander hamilton's and dmired by everyone agreed to by no one. really every stage of the that time from forward he was marginalized. he disappeared from the convention for about a month. did come back. it's not clear if he was sign the to constitution since the new york had already left in protest. hamilton did add his signature. he's not a big contributor. he's the one who sunk the most in your estimation, who rose the most? >> this might get boring because pretty boring.s ducate in scotland at st.

andrews university. a brilliant man. he was the only -- and a very strong nationalist, somebody who essential ht it was that the powers of the central government be strengthened. the s the only man in convention to argue consistently or direct popular election of the president. he understood that a government the will of we the eople had to have a strong executive who could speak unequivocally in the name of "we the people." jockeying ll of the back and forth that result in electorate that meant he was the minority of one in the convention of that issue. >> prince charles visited the constitution center, wilson was founder, he took a picture nd was standing next to him in

s, rge washington, 200 year s little anecdotes that bring each of them to life in the way that they sort of seem distant. the one that sticks in my mind he most as rick describes luther martin as a better debater drunk than most of the delegates sober. but what was really interesting is that rick puts forth a pretty the book for in why charles pinckney could be considered almost madisonian. could be a claim to the title of "father of the constitution." about his alk history? >> charles pinckney would have would have been thought of as father of the constitution. it is a peculiar fact of history that so much of our understanding of the constitutional convention diligent note

taking and, indeed, the ntegrity of one man, james madison who sat there day after day after day taking detailed notes. major day of usiness at the convention, may 29, edmond randolph presented madison the mes madison, governor morris cooked up before the the nia plan forming central basis for a much stronger central government that convention. the nd madison reports that plan debates of that plan in minute detail. pinckney arises and plan.ts a detailed greater resemblance to the constitution than the virginia plan. is known gave a

long speech. the ow not what he said in speech because madison failed to that it in his notes speech. and in the middle of the convention, pinckney gave another long speech. defending his version of the plan. give short e speeches back then? five or six hours? >> some mercifully did. pinckney didn't. madison spoke more frequently than anyone in the convention he was able to be concise at times. there are two effects operating here. i actually do believe in the end brains behind our conception of the constitution. much more y deserves credit than he has received. i think there are a cup all of he hasn't received it. said he along with his outh carolina colleagues john

rutledge and dirks butler are more responsible than any of the enshrining tes for slavery in the constitution. the other reason is he lied about his age. was davis of new jersey. but pinckney wanted to go down n history as the boy wonder of the institutional convention. he claimed he was the youngest member of the convention. this the tendency towards self-promotion on pinckney's part that didn't set with the stories. >> got to go lower. was my age, he'd been dead five years. you read about all of the 44-year-olds, it's astonishing. i want to come back you mentioned to one of the key book, that's the way that the delegates treated or did not treat the subject of

slavery. i want to come back to some of the personalities. but let's go there for a minute. in some ways when you read the ook, its's the silence is kind of striking and you even quote writing in his journal in the debate on representation that essentially that they feel ashamed that they ad to use a euphemism or leave the word out. parts of your book made the subject of slavery more essential than the kpts we have dynamics, north versus south, small versus big, in slave less relevant versus nonslave. and that even setting the stage in philadelphia talking about if you went down to the docks in philadelphia, you were likely to encountever a slave ship. talk about what you -- how you did e end place what they and didn't do? >> well, first one of the -- i

reasons why you think you should read my book, even if you read katherine drinker brawn's book and loved it, is i think this is the first full scale at of slavery. the first omnipresent of the convention. the dn't fully shape convention. we can't understand the convention without understanding what one is doing and it's the paradox of the nation's core, this american dilemma. one tragic member of the fathers is that they did not grapple with the slavery in this land. almost all of the men in that

the assembly room of the pennsylvania state house believed that slavery was wrong. also believed that its days ere numbered because they were operating in a time when the decline.ingdom was in cotton had not yet become a major export crop. a moment when america's founders could have at least one something modest to weaken the institution, abolishing slavery was off the table. no way you could form the union hen half of the states were maintaining the institution at that time. in that sense, the 3/5 think most which i people are most familiar with predictable but one. but there are other compromises, think, which are harder to sanction, at least through our

21st century lenses. there is an agonizing debate continuation of the international slave trade. there are only two states in the convention, south carolina and georgia, who want to continue the slave trade. most eloquent speech against the international slave trade george mason of virginia, a man who ironically 300 slaves himself. makes every lavery man -- if the nations are their virtues, they'll be punished for their sins and slavery is a sin. -- but basically the south arolina and georgia delegates aid if you don't allow us continue the slave trade, the compromise is for 20 years, walking. withe will not be part of this union. ooking back with 20/20

hindsight which is almost perfect, perhaps the founding fathers should have let them walk. i think the national fabric would have been stronger. s a consequence of that compromise, more than 100,000 slaves entered american shores during the period from to 1808. finally, this is harder for me i attempt although book, with nary an objection, the framers agree most t i think is the egregious clause is the slavery f those who escaped from service of the other state and be let the law of the land returned to their masters in the south. this is a provision in the constitution which made the that had moved to abolish

co ry slavery slave complicit in the slave trade. >> you talk about in most ifs slavery is the great failure, compromise threatened convention apart which was the great success. you made the point in the book ways the compromise over the house and the senate representing the people and the fores kind of set the table competing interpretations down -- that led up to the civil war. you elaborate? >> again, the, quote, great ompromise which involves this ng a nietzing and -- agonizing and tedious debate not a very is

edifying debate, i must say. it's about the interest of small states, which one has got as much weight in the legislature as they can get in the interest the small states and as much weight as they can get. either side -- they just wear each other down. and finally, they do adopt what compromise us proposed by roger sherman of connecticut who by the way is broker of the 3/5 compromise. are inextricably linked. they're all about interest. debates in the convention. the debates on the 3/5 theromise and the debate on large state, small state compromise, which leads us to the present structure of in the house and enate which had the origins in hard bargaining among 18th century politicians. think, a fascinating footnote, though, to the large

state/small state debate -- hated the on connecticut compromise. e was convinced that a truly national government had to rest on "we the people" and that meant proportional in the house and senate. he voted against the connecticut and he was seriously considering the convention on the compromise passed. i have a feeling that george washington had something to do talking him in to sort of settling down a bit. he accepted the compromise. then the remarkable thing when convention adjourns and madison has to go out and sell the constitution to a dubious public, in federalist 9, he goes on to write, the genius of this constitution is legislature in which representation in the house is a portion according to

the senate n equality of representation? our government-related national our opponents are claiming and it is part national and part federal. so -- politician, i have to say bravo. >> the genius of american turned into a high flown theoretical concept coming hard bargaining between large and small states. the idea is we read through the seven weeks and the solution mystery, you keep wondering why does it take you seven weeks to circle around and around. do you exhaust the alternatives or is there -- >> that's exactly it. at a key moment in the vote, two delegates from georgia who had been voting with the large states, we don't think of state.a as a large in fact, at that time, georgia's total population could easily

to the wachovia center. but they thought of themselves large state because of the importation of slaves and 3/5 doption of the compromise. but at a crucial moment, those absent that day, allowing the majority of the georgia delegations to swing the the connecticut compromise, five in favor, four divided. massachusetts >> we don't know quite why, right? that they wanted this union to go forward. i will say if there's a single achievement of this convention single virtue of the collectivity of men who gathered assembly room, is that ultimately with a few men tions, theementz were

who checked their egos at the door. these were men who ultimately able to put their own personal and often strongly held aside for the sake of union. benjamin franklin had a role in convention. he's 81. he moves in and out of lucidity. i can't resist this one anecdote. they're debating how you should members of the supreme court. and franklin gets up and gives a speech that we should follow the scottish example lawyers that all of the in the country will cast ballots. elect from among their number the ablest men and they comprise the supreme court. and the reasoning was is that the lawyers would want to get

of the best and most talented lawyers and open up business for themselves. the delegates just kind of rolled their eyes heavenward at solution. >> and thank god they did, right? > can you imagine what would have happened today? >> you have franklin in the book. you have them at these moments these speeches and almost like a -- and we're in philadelphia, we love dr. franklin. almost like a crazy uncle at thanksgiving where someone will basically listen and move on. you list him as one of the three along with le men washington. what -- do is the reason i final speech that he gives at he convention and probably the final speech of his life, in which the goal is to get every to sign on to this

document, to get the unanimous the state delegation's president and truly hey had been bickering over details but sometimes important details all summer. franklin actually doesn't deliver the speech. he's too weak to deliver the speech. wilson.s it to james wilson reads it for him. but franklin makes the which is so true and you are f congress, if listening, please heed the words.of these he says, when ever you gather a roup of men together for their mutual wisdom, you gather with their different ideologies, their different and their prejudices, selfish views. and i ask you, i beg you to your a little infallibility in this case.

features in this constitution of which i do not approve. but if you would just accept a mall sense of your own fallibility and affix your signatures to this document, i uarantee you that in the long run, if there are errors, we shall fix them. it really was a speech which delegates to get in a more agreeable frame of mind, but it's a lesson, i hink, to politicians for time immemorial. >> precursor to the point we have here at the constitution that says the spirit of liberty is a spirit that's not too short in its right. the real spirit that's behind the constitution. other out the indispensable men, washington ho comes across as more human than many, many other accounts we've seen. twice, s, angry, once or

nervous. surprisingly accessible i think. >> and washington, of course, our country.er of and every survey ever given washington comes out as the most revered american with lincoln bit.ing ground a ut he's hard to get a handle on. he's on stage. it's easy to pass washington off figure head. sitting in the front of the room as president of the convention. e gives one short and relatively insignificant speech over the whole of the convention. but he's the guy -- he's the president of the convention and presides.ent he presided over the convention. getzes too ument heated, he knowles when to call n someone else to defuse the

tension. to able just with a glance silence and extemporaneous delegate. characters and personality that washington has are best on display in a gathering like that. so speech making is important, only thing. the other piece of washington i'll give you a hint of and ask you please read more about it in book, washington spent that at e summer in philadelphia home of robert morris, the president's house when it opens 2010. martha washington didn't want to ome to the convention in the first place. really didn't want to come to the convention.

called, martha stayed home all that summer. besieged with social invitations every single night. e went out almost every night of the convention to tea or home. at someone's recent ly recently entertained by samuel powell. i know he spent many more venings and afternoons in her his ny riding around in carriage. washington was a country boy, not a city boy. he rode out he got, in the country with elizabeth. hey developed without question

the deep and intimate and i'm not suggesting impropriety. i'm really suggesting that -- the sales.help >> washington was an 18th century man, not a 21st century man. the believe that the correspondence continued long fter the constitutional convention. he didn't e was ompose himself and he had his secretary write out this elabora love poem to elizabeth on the occasion of her 50th birthday. get a sense of washington the human being from these experiences in ways that them.'t often see

>> two more questions. we'll go to questions from all of you. use the word in the book a lot, revolution. came in advance. made a plan. sort of a can ball way. is that the way you want us to see that. >> absolutely. title that didn't survive the editorial process revolution of 1787. "its's a fact that james madison, edwin randolph, gubinor

morris, james wilson, benjamin franklin arrived in philadelphia under the convention got way. they were helped by the fact days for the 4 a quorum. to comprise to ook an extra 18 days concoct a plan. they concocted a plan to of experience rt of americans during the revolution, a revolution against strong central government. the articles on confederation natural ch state was a response. so this i wouldn't call it a can ball. it was a group of like-minded men. they got together the first 16, around n, may

enjamin franklin's dinner table, with a cast of port and they consumed the entire of.ents the pennsylvanians and the virginians. folks most part, these didn't know each other at that time. reason is another franklin is a key figure. wacky things, he's the guy that provides the social thingsnt that gets these done. the lk a little bit about suppers. the kind of we were at an event recently with a book called request it big sort" in how americans are sorting ourselves in to mindedness.of like i know this is about rick's book. i'm sorry. it's all right. >> we find ourselves speaking more and more to the people who

just as we do. when you read about the supper atherings we had and the delegates coming from the geographies and wildly different oints of view, seem to be able to be civil and hash it out. >> once again, i think the ifference between 18th century 21st cs and alas early century politics, these men boarding he small houses together. james madison and charles in the border house on the corner of 26th and market. together. to dinner whatever differences they may have had on the floor of the assembly room that day, they to talk them out and dinner and t over can't resist one more anecdote.

the 17th, a ore formal signing. but by may 15 -- that was a monday. saturday, may 15, actually, was the day that they knew that they had unanimous agreement on document. the delegates went to city tavern. total blowout. on the bill is the bill for like 12 pounds for breakage. they were able to develop a cordiality and civility s -- themselves hich is an important memo to congress. >> on that note, whatever that was. there's a microphone here for you in the center aisle.

questions as brief as you can so we can get as many in as we can. >> i wanted to ask each how many delegates represented the state they represented. how much -- like, they meet with the convention with the state and find out what they wanted to talk about. relay back what happened and change their minds? question. >> each state voted as a unit. so in a all of the votes on the convention, individual votes don't count. it was majority of the state would count.ich so before any important vote, states sitting in the same table in that room would caucus sort of figure out how the votes lay. consult with one another in that sense and the inly at many points in convention you could see state play.ce come into

south carolina and georgia being notable. on the other hand, to me, the astonishing facts is that the vengs as it l exon turned out was a pretty big deal. politicians in the force didn't think it was a big deal. most of the delegates did not up on time. one of the reasons they didn't show up is to get the delegates to pay the expenses. to concoct them this plan and spring it on the delegates. a quick word about the way they decided to enable

and what that might have meant in voting? the the discussion of ules of the convention, they would decide on most occasions the committee as a whole. a straw vote may come out one one way. but if it came out 6-5, they had back and y to go revisit the question. the informality of these men, they weren't like minded in that the same t all share opinions. a gentlemanly code

that they would listen to each other as long as they could. 3/5?hy not why not 3/4? precedent?f 3/5 described the amoral, se as mechanistic, but predictable. some numb we were would compromise the interest of slave states and the apportionment of representation. been 5 numb we were had proposed during the confederation period in the as a means congress of apportioning the financial obligations of the states to revolutionary war.

writing of of the the constitution, has the its purpose?serve believe it was a partial fulfillment but plainly in the distrust of democracy. do not have a provision

for direct popular election for example.ent, for nd, of course in the sanctioning of slavery is an the fect ideals of independence. as a result that was not settled debates.itutional they were settled in the heat of the war in american history but passage of the 13th, amendments move the constitution closer. that iables me to answer think through the amendment process that the constitution has endured. >> my answer would be the answer exhibit that those ideals have articulated by imperfect men and never achieved but the story continues. it's not just through the process of amendment, it's

process of itizenship that we continue to reach toward them. >> members may protest. your m here to fulfill prediction. pathetically embarrassing speech at the convention. but what you didn't mention is convention, he was -- he conceived the idea of the papers which we have on the constitution now. e wrote 51 of the 85 papers themselves. madison only 29. super was absolutely uman achievement for him practicing lawyers in the whole five months in the writing of he federalist papers to have managed that accomplishment. to compare the number of words

wrote compared to the much outputs of the two "the new york times" that we all -- >> i've been effectively but rebutted. ally >> in the defense of hamilton's depp fender, the last two books and then tification goes into the federalist administration and gives hamilton more of his due, i think. >> and hamilton does organize the effort to write the papers.ist he gets madison onboard. one interesting fact. not going to give you -- i'm not going to yield 100% on this. hamilton s true that essays, majority of the they were brilliant, he was onfining himself into specific

entries of the constitution. the essays written by madison with general principles of government, those are the areas in which hamilton with popular opinion, hamilton had the wisdom to leave that to madison. but i couldn't agree you more. hamilton's - i mean contribution to the federalist papers was superb. record, that was about as slick as madison's flip-flop on federalism. did, you got away with it. >> going to ask you the obvious know you'llhink you be asked -- what do you think -- fathers he founding buying the meltdown of of majority interest in banks and intervening so heavy in the economy? >> i have thought about it. and my opinions on the subject are probably no more legitimate than anyone else's. but i'm never short of opinions nd never afraid to express

them. first part of the answer is they have had widely varying opinions. robert morris, the financial dealer of the confederation period and of the evolution and of strong advocate of a vastly strengthened central government almost certainly approved of a strong central government role in these matters. sherman of connecticut, george mason of virginia. hated cities, , ated banks, hated anything touching would be spinning in his grave. he really is right now. t depends on who you ask which by the way gives you one little segue. the question i thought you were

me is what would the founding fathers have about the currency is the constitution. be bound by the original intent of the framers or in justice scalia's words, original meaning or the on n meaning of the words the page. while i don't embrace the living constitution provision entirely, to justice respect scalia, a distinguished member of the board of scholars here at center and is n among other things a very smart and if he were in joe's be in big trouble. he'd have a response to me. variation of opinion of these folks who drafted the virtually every issue, especially on the issue extent to which the

entral government should involve itself in the affairs of the states and the economy on he meaning of the word federalism was just enormous. so i find it very difficult as historian to find that ordinary meaning or plain constitution which justice scalia refers to often. >> you want to weigh in about aig bonuses? that's your chance. dead. e all >> robert morris probably would have approved. >> this is a question to both of gentlemen. more of the center of your book. i real estate it's a convergence of history and prehistory. building ng of this destroyed 6,000 years of prehistory. i wanted to know why you didn't them to do the complete the square?of

ne of the richest archaeological fines in north america and they were recovering stuff.nds of wonderful why didn't you wait? why didn't you wait to let them finish the archaeology. want to know. >> sure, i understand your passion. the answer is, we did. we actually -- the project was delayed by more than a year and the ompleted to satisfaction of the archaeologists who were the consultant consultants. excavated 6 million of the percentage ofmall which now are processed but some are on display in the opening the exhibit. he -- the professional archaeologists believe in a block like this, there are sites that not excavated.ure is >> they felt this place was totally excavated.

--and in the >> i was actually -- >> in the spirit of the 18th century, we have a civil disagreement then. >> in addition to the great compromise, there were many iscussions, over 20, on how we would elect our president. they were uncomfortable with hamilton's monarchy with the nd also states and the people. ow did we get to the electoral college. >> rick calls it the single biggest thorn, the great piece coming back to you. >> i describe it as pure torment. here was the basic dilemma. way was wilson. it was the direct popular election of the president.

one.as a minority of not because the framers thought stupid.e people were too , eldridge gary, bona fide bon curmudgeon. they didn't believe the people were too stupid but too ignorant. how in the world could a voter in georgia know the merits of a vice ate in new york and versa? vastness of the landscape, the rudimentary nature, made it not a viable alternative. worried about and appropriately worried about this stupidity, but provincialism. i want to say this before we end. i'm going to say it right now. greatest s'

creating a was nation in a country that did not national identity. that they were as georgians, new yorkers, pennsylvanians, and so on. so direct popular election is to work in the context of the early 18th century. alternate?he how do you -- how do you -- knowledgeable this is of up of the 18th century. who are the best and brightest and most knowledgeable? the members of the congress. that was madison's original proposal. endorsed it pretty much up to the end. but there it's the problem of separation of powers.

have a chief executive dependent on the legislature. they went back and forth on issues. the electoral college -- nobody liked it. then, nobody t likes it now. but it seemed like -- and they of the ted versions electoral -- debated versions of the electoral college. i think it was wilson in mid june who first intros the idea the kind of electoral college, roger sherman does as well, of connecticut in july. but they don't like that much either. nope, as august moves into september, they kind arms and say eir we can probably the best do. they were worried about the founder which is is why they had the -- at on that that time, the top five vote the rs, if nobody received majority of electoral votes, then the election would go to representatives

where these more knowledgeable people would make the choice. really just aer resolvable dilemma that produced which has t solution amazingly worked most of the time. >> time for two more quick questions. answers. >> my question is actually which fathers e founding would have been, you know, best adapted to our society now? >> great question? great question. >> not madison. give you arcane constitutional trivia, hugh of north carolina, the most cosmopolitan of the educated in ers scotland in the university of

pennsylvania, travelled all over world. he had a remarkably cosmopolitan understanding of america's place in the world. that's action number one which is the arcane trivia one. easy.swer number two is benjamin franklin. because he does have a remarkably modern sensibility, not to mention a of humor which we all badly need at this time. >> final question? >> our constitution has been in place, been functioning for over 200 years. longer do you think before we find a better form of government? for a longer up answer than i'm sure the of this event want.

is going back to the equivocal stance towards the of originalism. the folks that drafted this constitution were xtraordinarily humble about what they were doing. they knew they were trying to create a more perfect union, but they knew darn well they had not created a perfect union. nd it is remarkable in the debates in the convention how the speaker will preface his remarks by saying, lastsow, the constitution 50 years, then maybe we'll have that.this or very fascinating conversation about extending the right of statehood to western territories. and most of them are saying, countryu know, when the even bigger than it is now, it will be impossible to hold this together.

we'll have to have some new form of everal forms constitutions. they were e in what doing. the fact it lasted 222 years is remarkable. sit here, i do think it has a pretty good shot of lasting 222.her >> i think the constitution, enator, would say if we all do our part, it surely will, it surely will. [ applause ] >> a perfect note to end on. won't spoil it except to say in this book, the reasons for of them is is one

they use it as an act of patriotism to explain the chapter. it is. it's an extraordinary act of atriotism written by an extraordinary patriot. it deserves a place on all of can do that and you by purchasing a copy signed by the author and thank you all for coming. >> thank you very, very much. thank you, [ applause ] >> you're watching american istory tv, all weekend, every weekend on c-span 3. like n the conversation, us on facebook at c-span history. the warren commission with the second assassination of john . ken dip released the report

in september of 1964, 50 years ago. show a two-hour special cbs report from 1964 of thetails the findings warren commission. co-anchored by walter cronkite rather, it includes interviews with lee harvey and mother as well as eyewitnesss to the assassination. a cbs special report, november 22 and the warren report. today at 4:00 p.m. eastern here on american history tv on c-span 3. > monday night on "the communicators reques recent cators" on the data breeches at target, j.p. morgan chase, and home depot. we worked with law enforcement agencies who busted own doors and drug people out of their basement, literally. participated in

scale addriest of individuals that are highly organized. they have individual specialty in rules, some writes the know how to wash the money. just like organized crime. there's pictures of it. recon photo, all of that kind of to g, everybody going in work. they go to that building, that's their job. photos of eastern european towns, for instance, number of an insane people who drive lamborghinis this.hings like spam, f that where the