♪ walter houston was a liberal democrat who loved f.d.r. came directly to chicago and davises.th the takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our studentcam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. road to then's white house coverage and get all the details about our studentcam contest at www.c-span.org. >> each week american history

tv's american artifacts visits museums and historic places. next a visit to the national , constitution center in philadelphia to learn about the liberty."onstituting our tour guide is president and c.e.o. jeffrey rosen. mr. rosen: the national constitution center is a special place. it is the only institution in america that has a charter from congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. that means we bring together all sides in the constitutional debates that transfix america, not to debate political issues the constitutional issues so you, the people can make up your , own mind. we do that in three ways. we are the museum of "we the people," ineautiful museum independence hall. i'm looking at one of the most

beautiful constitutional views in america, independence hall where the u.s. declaration of independence and constitution were drafted. we are also america's town hall. c-span andd us at also online at constitutioncenter.org. we are a center for constitutional education. we are building the best interactive constitutional website so you can click on any provision, it here the best arguments about its history and contemporary meeting and decide what you think it means. today is a very exciting day for me because i have a chance to share with you our president george h.w. bush gallery which displays rare copies of the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of , rights. we are one of the only places aside from the national archives where you can see where copies of these three priceless charters of freedom in one place. what we have tried to do is tell a story. it's a story of the evolution of rights. in particular how the rights that were promised in the declaration of independence are

implicit in the constitution and were finally codified in the bill of rights. let me set the stage by telling about the evolution of rights and then we can look at the documents and talk about what it means. what we have tried to do in this gallery is tell the story about the relationship between the declaration, the constitution, and the bill of rights. we have written up a pamphlet which you can find online that is thrilling and completely incisive which is written by me and david rubenstein. he has lent us a rare copy of the declaration of independence. david and i were talking about the relationship between the three documents and try to encapsulate and set the stage by talking about their similarities and differences. here is our introduction. the declaration of independence, the constitution and the bill of rights are the three most of the -- important documents and american history.

they expressed the ideals that of we the people of the united states" and inspire free people around the world. they have different purposes. still, all have preambles. all were created by people of similar backgrounds, generally educated white men of poverty. most important the declaration, , constitution, and the bill of rights are based on the ideas at all people have certain fundamental and inherent rights that governments are to protect. they are fused together in the minds of americans because of -- they represent what is best about america. they are symbols of the liberty that allows us to achieve success and ensure equality that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. it is a philosophy of rights and of natural rights. what is a natural right?

the framers disagreed about many things, but they agreed that all men and women have certain unalienable fundamental rights. they are adhered to us by the fact we are human. they come from god or nature, not from government. the framers believed that these rights could be discerned by the mind of man by reason. they talked about the same kinds of rights as being natural and unalienable. they talked about the right to worship god according to the dictates of conscience. they talked about the rights of enjoying life and liberty and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. and in particular they talked about the unalienable rights of individuals to alter and abolish government whenever it becomes destructive of these ends. there was a theory of the state of nature that the framers absorbed from philosophers like john locke and heroes of the

scottish enlightenment. and thomas jefferson read these philosophers as did george mason, the author of the virginia declaration of rights. jefferson had beside him at his desk two documents, the virginia declaration britain by george mason and his own virginia constitution which jefferson drafted. what was the philosophy of natural rights? the basic idea that when we are born in the state of nature before he move into civil society, we are inherent with these fundamental rights. when we move into the state of nature we surrender to the government, or alienate temporary control over certain rights. the point is to ensure better security and safety of the rights we retained. that is why we give the government temporary control over the punishment of private violence, to protect our rights of life. we give the government the

ability to regulate certain natural rights like speech in order to protect the rights we retained. but there are certain things we can't alienate. i can't alienate to you my right to worship god or not because my religious police and opinions, my freedom of thought is the , product of reason operating on my external sensations. that is why conscious is an unalienable natural right. it might be the case that government becomes tyrannical and menaces and threatens these rights rather than protecting them. basically it's breaking the , terms of the social contract. under the circumstances, the framers believed people had not only a right but an obligation to alter and abolish government so it would protect the rights rather than threaten them. that really is the idea that unites the three documents. you have the declaration which is a document that is breaking away from england because of the

claim the king of england had broken the social contract that was threatening basic natural rights. you have the constitution which creates a frame of government energetic enough to achieve common purposes like taxing, for war, for regulating the economy. but it's also constrained enough so that it protects rights rather than threatens them. finally, the bill of rights itself which actually spells out the basic rights that the framers believed were natural and unalienable for the greater security and safety of ensuring the government is going to keep its end of the bargain. there is a great drama about whether or not to list the rights that had to be protected, whether that was a good idea or bad idea. that was one of the main divisions that divided the constitutional convention. let's go inside the gallery and look at the declaration of independence. let's think about what jefferson was trying to achieve and how the ideals and promises of liberty and equality that he declared ultimately evolved

through the constitution and ended up in the bill of rights. this is the george w. bush bill of rights gallery. the first document we see as we come in here is a rare copy of the declaration of independence. this is the one that was left to the -- lit the--this is the one that was lent to us by david rubenstein. this is remarkable about how this document came to pass. the copy of the declaration that most people think about is in the national archives. that was the one that the framers famously signed, that john hancock vividly said i will sign so big that king george can read it without his spectacles. ck's big signature. the thing about the document that even by the 1820's it was becoming faded. it was beat up. when dolly madison and others rolled it up to save it in the

war of 1812 and john quincy adams became concerned that the original was going to fade so much it would not be read. he commissioned a man named stone to make a perfect copy that would look more like the real thing that any other print. there was only one problem. stone came up with a rather cutting edge copying technique that involved taking a wet cloth, which was soaked in acid, and lifting half the ink off the original declaration and then putting in on a copperplate made to make the copy. the result is the original declaration is in even worse shape than the one that it originally was. this spectacular copy is pristine and looks even more like the copy that the framers signed in 1776 than the one in the archives. good news for those of us who are lucky enough to have copies

of this precious stone declaration. 200 copies were originally made and sent out to important institutions and state governments. about 27 or so of these copies survived, and this is one of them. let's talk about the ideas represented in the declaration. it has three parts. the preamble that at the time was not much attended to but now has become the most important part of the original document. section listing the sins of the king of england and a section declaring america third is going to break free of england. it is the preamble, the first section that essentially , contains the entire theory of american government in a single paragraph. if you want to understand the natural rights philosophy, all you have to do is return to the preamble. it by heart, do

but i'm not going to. instead i will read the , preamble. i'm going to use my cheat sheet, this wonderful pocket copy of the constitution published by the national constitution center. this is the second paragraph of the declaration of independence. " we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are , endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. back to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seems most likely to effect their safety and happiness." there it is. note the language about the right of the people to alter and abolish government. that is the fundamental and

unalienable right of revolution. that is a right you can't surrender because it ensures government will keep his end of the bargain and protect your natural rights rather than threatening them. that right to alter and abolish government was what the framers and signers of the declaration were exercising when they risked their lives, their fortune, and sacred honor for the incredibly risky move of declaring independence from britain and constituting a new government. that right to alter and abolish government we will see in the next document, the constitution, codified in article five that allowed people to amend the constitution when they think it needs to be changed. that is why the paragraph is incredibly important. the declaration is not only a promise of liberty, but also a promise of equality. that's the most famous first sentence of the second paragraph of the preamble. i can read it quite well because the copy is so beautiful. let me read it again.

"we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created each that equal. that promise of equality was one that jefferson violated in his personal conduct. the fact he had and kept slaves and we had an incredibly moving exhibit called jefferson and slavery. it was at the constitution center recently that came to us from monticello. it tells the stories of his descendents of his children with sally hemmings and reminds us of -- so vividly how the class between jefferson's ideals and his actions. other framers had slaves and the blight of slavery was one that divided the original constitutional convention and almost prevented it from being ratified. but here we have this promise of equality. we realize jefferson's promise that all men are created equal

was not vindicated until the civil war. it took lincoln's promise of gettysburg of a new birth of freedom. it took the bloodiest war in american history, the battle of antietam were 17,000 member killed, 23,000 killed or wounded. finally and most importantly, it took the post-civil war amendments to the constitution. 13th amendment abolishing slavery, which turns 150 this year that you can see at the constitution center. we have an original copy of the -- went bylso went david rubenstein signed by abraham lincoln. it's the beginning of the fulfillment of jefferson's promise. the 14th amendment which guarantees equality to all persons and prohibits states as well as the federal government from denying basic liberties, privileges, or immunities to citizens. and finally, the 15th amendment which gave african-americans right to vote. all three of those turn 150 in

the next five years. we are commemorating, celebrating, and debating them at the national constitution center. we have to be reminded that the declaration was essentially a promissory note. jefferson offered the ideal of equality but it took the civil war, the astonishing sacrifice of life and treasure and blood to incorporate these amendments into the constitution and make a promise of equality reality. so now it is time to look at and stand in the presence of the first public printing of the constitution. this is an exciting document as well. there are several important original copies of the constitution. there is the one that was signed in philadelphia in 1787. now in the national archives. there are engrossed copies of the first public printings.

but this is the first copy that we the people of the united states actually saw. it's called the pennsylvania packet. that is because it was printed in the pennsylvania packet newspaper on september 19, 1787. two days after the constitution was signed. the pennsylvania packet was a newspaper that was owned by john dunlop and david claypool. john dunlop had a great gig. he was the printer who did the original copies of the original declaration and the constitution. on the side he ran one of , philadelphia's biggest and best read newspapers. it was called the "pennsylvania packet. it sold for fourpence. what is so exciting about this document is it is the first copy that we the people of the united states actually read and saw. that is why some scholars believe that this copy is even

more constitutionally significant than the one in the national archives. after all the constitution did , not become the supreme law of the land when congress proposed it in independence hall. it took the ratification and the assent of the people and special ratifying conventions to give it the weight of supreme law. in order to become ratified, there had to be a national debate. citizens read and debated arguments like the federalist papers written by madison and hamilton published as pamphlets and gave justification for the constitution. there were opposing pamphlets written by the antifederalists who thought it should not be ratified. the popular debate was central to what makes the constitution our supreme law. imagine people clamoring to get this newspaper, wondering what happened in secret in constitution hall, and seeing this incredibly plain newspaper.

there are no ads. it's just the printing of the entire text of the constitution pre-ambulatory material. it said is signed by the president of the convention, george washington. it has a preamble that says the states and lists all of them individually, resolved that this be sent out to the people for ratification and then there is a letter from george washington as well. you can see it on both sides. the "s" are written like f's. it is the style of the day. we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union looks like "eftablifhed." you can get used to that as you go along. here is the constitution of the united states. let's imagine we are those citizens of philadelphia picking it up. i don't know if they got it from newsstands or was posted on the street. they were reading it and trying to decide whether or not they

would allow the ratifying conventions to approve it. why was the constitution proposed? after jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, the revolutionary war was fought and the 13 colonies created a government under a document known as the articles of confederation. it passed in 1777 by the continental congress. it was drafted in 1776 and approved in 1777. we see from the explanation it six pages long and contained 13 articles. but there was a problem with the articles of confederation. it was too loose a union. as a result the government that , resulted was not strong enough to wage war, to maintain fiscal unity, to manage the economy. during the revolutionary war, george washington famously

struggled to get the funds necessary to actually conduct the war. he was always writing to the continental congress asking for more money. under the articles of confederation, the colonies are not able to avoid that problem of lack of coordination. as a result, there was unrest. debtors rebellions transfixed the framers. shays rebellion in massachusetts where debtors rioted and refused to pay creditors. it alarmed people like james madison who believed the first object of government was the protection of private property. madison therefore and others like him faced a dilemma. they wanted a government strong enough to do what the articles could not do which was to allow the raising of taxes for war and economic union. but on the other hand, they wanted a government constrained enough not to menace the basic rights that they thought government was created to

protect. this is the central drama in the constitution how to create that , balance. there were different proposals for structuring the government. there were proposals to create a unicameral legislature or a bicameral legislation of two houses. that was the option eventually chosen, blending representations for the small states who got two votes in the senate with , representation for large states never represented by population in the house. that separation of the house and senate was one of the ways that madison and the other framers insisted on separating power to ensure that one branch did not become tyrannical and dominate the others. madison was most concerned about tyranny in the legislative branch. he saw what happened to state legislatures under the articles that threatened private property and refused to pay the war debts. he wants to constrain congress.

in article one of the constitution, which enumerates congresses power he set up a , government of limited powers. the idea is power is not granted, it is reserved retained by the people. the presidency is also spelled out, although there was less attention paid to the president and abuses by the executive branch than the legislative branch. and the judicial branch is created as well. at the constitutional convention towards the end, a big debate arose about whether or not to include a bill of rights. antifederalists like george mason from virginia who had written the virginia declaration of rights that was the most important source of jefferson's declaration of independence had initially supported the constitution. but became concerned that because it did not include a declaration of rights, the thernment might menace

natural rights it was created to protect. mason and two others refused to sign the constitution because it did not contain a bill of rights. james madison initially denied the need for the bill of rights on two grounds. he said it could be unnecessary or dangerous. unnecessary because the constitution itself was a bill of rights by constraining congress and only granting enumerated powers to ensure the government could not threaten liberty. but he also worried the bill of rights was unnecessary because if you wrote down certain rights, people in the future might assume that if the right was not written down, it was not protected. that's why he initially said no. based on the opposition of the antifederalists, people in the states who read copies of the constitution like this one in packet, begania to demand a bill of rights. several state ratifying conventions insisted on subsequent amendments as part of the ratification. as a result of this groundswell of popular demand for a bill of

rights james madison changed his , mind. it's one of the great examples pragmatic, moderate flexible , politician listening to the will of the people. in he went to congress and 1789, proposed a bill of rights. we are going to talk about the bill of rights and see one of the 12 surviving original copies in a moment. so now it is time to talk about the bill of rights. we have here commissioned philadelphia artists to do renditions of each of the 10 amendments to the constitution known as the bill of rights. it's a great parlor game. what do you think this one is? i never got them immediately. but this is speedy trial. the sixth amendment, in all criminal prosecution the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

this one is easier. there are two places in the constitution that spell out a specific dollar amount. this is one of them. you see a $20 bill. this is the seventh amendment, the right to a civil jury trial. it says incidents of common law where the value in controversy exceeds the right of trial by $20, jury shall be preserved. this is the goriest of our amendments. it is the eighth amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. with tasteful gothic vividness , we have a couple of creepy punishments that are prohibited by the eighth amendment according to this rendition. this is one of the most highly contested amendments. the ninth amendment is that the enumeration of the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. this is the amendment that madison put into answer the concern we talked about a moment ago, that if you wrote down certain rights, people might

assume if it was not written down, it was not protected. the ninth amendment says don't assume this is a complete list. natural rights may include other basic rights and these rights come from god and not from government. there's a lovely version of the 10th amendment balancing federal and state power. this is lots of fun. out online at constitutioncenter.org and see what you think about these renditions. we are about to go see one of the most priceless documents in american constitutional history. one of the 12 surviving copies of the bill of rights. in october of 1789, george washington sent 13 copies of the bill of rights to the states and one to the federal government so they could debate whether or not to ratify it. 12 those copies survive. this is one of them. there are two unidentified copies. in the national archives, there

are two copies unidentified. this is one of those unidentified copies. for the past 100 years it's been , at the new york public library. through a historic and wonderful sharing agreement the new york , public library and the commonwealth of pennsylvania have agreed to share this priceless original copy of the bill of rights for the next 100 years. you can see it here at the national constitution center for three years and then it will go that to the new york public library and come back to pennsylvania and will go back preciouse a constitutional football so we can share it and display for the public so as many of you as possible can actually see the original. when we go in to see the original copy of the bill of rights there are a few striking , things about it. the most striking thing for those of us to think of it as being limited to 10 amendments is that the original has 12 amendments that were sent out to the states.

james madison proposed as many as 19 amendments. we will see that the first amendment that is written of the original bill of rights is not the one we think of. "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and the press." instead, it was the amendment that had to do with the size of congress. it says there shall be one representative in congress for every 40,000 people. if that amendment had passed, there would be more than 4000 representatives in congress today as opposed to 435. imagine the debates that would have resulted. that reminds us that the framers were centrally concerned about the size of congress and in keeping representatives close to the people. the second amendment that we will see in a moment says that congress cannot raise its salary without an intervening election. that is the amendment that was eventually ratified in the 1990's and is the 27th amendment. how interesting. the first unit amendments have to do with congress and its

powers. james madison was really concerned about abuses of power of the legislature. those were the amendments proposed. our first amendment is the original third amendment. although we should not deny the centrality of the freedom of speech in the american tradition it was not the concern that was , foremost in the framers mind. they were more concerned about questions involving congressional apportionment. we are about to see the original bill of rights. it is going to be dark because of the extraordinary rare nature of the document. we cannot put light on it. it is encased in a extraordinary carrying case i will tell you about. let's go see the original bill of rights. this is one of the 12 surviving original copies of the bill of rights. we see john adams signature on the bottom. he is signing as vice president of united states and president of the senate.

it has a preamble. and as i mentioned, there were 13 original copies of the bill of rights. one for the federal government, since the state and the feds. 12 of the copies survived. eight states have original copies and currently display them. four states do not. those are georgia, maryland, new york, and pennsylvania. this is one of those unidentified copies that was in the new york public library for 100 years and is now being shared by new york and pennsylvania for the next 100 years. it was sent out by george washington on october 2. faded but still distinct. the question of how states get their copies back has resulted in amazing detective work. north carolina's original copy

went missing for a long time. it was recently returned to the state of north carolina as a result of an f.b.i. sting operation that was engineered with the help of the national constitution center. you can read that riveting story in a book called "lost rights." we are proud and excited to be with ourg this copy great partners at the new york public library. it was an amazing example of a collaboration to get this here in a way safe to display. this document is encased in an elaborate carrying case, filled with argon gas. it maintains perfect humidity conditions. behind this beautiful carrying case is a room that has perfect humidity control. in the small event anything happened to the carrying case,

the document's humidity would be preserved in the background. it is being presented according to the most rigorous preservation standards and we are excited and honored to be a steward for this historical document moving forward. now we move from the 18th century to the 21st century. this interactive display is my favorite part of this entire exciting exhibit because you, the people, engage online as well as at the constitution center. it is called "writing rights." it was developed with our great partners at the leading database that collects global constitutions with seed money provided by google ideas. this interactive that was developed with constitute and

zack elkins who teaches at the austinity of texas at allows you to do two things. you can trace the sources of the bill of rights. the state constitutions jefferson and madison drew on in writing the declaration of independence and bill of rights. then you can trace the spread of each liberty in the bill of rights across the globe, and compare how constitutions around the world protect liberty. i love to watch visitors at the constitution center engaging with this. clicking on their countries and tracing the sources of the bill of rights. i could spend hours playing with it. let's check it out. first, the documentary sources of the bill of rights. madison drew on george mason's virginia declaration which also inspired thomas jefferson. let's look at the amendments

that madison proposed that were not adopted. his first proposal talks about natural rights. it says all powers originally vested in the people. it talks about the need for government to protect natural rights. it says the people have the right to reform or change the government did this takes us back to the original declaration centrality us of the to abolish an established government. the second proposal is what we talked about. it appears in the original bill of rights in the first amendment. that is the one that says there has to be one representative in congress for every 40,000 inhabitants. madison's third proposal, this is the one he felt most important in the entire bunch his favorite amendment.

,it says no speech shall violate the equal rights of conscious, the freedom of press, it would have prevented the states and federal government from violating basic, common law rights. the original bill of rights only binds the federal government. it says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. it did not say states do not have that. it did not prevent states from making these laws. it took the civil war and the fourth amendment to incorporate the original bill of rights and force the states as well as the federal government to respect basic privileges and natural rights as madison intended. madison's final proposal says each department cannot exercise the powers of the other. he was very keen on separating powers to protect liberty. this is his amendment. we see the amendments not adopted. what about the ones that work? let's take the second amendment.

the subject of great contemporary controversy. when madison drafted all of the amendments, he was not making them up out of thin air. he was cutting and pasting among revolutionary constitutions that were adopted between 1776 when the declaration was passed and 1787 when the constitution was the less constitutional convention was called. there is a big debate about whether it protects an individual or a collective right. we'll see that most of the state versions of the second amendment talk about it as a collective right. they were concerned that federal standing armies should not displace state militias. the new york ratifying conventions as a well regulated militia is a proper natural defense of a free state and talks about freestanding armies being dangerous. one of the revolutionary era declarations talks about it as an individual right.

the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, the state, or purposes of killing game. when madison first proposed the second amendment, he phrased it as a collective over individual right. his first draft begins with the right of the people to keep and bear arms and then talks about a well armed and regulated militia. you can see the language changing as it moves through congress. the well regulated militia language is already adopted by the time the house picks it up. it involves further into the second amendment that we know today. you can make up your own mind about whether the pennsylvania statement by itself suggests the right is an individual right. there is no doubt that by the time of the civil war, many more states conceived of the right to bear arms as an individual right. the supreme court upheld it is an individual right. you remarkable tool lets

pick any amendment that you like, look at it. you can look at its antecedents that talks about rights of conscience and speech as a natural right. you can look up george mason's declaration which i have mentioned a few times, the virginia declaration of rights, and see how the free exercise clause looks so much like ours. you can see what percentage of the language in the texts match. in our first amendment came from virginia. that's the first exciting thing you can do with this interactive . that is not all. you can also take any right in the bill of rights and compare its treatment in constitutions around the globe. look at this incredible example. right now there is a debate , about the scope of state surveillance power. the fourth amendment says the

right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. these countries in yellow are countries that have a version of the fourth amendment. let's pick japan for comparison. when general macarthur drafted the japanese constitution after world war ii, he cut and pasted the american fourth amendment re. stuck it right in thei you see the text of the japanese search and seizure provision is almost exactly like the american one. it is remarkable. 62% of the text matches and you can see how specifically macarthur drew on the american experience. by contrast, if we were to click on say russia, you can see their

fourth amendment is nothing like ours. it is this then protection. nobody will be obliged to testify against themselves or close relatives. it's 3% of content matching. unlike japan. the russian fourth amendment is very different from ours. it is incredible. pick whatever right you like. there is a debate about free speech around the world. we know our first amendment which protects free speech, and right now france is going through a remarkable debate about whether blasphemy can be protected and hate speech can be criminalized. the french declaration of human rights of 1789 says the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. any citizen may speak and write and publish freely except in cases determined by law. that is a big exception. france, like most of europe, does regulate hate speech and

offenses against dignity more than in the american tradition. right now, there is a huge debate about whether europe should adopt a right to be forgotten on the internet, but allows people to delete true but embarrassing information about themselves. in america you cannot do that , because of the first amendment. britain does not have a written constitution but did adopt the human rights act. you can see the free expression provisions are far less unequivocal because they come from a different tradition. i think this is a thrilling tool. it is exciting to see visitors to the constitution center clicking on their country and comparing it with american provisions. or beginning with something they are interested in such as gender discrimination.

seeing which countries have gender discrimination protections. does albania? yes, it does. who knew? please, go online to constitutioncenter.org. you'll find this great interactive. study for yourself, there is so much to learn about the constitution, the declaration, and the bill of rights. all of us not have just an opportunity and right, but an obligation as citizens to educate ourselves. that is what this great gallery is about. it is important to come see the original documents and imagine what it was like to be with the men of the time who ratified the documents. really these are not pieces of , paper. as madison said bills of rights , are parchment barriers. it is the spirit of liberty and the hearts and minds of people. that spirit can only be cultivated by education. this is a center for education and debate about the constitution. you can educate yourself by

coming here and looking at the documents. you can also go online, study, choose, compare. our slogan here is visit, learn, debate. visit, see the documents. learn about their historic and can to bring relevance. and most important, debate their meaning. there are good arguments and all sides of the constitutional arguments that transfix america. when someone tells you there is a clear answer, reach for your wallet because there is not. you have a lot of learning to do. you have to familiarize with the text, with history, then you can engage in the debates and make up your mind. thank you so much for being with me this morning. it was exciting to show this gallery to you and i look forward to seeing you here at the national constitution center. >> the george washington book prize is awarded annually to a

work that advances understanding of george washington and america's founding era. this year's prize went to lin-manuel miranda for his broadway musical, "hamilton." next, the award ceremony held in new york city where we will hear from mr. miranda, as well as the author of the 2005 hamilton biography on which the musical is based. we will see a performance from the play. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening, thank you. my name is jim basker and i am the president of the gilder lehrman institue of american history. it's my pleasure and privilege to welcome you to the 11th presentation of george washington prize on behalf of the three cohosts of tonight's event. regent, barbara lucals