. scholars talk about its role as a political agreement and inspiration for later documents and arguments for liberty. the heritage foundation provided this video. >> hello and welcome to the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the mayflower and compact. i'm will fred mcclay. the colony was not the first colony. it was not the first successful colony, but it may have been the most important, particularly for the presence established and the legacies that it left. there is a strong case to be made that november 11th, the day

that a battered square rigor called the mayflower made safe harbor in a place near what is today province town, massachusetts. but that day should be one of the greatest moments in our national history comparable to the 4th of july, independence day and september 17th constitution day. but let me qualify that statement a little bit. we think of the pilgrims as our fore bearers and we are right to do so. but it's important to remember that they and the other puritans who were settling new england at the time did not imagine they were establishing the united states of america. nothing could have been further from their minds. they were doing something entirely different. they were about the business of establishing a place where they could enjoy a pure and

uncorrupted church. the early settlers of virginia had been motivated primary by material, gold, wealth, material wealth. but the settlers of new england was motivated almost entirely by religious sale. they had a religious bent that believed the church of england had not gone far enough to purge itself of its corrupt aspects and despaired at such a cleansing renewal ever coming in their lifetimes, hence their decision to emigrate to the new world for a new beginning. the plymouth colonists were separatists, they separated themselves from the church of

england as a hopeless corrupted body and preferred to worship in an independence congregational, meaning self-governing churches. after 11 years living an increasingly difficult exile in the netherlands, the patent from a virginia company had permitted them to establish an english colony where they could practice their faith freely. that was their dream. so across the ocean they came aboard the mayflower and made landfall in what is today cape cod, a place outside the virginia company's jurisdiction and indeed outside the jurisdiction of any known government. that was a problem. they were clear and present dangers in these circumstances which were unexpected. and the group's leaders knew that. they were especially worried the colony might not be able to hold together as a law abiding entity

in the absence of some larger controlling authority. about half of those on board were not members of the separatist group. they were known as strangers, the pilgrims term for them, nonseparating passengers who had various motives, mostly nonreligious motives for making the trip, but the skills and labor were going to be essential to the success of the colony. some of the strangers had indicated once it was known where the landing would be taking place that because the colony was going to be planted outside the ambit of the royal charter, they might feel free to go wherever they wanted and as one of them said, use their own liberty for none had power to command them.

this was a frightening prospect to the leaders. what were they going to do about it? well, what they did in response was they drafted and signed on november 11th a short document that they would come to call the plymouth greeks we called it the mayflower compact, but that was not until the '90s. they covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, closed quote and committed themselves to obey any and all laws and authorities that would be established thereby. this would turn out to be one of the most primal constitutional moments in history, one that established the principal of self-rule that would be the heartbeat of american public and

free institutions. over two centuries before the philosophers caruso expressed the idea these pilgrim settlers were living it. they had grasped that freedom means not lawlessness, but living in accordance with the law that you dictate to yourself. so as inauspicious as this event was at the time, taking place so far away from the known world, the centers of power and influence and population and civilization, it proved to be a crucial milestone in the development of self-governing political institutions. the signatories were following the same pattern of self-government that new englanders would use in organizing their churches, justice in the congress gong greg congregation and

asserted their right to do so. what made these developments even more astonishing is they amounted to a real world dram dramatize, here they had done it, and done it years before john locke and thomas hock son had gotten around to forming the idea, not to mention a century and a half before the declaration of independence, which would pro claim they derive their consent from the government, famous words and that is the right to have people to institute new government, letting its foundation and powers in such form as to them

shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. now having made this amazing connection, let me qualify it in some ways, important ways. first and most importantly, this agreement aboard the mayflower was not something being fashioned in a prepolitical -- precultural state of nature, such as the social contract theorists would later posit. all we have to do is look closely at the document to see that very clearly. the document begins with the words "in the name of god." it proceeds to identify the signatories as "loyal subjects of our dread sovereign royal king james." undertaken "for the glory of god and add vancement of the christian faith and in honor of

our king and country." it identify it is signatories as endorsing the agreement "in the presence of god and one another." not exactly the state of nature. and it proposes the goal of framing "just and equal laws that promote the general good of the colony." in other words, this agreement was borrowing at every turn from the religious political, legal, laurel practices of new england. it wasn't starting fresh, not at all. it was building on deep foundations and even when the declaration of independence came on the scene, it drew not only on john locke, which most assuredly did, but the same deep reservoir of experience and sum

total of 150 subsequent years of american colonial experience of self-government. self-government in georgia, seville government in virginia and self-government in pennsylvania and all colonies. now let me make one other point. we shall not forget in the telling of this story the sheer daring and courage of the pilgrims, the courage that they showed in undertaking this astonishing journey, astonishing depth of their faith, their commitment to their faith. when they landed at cape cod, they might as well for all practical purposes have been landing on the surface of the moon. surely there were those among them -- and i don't think just a few, who must have quaked a bit

silently and inwardly, even at their joy of making landfall and wondered for a moment and maybe more than a moment, if it had not been all an act of madness that had brought them there, away from everything they had known, everything that was familiar into the terrors and uncertainty of a strange and very forbidding land. some of what they must have been feeling was very well expressed by william bradford, their leader when they arrived at cape cod and let me quote from him." being now past the vast ocean and a sea of troubles before them in expectations, they had now no friends to welcome them, nor ends to entertain and refresh their weather beaten bodies, no houses or much less towns to repair to the seek, besides, what could they see but

a hideous and desolate wilderness full of wild beasts and wild men and what multitude of them there were they knew not. for which ever way they turned their eyes save upward to heaven, they could have little solace or content for any outward object. for summer with all appearance with the weather beaten phase and thickets represented wild and savage hue." bradford continues. they looked behind them. there was a mighty ocean which they had pass and now as a main bar or gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. what could now sustain them but the spirit of god and his grace. what indeed but the religious

faith that they possess so strongly could have sustained them just as it propelled them across the seas. and yet we should not forget that the mayflower compact did not establish a theocracy, a rule by religion. yes, its language was ringed about by christian imagery and assumptions, and those images and assumptions are of central importance to the whole story. yes, the pilgrims religious faith was the thing that grove them across the seas in search of a better and more faithful way of life, but the mayflower compact -- in the mayflower compact, the pilgrims wisely chose a government based on civil agreement, not on compulsory, devine or biblical

authority or edict. they embraced and included the strangers, those who were not members of the church, but whose contributions to the colony was understood to be essential to its success. call it pragmatic, call it inclusive, whatever we call it, it's central to our understanding of what happened with the mayflower compact. so much would be learned in the nearly two centuries of british american life and much was learned that came out of the same interplay between high hopes and hard pragmatic realities. above all else what was being learned in the english colonies was the habit of self-rule, developed in the lives of free colonists who were too distant from their colonial masters to be governable from afar.

the example of the mayflower compact serves as a model for all that was to come, including the american revolution, free people coming together under god and by their own initiative establishing the institutions by which they would rule themselves. may we continue to look to that model and that example. thank you. >> thank you so much, dr. mcclay. as always we think you are the best qualified to have given us that spectacular presentation. you know, america was the first nation in history founded on a specific creed, a fundamental belief in liberty and equality for every human goal. it is a creed rooted in natural law and natural rights. its political expression is limited government, popular

sovereignty, the separation of powers and a vibrant civil society animated by private associations and fake communities of every kind. these ideas are central to america's identity and over time entered into america's state, social, and economic culture as a nation. dr. jeffrey morrison is here with us today to discuss the mayflower compact and religious liberty in the united states. he will reaffirm the importance of american institutions, particularly religious freedom and the freedom of speech, as well as civil society. we believe it is necessary to respond to the emergent narrative that aim to destruct the civil society. dr. jeffrey morrison, professor

of american studies at christopher newport university in newport news, virginia and federal government james madison foundation in alexandria virginia. dr. morrison has held positions from prince stone university to the u.s. air force academy. he has published as an author or editor five books on american political culture, including the political philosophy of george washington. ladies and gentlemen, let's give dr. jeffrey morrison a warm welcome. >> thank you for that introduction and in the next 12 minutes i will talk about the mayflower compact and relation to religious liberty, not toleration, but religious liberty and that is an american novations, and it begins with

the pilgrims in 1620 and continue in the subsequent decades of the 17th century and in the 18th century, especially in virginia, thomas jefferson and james madison and george washington and others will continue to perfect that religious liberty, but it is the pilgrim that is begin in 1620. we call them pilgrims because that's what they called themselves, one of their leaders, william bradford wrote a book called plymouth plantation where they describe their lives and much of what we know of them came from bradford's book and in that book he describes why they went where they went and why they did what they did and why they took ship in the mayflower and came to the new world. incidentally it was not the first time those pilgrims had left england. we call them pilgrims and separatists. they are a group of puritans, that group of prodestant chris

unanimouses who became convinced the church of england, the anglican church was subject to corruption and had become in their view overly catholic in its liturgy and practice. so they hoped to purify it and return the anglican church to for pristine, modeled on the new testament. now, these principle grimes had concluded that as noble as that work may have been, it was impossible to do. the anglican church had become corrupt and they could no longer stay. they had to leave. the first place they went was to holland, the bustling place lay den and they were tolerated and not persecuted as is commonly believed, but they became concerned their children and grandchildren and subsequent generations would have been

corrupted or at least influenced by too secular and commercial environment there, that they were losing some of their zeal in their first love. so they made a decision, we will go back to england and apply for a charter to go to the new world and we will hire a ship to take us there. they did apply for a charter from the crown, which was denied. and so in an effort to make their venture legal, they went to a virginia company. that corporation, which outfitted and backed the expedition headed by christopher newport, captain newport, the namesake of my university and which settled eventually on jamestown island and thus planted the fist permanent british colony in north america. so there is that legal tie between the pilgrims and the

settlers at jamestown, one can even say there is commonality of purpose. and there was a charter eventually given to the settlers, the first settlers of 29. there are commercial purposes mentioned there, but there are religious purposes as well. in both virginia and massachusetts, and so one can see these two parallel missions at work in virginia, as well as in new england. but bradford describes the reason that they went and this is backed up by later preachers and public figures. and the reason they went was not to create a tolerant regime or a plantation of religious liberty. they went to rule. they want to create what they consider to be godly commonwealth and just 7 years later i'm going to read a line

or two of a sermon from the samuel willard, "i perceive they are mistaken in the design of the first planters who was decision was not toleration, but professor enemies of it. their business was to settle and secure religious to posterity according to that way which they believed was of god." and you can verify this by looking at the first massachusetts charter of 1629. and site the natives to the company and obedience of the christian faith. so principally religion, but a more robust concept than toleration, religion in that instance is considered to be a natural right. we would say a human right, a god given right.

so why did they draw up this document, these pilgrims on the mayflower? they set sail in 16 -- in september of 1620, crossed the tempestuous ocean. the main mast crack and thought they were going to have to return. they repaired it and continued on. but in the course of that journey, they were blown off course. we can see from the text of the compact to northern parts of virginia and that's where they had the patent for that land. and so it becomes evident to them when they site land, when they drop anchor off of what is now cape cod or what is now cape cod that they are not where they intended to go and the legal document they had is no longer valid. it's moot. and the pilgrims of whom there

are roughly 35 are only part of the human cargo of the mayflower. there were roughly 70 nonpilgrim passengers who had bought their passage on the ship, retrofitted wine ship. they are fleeing economic hardship and fleeing in some cases creditors and in others fleeing the law. so they are kind of a rough bunch of customers in some ways. and the pilgrims hear them talking once they realize we are not where we intended to go and we have no legal controlling authority here, they overhear some of the rougher customers threatening to live without law once they go ashore. and so on the fly under the pressure of circumstances, they create the first written social contract, which i'm aware in the

history of the western world. and certainly the first written social contract in the colonies, in the british north american colonies and that is a remarkable thing and it should not be undervalued. 1620, this is a full generation, nearly two generations before thomas hobbs, other political philosophers like thomas locke will be writing about a contract and theorizing about individuals in a state of nature agreeing with one another to give up some of their rights in order to form a civil society. here we see it happening in realtime under the pressure of events, and it is a remarkable performance that they give there in the galley of the mayflower. it's a very compact document, and so perhaps looking at a

couple lines and parse them out. it begins with in the name of god amen. our sovereign lord by the grace of god in britain france and et cetera. the word et cetera is in there. they said what would have been perhaps a more familiar formulation in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, amen. but they don't do that because this is a mixed group of persons whose signatures they are keen to get on this social contract. but sometimes referred to as a constitution, but it isn't a constitution, at best a proto constitution, creates a community consciously of equals, of individuals who perhaps of families who are willing to

abide by -- they make a promise to one another, we are going to abide by the laws that we ourselves will write in the future, so long as those laws are just and neat, they say. we also note they confess themselves to be the loyal subjects of king james, the same king james that has his name in the bible, a version authorized by him, a group of puritans had been agitating him for a cleaner version, that didn't have commentaries and footnotes, so he sort of begrudgingly gave in and authored this new translation of the bible, the puritans bible, you might say. so they are the loyal suggests of king james. they don't intend to leave their subject hood or renounce the authority of the king over them.

but in a way it is a declaration of religious independence, it is a statement of religious liberty because in leaving they have left behind his church, the church of england which he is the head and they are saying, your religion we no longer accept. we will no longer be governed by it. but we don't reject your leadership. you are sovereign lord. and for glory of god and add vancement of the christian faith we are taking this voyage to plant as they say the first colony in the northern parts of virginia. but here is the ail salient language, the operative language, in the presence of god and one another we covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic for better ordering and preservation in

furtherance of the ends aforesaid. it's a lovely image, an intimate image of civil body politic, a body is a unity when one part of your body hurts, the whole body hurts, when one part feels good, your whole body feels good. they are keen to get and do get the signatures of every adult male head of household who signs as an equal. one signature isn't more weighty than another signature. they are individuals before signing this, but after its signing they are now a community. and that i think is one of the great legacies, and their actions in leaving england are a statement of religious independence, but by crafting this civil body politic, they

create this space for religious liberty and laws in the future. >> thank you so much, dr. morrison, what an incredible presentation. you know, again, we are going to march back to november 11, 1620 when the english settlers arrived in the new world seeking religious freedom. but let's remember, when the pilgrims landed near cape cod, massachusetts , they quickly realized they needed something more, a document that would make possible a self-governing community, the result that we have been talking about all day was the mayflower compact, its social contract and covenant for a new political society. this remarkable document is an early example of democratic self-rule and became a model for

our american founders, but often time overlooked at how the christian beliefs of these pilgrims especially their commitment of freedom of con she is laid the groundwork for religious freedom in american colonies. so i would like you to join us now for our panel discussion about the origins of religious liberty in america and its enduring importance to our democracy. our very own emily gow who is the director of helen society at the heritage foundation and an attorney who has defended religious freedom for the last 14 years will moderate our panel. she has worked on behalf of victims of religious freedom violations in east asia, the middle east, europe, and south asia at the state department's office of international

religious freedom and beckett law. emily is a member of the supreme court bash and the bar associations of both california and the pacific of columbia. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome emily gow. >> well, thank you very much, too, dr. morrison for that excellent lecture and now i would like to introduce dr. eric pattern son who will join us for this discussion. he serves as the executive vice president of the freedom institute and dean at the school of government and research fellow at georgetown and berkeley university. his interest in the ethics and foreign policy is informed by the u.s. department of state political and military affairs and worked throughout africa and central asia, south asia. he has served in the government for more than 20 years both as

an officer and commander in the air national guard and as a white house fellow working for the director of the u.s. office of personnel management. he is the author and editor of over a dozen books on religion and foreign policy and ethics. political science in santa barbara and politics in whales. delighted to introduce dr. patterson and dr. morrison to join us for this conversation. >> thank you. >> to pick up from where dr. morrison dropped off, the mayflower compact was a declaration of religious independence and by crafting a civil body politic, the community created this space for religious freedom in law in the future. dr. morrison, would you like to elaborate on that statement?

>> yes. i would be happy to. thank you. the mayflower compact is not a constitution. occasionally you might hear it referred to as such, but it isn't. in that it creates that social contract, that civil body politic as they refer to themselves, that lovely intimate organic metaphor for a political community. and it extracts a promise from signatories. they promise they are going to abide by those laws, that they will make themselves, whether they be religious laws or civil laws, but there aren't any laws laid down. there aren't any institutions of government created by that compact. and so that was my point in saying it creates a space in the future to a religious liberty and very active in leaving england, physically separating and leaving the church of

england is headed by the king, is indeed an act of independence, an act of declaration of independence. that's what they mean. >> i fully agree this is an act of independence and goes back to the reformation in the 1500s. as early as the mid-1500s there are reformers who say we have to separate ourselves from government-led ecclesiastical institutions, state churches and by the 1580s in england the predecessors of america's pilgrims or the separatists set up independence congregation, first in london and then the netherlands. they were talking about the mayflower compact is part of that separatist movement. what they do is make a

commitment between themselves and god where they hold one another accountable and covenant together as a religious body. that's the basis for the mayflower compact and rooted in that type of theological commitment. >> thank you. in your lecture, dr. morrison, you brought up the point of equality, the equality of the passengers on the mayflower who were the pilgrims and those that were not from the pilgrim community and how they were treated with a remarkable level of equality. could you both elaborate on that further? and dr. morrison would you like to go first. >> i would be happy to. thank you. it is a remarkable thing that when you look through the signatories to that, every adult male signed either for himself or for his head of household, you see by their names some

esquire, esq afterwards and one of them actually was my tenth grade grandfather, william brewster had went to cambridge. so there are various classes we might say represented among the passengers and i mention in my remark that is many of the so-called strangers, the nonpilgrims were kind of rough customers, so fleeing the law or fleeing creditors, but they were all treated as equals in this civil body politic and there are some subtle acknowledgement that they might not be members of the religious community or choose not to come under the laws that would be written in the future. and i think there is an implication that if not, then they can themselves separate from that community. but it is a remarkable thing i think in 1620 when most of the world was a rigid -- had rigid class systems that the esquires

and common folk and maybe even the lawbreakers among them, the criminals, fleeing england all have equal status civilly in that body of politic. >> i agree. and this comes from the reformation. these people take very serious the reformation idea of the equality -- or priesthood, which is the principal of equality, equality of citizens and other parts of english history as well, going back to the magna carta. these are seeking liberty so they can orient their lives based on their faith commitments and they do not impose that on their fellow men temperature mayflower compact is rooted in theological commitment, but also a document so there is not anarchy when they land.

but they do this in a way where they are not imposing a faith tradition, a domination, not imposing their beliefs on the others and recognizing a principal of citizenship equality with their fellow passengers. >> i would like to add one thing, if i may. this is not -- plymouth is not philadelphia. it's not pennsylvania. it's not the radical galitar galitarianism who will form his own colony. as dr. patternson mentioned, we don't want to make too much of it, but a remarkable thing in an age where there is this fairly rigid class structure throughout europe from where those folks come. >> yes. and also to make the point in your lecture that religious

freedom, not mere toleration is an american innovation. do you want to elaborate on that and how the mayflower compact led to that? >> i will elaborate on it for certain. i think there is a very rich legacy of the compact in american constitutionalism, but not explicit liberty laid down. there is a difference in religious liberty and religious toleration, is the difference between the kinds of rights people have. religious liberty is you have a natural human right to freely exercise -- first freely believe or not believe and then to freely exercise your faith, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. toleration is different and that's what was around the globe pretty much the most liberal policy. the toleration means that the government will tolerate you so

long as it sees fit and if you are not -- as often implies, as it did in england, an established church, state church, those state churches dr. patterson illuded to. you will pay some kind of penalty and suffer some kind of civil disability if you are not part of that national church or state church. to give you an example, if you were youish in england, no matter how bright you were, you could not go to the two state universities, oxford and cambridge. you had to either convert and profess to be or perhaps sincerely be an anglican or go to some dissenting academy. so that's what toleration means, the government will tolerate you. it is more like a civil right. almost like a driver's license or something that the government issues and the government can

take back. religious liberty is that natural human right that no government can take away from you. and i do think the compact and documents that follow in its train do create a space for that, but certainly -- the compact certainly doesn't explicitly guarantee that and the natural right. we might think of the declaration of independence, as an inheritor of this frame. >> excellent. dr. patterson, do you want to comment on the religious liberty of american innovation? >> yes. and just two points that relate to the mayflower compact and its era and they both have to do with the statements early in the compact that are some of the language of the day that this is happening in the name of god and

to advance the gospel. this is an important point from the religious liberty standpoint. the first one is this. the other type of colonies that were being placed in the new world, whether they were portuguese or spanish, imposed christianity by the edge of the sword. and were so different in the english colonies, but especially here in southern virginia is that there is not the imposition of christianity by the sword. the pilgrims in particular and people who come after them like roger williams tend to share the gospel with the native americans, but they do not do it at the point of the sword and second, whether it's in plymouth plantation or pennsylvania or virginia or elsewhere, most of these religious communities that are set up in the colonial era have a right of exit. so people come into the community. maybe they have to -- they may have to follow the covenant, the

religious covenant of the community, but they can freely leave. no one forces them to stay there. they can go back to england. they could go someplace else and that is a pretty big principle in this era where it was considered a very little idea. the right to exit is a huge innovation that really is rooted in what these pilgrims did. >> thank you. now, both of you have written about religious pluralism and can you describe how the mayflower compact and creation of the civil body politic is informative on those interested in religious pluralism today. >> i can start on that. the pilgrims were separatists from the church of england, as dr. morrison said.

amazingly in 1620, they write this little document that organizes a civil body politic. it's a social compact, but social compact decades before hobbs , decades before locke and decades before russo. it is rooted in a set of, that support the teaching of science. that's because they had this notion rooted in covenant theology that individual believers in a community can make decisions about a faith and that there should not be a level of interference in the conscious effort that they make and this become it is congregational surges and similarly the perspiration chunks.

>> dr. patterson, would you like to comment. >> yes. certainly today we live in a plural society, a nation state. plymouth plantation is not a nation state. it is not a state. not even a formal colony of england. they don't have a charter, like william penn, to form his proprietary community. all they had was a patent, a legal document they get from the virginia company and gives them title to certain lands. and so they are on their own hook, if you will, and so they are portioned, as dr. patterson mentioned, they are forced to be liberal and egalitarian through the circumstances. that's one thing that make this

is document so remarkable. it was done on the fly. it was written i think literally in the galley of the mayflower before they set foot perhaps at plymouth rock. is there religious plurality among them? there is. there is religious plurality in england as well. so they get along holding our deepest differences religiously and i believe to this day polls indicate american, 90% of us believe in some kind of supreme being or higher power. america is still uniquely religious and can we learn something from this experiment in plymouth? i think we can. i think it has a legacy of constitutional. >> ism that is passed

down even hundreds of years later. but again, it's a remarkable production for its time and circumstances. >> could you also comment on how signing of the mayflower compact is a creation of this social contract influenced the community itself, its behaviors, its conduct and treatment of the members of that community and others? >> i will turn that to dr. patterson first. >> i think that's what this sets the groundwork for a level of cooperation that just has to happen. this is only about 100 people. they are facing winter off of cape cod. they just had this long ship's voyage. they have missed the harvest and things and about half of them die that winter. recognize the mayflower compact is rooted in world view

assumptions and at the same time it's a desperate commitment we have to work together or we are not going to survive this. but it lay it is groundwork for the type of colony that plymouth is over the next half century and that is a place where there is a lot of individual equality. it is a place where there is not the types of religious restrictions that we see in the massachusetts bay colony. a place where roger williams goes when he needs to have a place to get away from the massachusetts bay colony. we know there is efforts to share the gospel with the american indians there, but they are noncoercive. it really does set the groundwork for a model that is cooperative among citizens, but not coercive. >> i think that's very well said. and i will only add very briefly that once again, we have to keep in mind that the plymouth colony is different from the

massachusetts bay colony and different leadership, absolutely different costs and different ends and goals and boston, what become it is city of boston and the massachusetts bay colony that is sort of the power house and what becomes the state -- the colony of massachusetts and later the state of massachusetts. so that is led by john winthrop, a different sort of man than elder brewster, a different sort of man than william bradford. he is a lawyer, for one thing. he has a rather checkered career there in massachusetts bay being elected governor and deposed and elected again as his literal fortunes go up and down in england. so massachusetts bay is the -- and the city of boston, they are the kind of power house and literally tens of thousands of

people come in waves from old england to new england and they tend to settle there. plymouth colony is a smaller enterprise. it is first in i think that document that compact is very dispositive of thing that s that come later. we should remember that. we speak of the peaquat war. they are engaging americans and engaging themselves and strangers among them in slightly different ways. >> and our closing section, would you like to comment on anything else that we can learn as americans today from the mayflower compact that perhaps has been overlooked? >> well, if i may go first, i will try to be brief. i have alluded to this legacy of the mayflower compact and i don't want to make too much of it, but when we look at the structure of this document, with

a preamble, if you will, not exactly we the people, but, we the undersigned and then a statement of purposes of their journey, and then the creation of that civil body politic. and then a kind of pledge at the end, sort of pledge of mutuality. and then the signatories. that should look familiar to americans even today, right? that looks like the declaration of independence in a sense, that looks like the federal constitution in a sense. and it might be a bit of a stretch to go from we the undersigned to we the people, but sections of the document, again with self-identification with a preamble, a statement of purposes, then an allusion to the political community and pledge of mutuality and signatories. that's part of our dna, i would

like to say. i think the very first chromosome or whatever we want to call it, is planted there at plymouth and like physical dna in families, traits are inherited, aren't they, and sometimes they lie dormant for a generation or two and resurface. sometimes a grandchild is remarkably similar to a grandparent in features and things. so that would be my fleeting remark about the mayflower compact. i think it's that sort of a thing. it is our political dna and even though they were just a very small kind of self-funded and self-generated community, religious and political community, that document has far reaching implications, vast implications for a future in american constitutional history. >> emily, i agree with that point with dr. morrison. we have to remember as we celebrate the 400th anniversary

of the mayflower compact that the people who wrote the declaration of independence were about as far removed historically from the mayflower compact as you and i are from the civil war, a century and a half. and so this seed early on, one that then the framers of the declaration of independence and the constitution that they cite as important in the genealogy of ideas, it really can't be overstated and it's important for americans -- by the way, great americans like abraham lincoln and ronald reagan have done this. they look back in history and recognized how important the mayflower compact and these decisions early colonists have made in setting the united states on a course that over time becomes expanded notions of rights, liberty, citizenship and free exercise of religion. and think about how different,

again, 1620 when the mayflower compact was than the setting up of spanish colonies or portuguese colonies with high levels of slavery and think about the difference in plymouth, but rhode island in the dutch colony that is become new york and new jersey, that times in massachusetts and virginia, think about how different the '20s, '30s and '40s are, whether it's the english civil war, which is about to commence or 30-year war and the religious component, all of that violence, what a difference that the mayflower compact can have these individuals, theological commitments, to set up a civil body politic and express their religion without coercion. it's a very, very important seed in u.s. and in world history.

>> well, thank you both very much for helping us to understand the origins of the mayflower compact and its continuing influence on our body politic today as americans continue to discuss what is happening in our country, it is important for us to look at historical documents like the mayflower compact and see the legacy of equality, legacy of covenant that we have with one another as we look forward. thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> weeknights this month we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span 3. wednesday night we continue to mark the mayflower's 400th anniversary in a conversation with robert stone, director of the virtual mayflower project, who shows us how they used

virtual reality to re-create the ship and plymouth england harbor from which it set sail. watch wednesday, beginning at 8 p.m. eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span 3. >> you are watching american history tv every weekend on c-span 3, explore our nation's path, american history tv on c-span 3, created by cable television companies and provide american history tv to viewers as a public service. >> at an event hosted by the heritage foundation, participants look at the compact. the panelists discuss the basis for these laws and relationship