Reading James Madison’s Speech Proposing a Bill of Rights | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI

0:06 Hello, and welcome back to another Primary Source Close Read. I’m Kirk Higgins, and today I am joined by my colleague, Tony Williams. Hey, Kirk, that’s fun to be on here for the summer Close Read. Absolutely. So it is summertime when we’re recording this summer of 2021. And this summer I just wanted to give an opportunity for some of our staff to pick out some of their favorite

0:28 documents or documents that really speak to them. And, Tony, you’ve chosen a really interesting one, being as we work at the Bill of Rights Institute. You wanted to talk about the speech that James Madison gave when he introduced the Bill of Rights to the First Congress. Yeah, I chose it because it’s a little lesser known, I think, among our audience, but it’s a really important

0:54 speech and one that really hones in a lot on the art of politics and civic virtue. Yeah. So I really want to dive into that because I think this speech in particular looks at the mechanics of how we actually got the Bill of Rights passed.

1:14 Which I think oftentimes we study the words of the Bill of Rights. We look at what they’ve meant in court cases. But the mechanics of how they come into operation has a lot to do with. Like you said. Sort of the art of politics. And also just with what it means to practically live in a democratic society and the kinds of challenges that arise when trying

1:37 to make decisions amongst groups of people who have competing interests. And I don’t mean that in a negative sense. I just mean different people prioritizing different things or viewing issues in different ways. And Madison, the speech kind of addresses that head on, which is interesting. So I guess, Tony,

1:57 what really stands out to you, I guess, in the way that Madison frames this up that might guide us through this conversation. Yeah, well, I think Madison is not only an expert in political philosophy, but also understands how constitutionalism works with practical politics right, in terms of getting the American people to accept this new constitution

2:20 abide by political principles, and really to build a more harmonious political system in the country through these civic virtues. Right. And so he’s promoting in a prudent way a moderate approach to politics. One in which you understand different people’s points of view.

2:45 And you try to reach out to them without giving away too much. But you reach out to them in a moderate way to encourage them to see your point of view as well and to compromise and try to find some kind of middle ground somewhere in there on the continuum that satisfies all parties

3:08 and binds people to this new American constitutional order. Yeah, I think there’s so many huge topics we can unpack. There even getting into the nature of compromise, something that I think we’ve talked about in other episodes of good compromises versus Bad compromises. One thing that stood out to me in rereading this was how Madison frames

3:32 up answering this question, because it’s an issue that he flip flops on, right. He is at the Constitutional Convention and later in writing with the Federalist Papers. He is not in favor of Bill of Rights. But why should I sit here and ramble on about what Madison says when we can just dive in and take a look at his words? So let’s go ahead and do that.

3:53 So, Tony, I think something of what we’re talking about is somewhere in this question, what civic virtues did James Madison be necessary for politics and the democracy? And this is a theme he addresses in the Federalist Papers themselves. There’s sort of this theory of politics as they should work, but then there’s also this practicality of how do you actually make them work.

4:14 So you can set up the machinery of the Constitution, but it only works so long as people are willing to participate in the system in a way that promotes positive outcomes right. That works towards the common good. Don’t forget, he’s not only father of the Constitution, but he’s in the House of Representatives.

4:38 And I think we’re going to talk about this with some of his background. So he’s looking at things from a theoretical point of view, as you said, but also a very practical way in terms of negotiating with people and compromising and talking with them, both formally in Congress but then outside of Congress and taverns and street corners as well.

4:59 Yeah, absolutely. And you tied me up. Well, I’ll give just a brief context of background from James Madison. I’m sure many are familiar, but if not madison was born in Virginia in 1751. He is known as sort of the father of the Constitution. I do put that in quotes because I think it’s always important for us to remember that there were many delegates at the Philadelphia Convention

5:20 who contributed to the construction of the Constitution and the writing of it. I think he gets that moniker because he was really instrumental in guiding its development. But it’s always important to remember that there are lots of folks who are involved in the development of that document. He’s co author of The Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, where they wrote in defense of ratification of the new Constitution,

5:43 and once that process is wrapped up, the new government is going to be formed. He has an unsuccessful bid or wants to become a Senator, but he has not named a senator by the legislature in Virginia, which is how senators were chosen before. The 17th Amendment runs in the Fifth district for a house of seat and house Representatives wins against James Monroe.

6:06 And, Tony, fun fact I read this on the Internet, so it may not be trustworthy, but that this is the only time that two future presidents ran against each other in a congressional race. That’s kind of fun. You can put that in your trivia back pocket. But in the course of going through this election, I think it’s important to note,

6:29 nine of 13 states were needed to ratify the Constitution. And now I think to this point, we got to eleven of 13 states have ratified the Constitution, but that means there are two states that are still outstanding that have not ratified at this point. What their legal status is, I think, is debated often by historians. What were they doing when they weren’t ratified?

6:51 But another conversation for another day. But the point being that Madison is coming into office in the first Congress, undertaking a lot they’ve got a lot on their plate. They’ve got to establish a new government. But one of the things that came up during the ratification debates was whether or not the new Constitution ought to have a Bill of Rights. It was something that came up in Philadelphia.

7:11 James, George Mason, excuse me, famously thought that that was an absolute necessity and refused to sign on the Constitution without that being there. And throughout the ratification debates, there was this sort of pledge that a bill of rights would be added to the Constitution that would address the concerns of many of those who were

7:34 reluctant or out of fires or maybe those people who were on the fence. So with that, we’ll turn to June 8, 1789, when Madison addresses Congress. And again. As usual. We can only look at excerpts. But I’ve chosen to start at the beginning and kind of take the first four paragraphs here. Which I think are important. But just getting at that point of these are busy legislators with a big agenda.

7:59 And Madison really starts out with one of those civic virtues we talk about a lot humility. Saying. Hey. I’m sorry. But we’ve got to bring this before you because it’s important. So, Tony, tell me what’s going on here. Did I get the history right? Are we sort of in the right space here? Well, not surprisingly, you got the history perfect.

8:20 But the basis for this is that yeah, speeches in the 18th century into the 19th century really started with an expression of humility and a denigration of one’s own abilities. So that was pretty standard fare. But I think he is addressing something

8:42 important, which is that Congress is setting up the government, is doing practical things like passing tariffs and really sort of doing the business of getting the government up and running. And many did not want this distraction. In fact, one representative humorously called it a tub to the whale, which in whale hunting

9:06 and whaling back then, was sort of a small boat that would distract the whale while the fisherman sort of converged on it. And so they know there’s a mere distraction. They didn’t want to bother with this. The Constitution was ratified. They were setting up the new government. They had made promises, but they were ready to move on.

9:27 They just didn’t even want to spend a day bothering to debate this. And so Madison’s addressing actually something practical at the time. And Madison goes on to argue why he thinks that this is important. And I thought that this passage and again, these are the ones that you chose, so I’m just reacting to them.

9:47 But I think that it’s really showing what you were talking about earlier, which is this marrying of practical things that the government needs to do to get done in theory. And Madison here outlines why he thinks it’s so important. And the one passage I think that stood out to you the most was believed that if Congress will devote but one day to this

10:10 subject so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a solitary influence on the public councils and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. So, in other words, we promise to do this, and it is on us to follow up with that promise, because that will in turn establish legitimacy for the government.

10:33 Right? Because if we’re doing something for the public good, if we’re protecting people’s basic liberties, he says, it will have that salutary influence upon our public debate that people will be more likely to think that we as their representatives, are interested in their welfare, in the common good, and so they’ll be a little bit more receptive to the laws that we passed.

10:58 And again, Madison is very interested in getting people to accept that new constitutional order, that Republican policy that had been created at the convention, but many people were so opposed or had qualms about it. And so that public acceptance of constitutionalism is very important

11:21 and something that we shouldn’t take for granted, putting ourselves back in 1789. Yeah. And I’ll just note that the Senate from Virginia had sent Patrick Henry, who was a leading anti-federalist. And so there are people who are actively opposed, strongly opposed the Constitution, who are now in the legislature, which I think is worth noting.

11:47 And so Madison is facing sort of a political landscape of those who want to who think the Constitution is great the way it is. It doesn’t need to be amended because we just ratified it and we’re very careful about the structure and those who would want to undo the entire thing, like a Patrick Henry who says, look, this is unrepublican. I think it’s dangerous to our liberties and we need to revise this heavily.

12:14 And so navigating those waters, I think is really interesting. And here I think Madison is saying to both sides, we’ve got to get this thing done. It’s been passed essentially fade accompli, we’re already here. Now let’s figure out how to fine tune this so that we’re being honest about why it was passed in getting that trust from the people.

12:36 So he goes on to note a virtue that you and I have talked about a lot of prudence, which is a complex virtue, I think, to really unpack. I think here he’s probably talking less about it in sort of the moderate way that we often think of it now today, but more in the sense of wisdom or more

12:59 in the sense of trying to think about the best possible way to move forward here. And I think, again, trying to marry that theory and practicality of what needs to get done. Yeah. No. I think so. It’s practical wisdom. It’s political wisdom here in the House Representatives,

13:21 as he goes on to say he’s trying to prove to those about six lines downs. Prove to those who are opposed to it that they were sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government as those who charge them with wishing the adoption of the Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism.

13:44 So, in other words, let’s reach out to our opponents and prove to them that we value liberty and republican government just as much as they do. No one, he’s saying, is interested in an aristocracy or a despicism in this country. We’re all interested in liberty. And so this will prove to our opponents that they have nothing to fear from this new Constitution.

14:06 And they did. And he goes on to say that it’ll persuade them. That entire revolutionary struggle, that war, the process of deliberating over creating a new government, none of that was in vain, right? The blood that was shed in the war, the valiant fight,

14:29 and also the deliberation over the Constitution, none of that was wasted. And in addition to that, he goes on to say that it’s going to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens, right? So those who are not really sure, it’s going to persuade them, it’s going to put them at ease.

14:51 And that’s good. Right? We want to have the spirit of a common purpose. We want unity in this country over basic things. Basic principles are common purposes. Americans, we don’t want that antagonism between our citizenry.

15:13 And so he also says it’s going to advance that spirit of deference and concession. Right. We’re going to show reference to our fellow citizens. We’re going to be moderate. We’re going to understand their point of view right. As we compromise. Yeah. So I think, again and this is where

15:35 the conversation around civic virtues is so interesting, because you can see Madison here trying to work towards public opinion. So as a legislator, his job is both to represent his constituents and to work towards the common good. And so here’s an issue where he was

15:57 opposed to it at one point, he’s now come whether that bought me by political necessity that he needed to be in favor of this, to be elected to the House of Representatives, or through listening to what the people around him are saying, has come to a position where he is now in favor of supporting this.

16:18 He’s now having to win over everybody else in the room who’s taking radical different positions on this thing and give a grounded reason for why. And I think what you’re laying out, Tony, is a really good grounded reason as to why this will firmly establish the new government that we’ve created and have the benefit of further protecting the rights and liberties which

16:38 we are saying that this Constitution itself is meant to protect and enshrine for this government moving forward. And so we’ll move to this next paragraph. Again, these are just the first four paragraphs in this speech. I encourage everybody to look up the entire speech. I wish we’d go into all of it, but we don’t have time.

17:00 But here he’s really pushing that idea that we need to come to an agreement. And it seems like it’s not an agreement of sort of unanimity of agreement about this is exactly the perfect solution for everybody, but sort of a unanimity of assent whereby everyone is comfortable enough with what’s going on and understanding enough

17:22 that this will work towards the betterment of all that. That is a good enough place for us to go to. And we need to have deference for those who disagreed with and we need to sort of move forward with the best possible intentions, for lack of better word, in order to fulfill this obligation that the people gave to us when they entrusted us with becoming their agents

17:48 in the government or something along those lines. Yeah. No, I think that’s absolutely right. And then think about the experience of the 1780s, right? Sort of some of its worst movements, when the states were almost going to war over each other. They had trade disputes. There’s a lot of disunity. We have shave rebellion, for example. In addition to that.

18:09 Even though there’s this great deliberative moment at Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and in the ratifying conventions for the next year or so. Even though there’s this great deliberate at moment. Unlike almost anything in world history over creating this new constitution.

18:30 There were a lot of debates and very vigorous and sort of even contemplous debates and fierce disagreements over the principles and how to achieve this constitutional order. So considering that experience in the 1780s, I think Madison is pointing us towards

18:50 something very important that we can really take to heart today as well. That unity is important, right? That a shared common purpose, that understanding that we’re all in it together, you might say, as Americans and

19:11 pushing us, encouraging moderation, encouraging history, says the principles of amity and moderation of unity, of sort of brotherly affection, this sort of fraternity is that among Americans this is all, I think, really important, right? Not only for the new nation,

19:32 but as we think about our history, all the sort of divisions and debates that has sort of tried to rip us apart, render us apart. The Civil War being the most notable sectionalism, a lot of these sort of perennial issues that have divided us and even today, right?

19:54 We’re very deeply divided ideologically, politically today. And there’s sort of been a decline of civil conversation that Madison is pointing the people of 1787, the Congress, and is encouraging us today to return to that moderation,

20:17 to see the other person’s point of view, to try to compromise it a little bit more. He doesn’t want to give everything away, right? He doesn’t want to concede everything. He doesn’t want to concede every principle. He’s not willing to let the anti-federalists or what would become the Democratic Republicans not willing to let them win the debate and make structural changes to the Constitution.

20:41 So he’s not giving that away, but he’s conceding the little things, and he’s conceding that maybe a Bill of Rights is necessary even though I had opposed it. Right. These are concessions that breed moderation and amity and unity among the American people and are therefore good.

21:02 Yeah, Tony, I like how you phrase that and therefore are good. What I read these last couple sentences. There’s a great body of people falling under the description who is present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism if they were satisfied in this one point, we ought to not disregard their inclination, but on principles of amity and moderation and conform to their wishes.

21:22 I think that really stands out to me because if I can reinterpret it in my own 21st century language. Say. Look. We want a majority. But it was a slim majority. And if we want to expand this to be more inclusive of more people. We ought to listen to those who disagree with us on the firmest ground and concede that there is some merit to their argument and therefore make this declaration.

21:49 As he says. The great rights of mankind secured under this Constitution. And so I think, again, he’s established, look, we promised we were going to do this. It’s important that we follow through that promise. And now he’s saying not only is it important that we go through with it, but look, even though we won, that doesn’t mean we should disregard the wishes and the desires of those who we defeated.

22:10 And I think that that sort of push against ultimate majoritarianism, in a sense, right. It’s looking to those who they’re trying to bring on board is something that I think Madison is implicitly arguing here is important for the existence of a democracy. And we’ll go to the last section that we’re looking at here, which is a part of that same paragraph.

22:31 He further develops this theme that it’s important that we do this because it’s establishing that unity and unimity by following through with our promise. And it’s also not a bad idea, really, writ large. It’s not a restructuring, but it’s a declaration of these rights which in us doing this will further bring those together, even those who may have

22:54 who are still on the fence about whether or not this new government is going to do what it’s ostensibly saying it’s going to do. And don’t forget, there are two states that are actually not in the national union, right? And so North Carolina and Rhode Island have not ratified and so he thinks that one of the main parts of their opposition is no Bill of Rights.

23:18 And so he’s saying not only for national unity, but also our national union large, our common country, right? Let’s not have three different confederacies within our borders. Let’s bring these states in in a moderate way. Let’s reach out to them.

23:39 We want them in the National Union. And so, again, he’s not only looking at sort of our civic culture of unity and moderation and amity, but also our National Union, our country large. In order to build and become more powerful and content with the great powers

24:02 of Europe, we need a strong country, a strong nation, and bringing North Carolina and Rhode Island into it is very important. Yeah absolutely. Going back to our big focusing question, the civic virtues that I think I heard you

24:23 talking about, Tony, our moderation and prudence being the main two. Right. So how can we go about and look at what’s in front of us and find a moderate path forward? And how can we do so prudentially, making sure that we’re not conceding. We’re trying to form a good compromise here that is going to work towards the common good, but setting aside our own

24:46 place, we might have been beforehand to try to figure out what this looks like. And again, that’s the marrying to me that I think is so powerful of the theory and the practice. You can establish the perfect theory of how you think a government is going to operate, but when it hits reality is when it gets its real test. And here, I think Madison is showing

25:07 his ability to do both, which is, I think, a sign of his brilliance. It’s this idea that he is able to conceptualize about how things ought to work, but also have the practical sense to say, that’s how I want it to work. But here’s how things are actually going to play out. In order for me to navigate this, I’m going to have to find a way to compromise without giving up on the principles

25:30 which I hold most dear or with the ideas that I’m holding most. Deer right. And maybe my final words here might be that how much better off would we be in our public space if we learned how to speak to each other with greater

25:52 moderation and with a greater sense of prudence and how we approach each other and a spirit of compromise and amity with each other as fellow Americans? And how much better off would we be if our politicians, our representatives in Congress and in the different branches

26:12 of government introduced more prudence and moderation into their deliberations? I think that the public good and all of our common good would be much better served. Well, Tony, thanks again for joining me. And if you want to hear more from Tony, he heads up our Scholar Talk series,

26:34 which talks to all kinds of scholars from lots of different disciplines. And this summer is exploring the Cold War in the Executive, which is pretty awesome. So I look forward to seeing that. And don’t forget, if you’re like this video and like the content to like and subscribe, and we will see you in the next one.