All language subtitles for The.American.Experiment.2026.S01E05.1080p.AV1.10bit-MeGusta

Ladies and gentlemen,
-=[ Mercikes_Bert ]=-

the vice president-elect,
Michael Richard Pence.

January of 2017,

I put my left hand
on Ronald Reagan's Bible,

and I raised my right hand,

and I took an oath

to support and defend the Constitution.

…against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.

It ended with a prayer.

So help me God.

So help me God.

Congratulations, Mr. Vice President.

God bless you.

The Bible actually says,
"He keeps his oath even when it hurts."

I know something about that.

He lost at the polls.
He lost in the courts.

Now Donald Trump is demanding
that his own vice president

act to overturn the results
of the presidential election.

All Vice President Pence has to do
is send it back to the states to recertify

and we become president,

and you are the happiest people.

Send it back!

The vice president's sent
a letter to all members of Congress.

"I do not have unilateral power.
The Constitution doesn't give that to me."

Bring out Pence!

Hang Mike Pence!

Hang Mike Pence!

I will stand in recess
until the call of the chair.

We'll pause. Thank you.

Pence was pulled off the Senate floor,

he being the highest-ranking official
in the building right now.

For me, on that fateful day,

having made my position clear
to the president many times,

my only purpose was to keep my oath.

Thanks to the courage
of law enforcement, the riot was quelled.

Madam Speaker,

the vice president,
and the United States Senate.

Members of both political parties
reconvened.

The votes for President
of the United States are as follows.

Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
of the state of Delaware,

has received 306 votes.

Donald J. Trump, of the state of Florida,
has received 232 votes.

The chair declares
the joint session dissolved.

I always believed I did my duty that day
to see to the peaceful transfer of power

under the Constitution
of the United States.

Twenty years before that day,
I was a freshman member of Congress.

Vice President Gore, who had just lost
the presidential election

in a contest that was decided
in the Supreme Court of the United States,

was presiding over the Electoral College.

I walked across the street,

went into the Capitol chamber,
and sat and watched.

Mr. President, I am objecting to the idea
that votes in Florida were not counted.

And it's a sad day in America,
Mr. President,

when we can't find a senator
to sign these objections.

-Gentleman will suspend.
-I object!

-The gentleman--
-I object!

The gentleman will suspend.

The chair thanks
the gentleman from Illinois, but…

Hey.

On the basis previously stated…

The objection is not in order.

I told Vice President Gore…

Uh… that his example that day
was deeply inspiring to me.

George W. Bush,
of the state of Texas, has received,

for the President of the United States,
271 votes.

It lacked the controversy and the violence
that would ensue 20 years later,

but it was the same principle.

May God bless our new president
and our new vice president,

and may God bless
the United States of America.

A man who had lost the election narrowly,

and with controversy,
still yielded to the constitutional order.

For me, the story of the Constitution

is a story of the American people
keeping faith with what's written there.

As the Philadelphia Convention

in the long, hot summer of 1787
came to a close,

it turned out that there was
near unanimity among the delegates there

about the plan for the Constitution.

That was so extraordinary
that James Madison would,

as soon as the convention was over,
call it a miracle.

Once the Constitutional Convention

actually creates a constitution,

now it has to be ratified
by the different states.

This is the idea
that if we're gonna have fundamental law,

it has to be approved
by the people themselves.

But when the Constitution
is finally issued,

it's really a shock to many people.

They said, "This is not
what we thought they were up to."

They had no access
to what was going on at the convention.

The press was not invited.

It became clear over the next months

that probably almost half of the people
in the United States opposed ratification.

Read the said Constitution
and consider it well before you act.

I have done so and can find
that we are to receive but little good

and a great deal of evil.

Aristocracy or government in the hands
of a very few nobles or rich men

is therein concealed
in the most artful wrote plan

that ever was formed
to entrap a free people.

A constitution which,
by the undefined meaning of some parts

and the ambiguities of expression
in others,

is dangerously adapted to the purposes
of an immediate aristocratic tyranny…

The ratification debates
were as public as they could've been.

Every delegate was elected by local folks.

The newspapers were reporting
on the debates.

The newspapers were publishing articles

by people that were effectively speeches
for and against the Constitution.

There are two groups of people.

The Federalists want
the Constitution to be adopted,

and the anti-Federalists oppose it.

Federalists wanted
a strong central government.

The Federalists had
George Washington on their side.

Madison, Hamilton, among others.

The Anti-Federalists,
who are opposed to centralized government,

they say, "Well, the government
you've created is tyrannical."

"It's much too centralized.
It's much too big."

The biggest criticism
of the Constitution is gonna be,

"Where's the Bill of Rights?"

"We don't want a government
interfering with freedom of the press

and free exercise of religion

and taking away property and liberty
without due process."

"Why isn't there a bill of rights?"

The Bill of Rights was
considered unnecessary at the convention

because they believed there was no way
the government was allowed

to impinge on rights.

The fundamental rights
were thought to be implied.

But as the ratification process continued,

this threatened to be a problem.

The omission of a bill of rights,

securing the liberty of the press
and other invaluable personal rights

is an insult on the understanding
of the people.

The Anti-Federalists wrote essays

about why the Constitution gave
the national government too much power.

…after such torrents of blood
and treasure have been spent,

it is truly astonishing
that a set of men among ourselves

should have had the effrontery to attempt
the destruction of our liberties.

Very quickly,
the Anti-Federalists began to be answered

by a variety of people.

The one we know best
are the Federalist Papers,

written together by James Madison,
Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.

Madison wrote 29.

Hamilton ended up writing 51.

This was over a six-month period,
and Hamilton was writing at a white heat.

He was publishing about two,
sometimes three a week.

There was even one week
where he published six.

We have anecdotal evidence
that he was working under such pressure

that the printer would be sitting
in the outer office

waiting for Hamilton to finish
scratching out one of these essays,

and then the printer would run off
to the paper and print it.

The Federalist Papers,
these were newspaper editorials.

I've written a lot of op-eds.
I wish I could write an op-ed

even a tenth as learned
as those geniuses wrote

in what became the Federalist Papers.

But that was to persuade
the American people,

"This Constitution is a good idea."

It seems to have been reserved
to the people of this country

to decide the important question,

whether societies of men
are really capable or not,

of establishing good government
from reflection and choice,

or whether they are forever destined

to depend,
for their political constitutions,

on accident and force.

It's a remarkable statement,
and Hamilton is basically saying,

"We sat and created a government.
That's not how this normally happens."

"And now we're gonna discuss it,
have debates, hopefully ratify it."

"If we can't do this,
can it ever happen again?"

The ratification process
went state by state.

Four of the five states
that went first were small states,

according to population.

Small states
overwhelmingly approved the Constitution

because they realized they had extracted
such a good deal in the Senate.

They got equal representation.

But in Massachusetts,
in New York, in Virginia,

there's incredible antagonism.

This system, without amendment,
will destroy the liberties of America.

The government will fall
into the hands of the few and the great.

This will be a government of oppression.

Virginia was the largest,

by far the most wealthy
and powerful state.

If Virginia rejected it,

that was going to be
a death blow in its cradle.

Patrick Henry was
the leading voice in Virginia

opposed to the Constitution.

This constitution…
it squints towards monarchy.

In Virginia, it's ultimately
a debate between Patrick Henry,

who's the great orator of the day,

and on the other side, Madison, who's not.

When you look at the transcript,

it says again and again,
"Madison, inaudible. Could not hear him."

So, you have the great orator,

and you have somebody
who understands the Constitution.

It depends on our decision
whether the 13 states shall unite freely,

peaceably, and unanimously
for the security of their common happiness

and liberty,

or whether everything is to be put
in confusion and disorder.

As this government stands,
I despise and abhor it.

Unless the government be amended,
we can never accept it.

My mind will not be quieted until I see
something substantial come forth

in the shape of a bill of rights.

In a lot of the states, it becomes clear

that without some unofficial assurances
that we'll be including a bill of rights,

ratification is not gonna make it
past the finish line.

In Massachusetts, the Federalists say,

"Okay, we will promise to support
a bill of rights if you agree to ratify."

The Anti-Federalists accept the promise.

"You promised us a bill of rights.
We'll ratify."

"We expect you
to deliver on your promise."

Most other states do the same thing.

They ratify and say,
"We expect a bill of rights."

In Virginia, it's a razor-thin vote,

but at the end of the convention,
Virginia has ratified.

Ultimately, you needed
nine states to ratify the Constitution,

and you got enough states,
so the Constitution went into effect.

To testify the animated joy
of the citizens of New York

upon finding the Federal Constitution
of Government ratified,

it was determined that they should
so appear in procession.

Thirteen guns were fired
from the federal ship Hamilton.

Everybody knew

that George Washington
would be the first president.

He was the only person
everybody in America knew.

They also know

that George Washington
does not have a biological son.

And son is key here,

because, and we see people
saying this at the time,

we don't have to worry

that our first president has a child
who is going to take over after him,

like we would see in a monarchy.

And that really assuages
the fears of many people.

Under the electoral college
system, the one who gets the most votes,

president, the person who gets
the second most votes, vice president.

The first president is Washington.

And John Adams is his vice president.

John Adams was his vice president
because he was a classic ticket balancer.

Virginia on one hand,
Massachusetts on the other.

Those were the two most active
Patriot states during the Revolution.

Washington did have
to think hard about whether he wanted it.

He hems and haws and ultimately goes,

"Always will I hear
the voice of my people."

They wanted him,
and he felt he had to serve.

When George Washington left Mount Vernon

to go to New York
to be sworn in as the first president,

he was in a terrible state.

About ten o'clock
I bade adieu to Mount Vernon,

to private life, and to domestic felicity,

and with a mind oppressed
with more anxious and painful sensations

than I have words to express,

set out for New York

with the best dispositions
to render service to my country

in obedience to its call,

but with less hope
of answering its expectations.

He had everything to lose.

He was wise enough to know that.

My movement to the chair of government

will be accompanied with feelings

not unlike those of a culprit
who is going to his place of execution.

So unwilling am I in the evening of a life
nearly consumed in public cares

to quit a peaceful abode
for an ocean of difficulties.

That is not usually the sentiment
we associate with an inauguration,

but it demonstrates a stress he felt

about every single decision
he had to make.

New York was the inheritor
of the seat of government,

was our capital at the time.

What the permanent capital would be,
nobody really knew.

The first Congress meets in Federal Hall.

This is the largest building
in the United States at the time.

It was two and a half stories high.

And it was there at Federal Hall

that George Washington
took his oath of office,

the first inauguration of a president.

30th April, Thursday.

This is a great, important day.

Goddess of Etiquette,
assist me while I describe it.

There's a Pennsylvania senator
in the first Congress.

His name is William Maclay,

and William Maclay has an amazing diary.

Here we sat an hour and ten minutes

before the president arrived.

The president advanced
between the Senate and representatives,

bowing to each.

The inauguration is gonna be
a moment that, you know,

kings get coronated.

Now we're gonna inaugurate a president.
What does that mean?

Should we be acting like the British,
or should we not?

And in the end, it's very straightforward.

Washington does step out in public
to take the oath of office

in front of the people
who are standing in lower New York.

The streets surrounding Federal Hall
are packed with citizens.

They've come in from the countryside,
wildly cheering Washington.

Women are fainting.

You see the first example of
a charismatic leader in American history.

The business done was communicated
to the crowd by proclamation et cetera,

who gave three cheers and repeated it
on the president's bowing to them.

The moment is so powerful for him.

He was a self-confident man.

But he was extremely nervous
about taking on this role of president.

His hands are shaking.

The inauguration is an invention moment.

They have now invented a president,
not a king, whatever that means.

And Washington,
as the most trusted man in the nation.

He represented the nation.

People trusted him.

The Constitution,
bear in mind, is a piece of paper.

It isn't the government.

It's a framework of a government.

Now they have to figure out
what it is and how it works

and how the structure will work.

They use the word experiment all the time.

"We are engaged
in an experiment in government."

And they mean that in a literal sense,
because it's unclear if it's gonna work.

The paramount job of the first Congress

was to turn the set of ideas,

the Constitution, into a government.

There's a lot of uncertainty
in the country.

Nobody knows
what's happening in the capital.

Americans care about politics.

But they're remote from politics.

The mail is erratic and slow.

There's of course nothing
like a telephone,

no electronic communications.

So the country is tense with anxiety.

One of the first things
that happens in Congress,

there's a debate

about what the national executive
should be called.

John Adams,
he'd been in Europe. He's a diplomat.

He believes the president
of the United States needs to be held up

with the same kind of sacred majesty
as these monarchs and princes of Europe.

He comes up with some sort of
monarchical-sounding, you know,

"protector of the realm"
and blah, blah, blah.

"His High Mightiness
and Defender of the Liberties of America"

is what he wants Washington to be called.

And people think it's absurd.
This has never existed.

You're trying to create
some pseudo-monarch.

Finally, someone in the Senate says,

"What about
president of the United States?"

That's straightforward. Why not that?
And Adams throws a fit.

Adams says,
"There are presidents of cricket clubs."

It's like,
what will foreign governments say?

What will the people say?

President of the United States?
They will despise him to all eternity.

You don't see much commentary
from George Washington about this.

I think he's just relieved when it's over.

But I think he was delighted
he was just called Mr. President.

There's a simple straightforwardness to it

that I think Washington understood…

…that a leader should be a servant.

And that early humility…

Our country could have gone
very differently

had someone who was power hungry
been the first president to start us off.

I walk on untrodden ground.

There is scarcely any action

whose motives may not be subject
to a double interpretation.

There is scarcely any part of my conduct

which may not hereafter
be drawn into precedent.

There wasn't really anything as president
that he could take for granted,

from the title,
what he's going to be called,

to how he's going to allow people
to greet him.

Washington could have had
king-like powers,

but he went to great lengths
to always make sure

that's not what he thought
this was all about.

One of Washington's
biggest challenges as the first president

was to establish what it meant
to have a president,

to have a federal government.

The national identity of the United States
was very much still in flux.

And this new government
was foreign to most Americans.

So he conducted two tours.

In the fall of 1789,
he does a northern tour.

And then in 1791,
he does the southern tour.

He saw the maximum number of people.

He attended multiple religious services
every Sunday in different denominations.

He met with local leaders.

General Washington, the president
of the United States visited Salem.

The ladies were numerous and brilliant.

The gentlemen were also numerous.

The bells rang 15 minutes
after his arrival,

and in the evening, skyrockets
were thrown from the courthouse.

This travel
was uncomfortable. It was dirty.

He stayed in public lodgings

because he didn't want to impose himself
on a private citizen.

Spent the forenoon in visiting the shops
of the different tradesmen,

the houses of accommodation
for the single men

and sisters of the fraternity
and their place of worship.

And so the American people understood
how much he was sacrificing

to bring the government to them.

If Washington could show up
and demonstrate that he cared about them,

that the federal government
was committed to seeing them,

that went a long way in building
those emotional connections

that a republic requires.

And that was an essential part
of trying to build this national identity

around a new federal government.

In New York,
Congress is meeting in Federal Hall

to debate what became
the first amendments to the Constitution.

It was the promise of such amendments,
the so-called Bill of Rights,

that enabled a number of states
to actually ratify the Constitution.

Now it was time to fight that battle.

James Madison had been opposed
to a bill of rights at the convention

'cause he thought
it was unnecessary and confusing.

After the Constitution is ratified,

Madison runs for Congress.

And there's a suspicion

that he's still not going to favor
a bill of rights.

And his political career
is really… at risk.

Patrick Henry goes to war
against James Madison.

"So I couldn't defeat the Constitution,"

"I'm going to keep James Madison
out of the House of Representatives."

Suddenly, the government
is gonna go into existence,

Congress is gonna start,

and there's a pretty good chance
that Madison won't be in Congress.

So Madison promises his constituents

that if he's elected,
he will work for a bill of rights.

He only gets elected because he promises

to push for amendments
to the Constitution.

Flip-flop, if you like.

But that's why he was an effective leader.

He did what needed to be done.

When it comes time to figure out

what is gonna be
on the list of amendments,

Madison collects the proposals
from the various state conventions.

There were
more than 200 proposed initially.

James Madison whittled
those more than 200 down to 19,

then 13, then 12,
and eventually we got to 10.

A lot of what's in the Bill of Rights

is a direct response to the concerns
raised in the Declaration of Independence.

You ask yourself, "Why is this here?"

Look in the Declaration,

and you'll find that the king of England
is accused of doing something to us

that the Bill of Rights then says
the American government can't do this.

The First Amendment
is really the genius of our founders.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of the press, freedom to assemble.

All the freedoms that are right there
in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment of the Constitution

gives you some notion of what
founding generation was fighting for.

And it was the freedom to live,
to work, to worship,

according to the dictates
of their conscience.

Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Freedom of religion is essential
to a free society

because religious commitments
are fundamental.

And we don't live in a society that says,
"You can't be part of this

unless you accept what we say about God."

Religion is communal and individual,
and it's up to us.

And religious diversity
is just in the very fabric of our society.

Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press,

or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble.

The First Amendment is about ensuring
that everybody has a voice.

That's everything.

The ability to dissent,
that's what this system is about.

That's what freedom of speech is assuring,

that we can always know we have the right
to stand up and say,

"The king has no clothes," and not worry
that the king is gonna lock us up.

If you have representative government,

we've gotta have the capacity
to do exactly that.

My name's Lawrence,
and you'll know who I am. New Jersey--

The First Amendment doesn't say
you can't say anything bad about me.

It doesn't say I can't say anything bad.

It says Congress shall pass no law
limiting what we can say about each other.

And people have to be
mature enough to know

that the best correction to bad speech
is more speech.

You will not replace us.

From the river to the sea…

There's no other society in the world
that has ever protected free speech

to the extent or in the ways
that we do here in the United States.

A well-regulated militia,

being necessary
to the security of a free state,

the right of the people
to keep and bear arms,

shall not be infringed.

Virtually every part of that amendment

has been parsed
and interpreted and dissected.

They would be puzzled
by our debate over guns,

'cause I think the dominant view
in the 18th century was both pro-gun,

you need a well-armed society,
well-trained in the use of arms,

but you need a well-regulated society,
and guns need to be regulated.

It's both pro-gun and pro-regulation.

There's also prohibition
on the quartering of troops

in the Bill of Rights.

No soldier shall, in time of peace
be quartered in any house…

And the reason is, in the Declaration,

one of the things the king
is accused of doing

is forcing Americans to provide
food and shelter to British soldiers.

The Fourth Amendment protects
individual privacy.

The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers,

and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated.

One of the big concerns
that the founders had

was the idea that government officials
could break into your house

and essentially sift
through all of your belongings

looking for evidence of criminal activity.

And so they required that the government
couldn't carry out searches

without first going to a court
and justifying the search.

Technology is putting
a huge amount of pressure

on key aspects of the Bill of Rights,

from free expression to questions
of surveillance and search and seizure.

In the digital age,

does it mean they can't break
into your phone without a warrant?

Does it mean they can't break
into your digital communications

without a warrant?

Those questions are not answered
by the text of the Fourth Amendment,

we have to answer them for ourselves.

There are many
criminal procedure protections

in the Bill of Rights.

No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.

In all criminal prosecutions,

the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial.

The right of trial by jury
shall be preserved.

Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.

Madison himself had said,

"The problem with the Bill of Rights is
if we write down a bunch of rights,

people'll say, 'If it's not written,
it's not a right.'"

"But we don't mean to do that."

Their concern was,
once you start listing things,

people are gonna think
that's the only rights you have.

And so Madison writes the language
that now is our Ninth Amendment.

He says, "Never forget that there are
lots of rights that aren't on this list."

"This is just a partial list of rights."

The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights,

shall not be construed to deny

or disparage others
retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment very clearly states

that powers which are not delegated
to the new federal government

are reserved to the states.

The Bill of Rights
is enormously important.

The rights we care the most about,

our fundamental rights,
are protected in the Bill of Rights.

There is not a single republic
of this hemisphere which has not adapted

in its fundamental law,

the basic principles of freedom of man

and freedom of mind,

enacted in the American Bill of Rights.

They are the most extraordinary
and detailed guarantees

of individual liberties
that any people on earth now possess.

Our forefathers put legal force
behind their ideals

when they ratified the Bill of Rights.

The first ten amendments
to our Constitution.

One of the many things
the Constitution was fairly vague about

when it comes to the presidency
is the advisors the president could have.

They didn't want
any sort of king's council.

They didn't want to recreate Parliament.

So the framers said
Washington could consult with Congress

and also the heads of his department.

Washington started to meet
with his cabinet secretaries.

They would be like
his core of officers during the war,

he'd bring officers together
when he had to make a decision,

they would all have different ideas,

and he'd hear them out
and then go away and make up his mind.

Federal departments had to be created,

and the first Congress did that.

He makes Alexander Hamilton
secretary of the treasury.

He makes Edmund Randolph,
who was a fellow Virginian,

the attorney general.

Secretary of state,
he gives to Thomas Jefferson.

And then he makes Henry Knox,
a general during the Revolution,

secretary of war.

A lot of American foreign affairs
in those early few decades

were really Indian affairs.

How to interact with the tribal peoples,

how to keep friendship.
The United States didn't want wars.

As soon as the Revolution is over,

there are settlers and speculators

making their way
across the Appalachian Mountains,

trying to get basically what they think
the war has earned them.

George Washington believed
that Indians could be civilized,

and they could be dealt with.

And he thought there was
a federal responsibility for that

as opposed to
"every speculator, go get what you can."

Washington knows that
if the United States is gonna survive

on this continent,

it can't be fighting
all native nations all the time.

And at least for a while,

it's going to need

to deal with native nations
as diplomatic equals.

The Constitution says

the president should take
advice and consent of treaties

with the Senate.

Washington goes in,
wanting to follow the law to the letter.

He goes to Congress
with pressing questions

he has sent ahead about a treaty
he needs to negotiate with the Creeks,

an Indigenous people.

He wanted them to debate,

just like he had done with his officers
at councils of war during the Revolution.

They look at each other, and they say,

"We need to form a committee.
This is a serious thing."

And Washington gets furious.

Washington lost his temper,
which he didn't do very often.

He screamed, "This defeats
every purpose of my being here."

And no president since
has ever returned for advice.

Instead, George Washington
and Henry Knox create an Indian policy

that makes more strategic decisions
for the United States in Indian affairs.

That the Indians possess
the natural rights of man

and that they ought
not wantonly be divested thereof,

cannot be well denied.

Washington developed the procedures

of how we negotiate a treaty
with the executive branch,

and then how the Senate
considers it and ratifies it.

I don't think George Washington
was crafting this policy

as a way to make nice with the tribes
or through some humanitarian effort.

I think he very much believed
tribal nations were full of savages

that needed to be civilized,

that there was inevitably going
to be concessions of land,

but that we had to be dealt with
as governments

through the framework of federal treaties.

And that, I think,
is one of his most important legacies,

was really solidifying
that is how you deal with native nations.

One thing that the founders
could not have anticipated

is the rise of political parties

and their centrality to the way
both law and politics function

in modern America.

Washington is looking for
the most talented people,

and he's not thinking in party terms yet.

The slow emergence of a rift

between Jefferson
and Madison and Hamilton,

that is sort of the core from which
the partisanship starts to build

in the 1790s.

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson

disagreed on pretty much everything.

They had fundamentally
different views of the world.

Jefferson was essentially
an Anti-Federalist.

He's a states' rights advocate.

On the other hand, Hamilton believed

the federal government could do anything
that promoted the general welfare.

You have Hamilton,

who's doing everything he can
to strengthen the national government.

You have Jefferson, who wants the states
to have the majority of the power.

And it explodes.

One of the first controversies
that would divide members of Congress

and the American public

was Hamilton's financial plan.

Alexander Hamilton was
one of the very few people

in the entire United States at the time

who understood economics.

He thought essentially
like a modern businessman,

financier, and economist.

Financially, the United States
was a wreck.

It was deeply indebted
as a result of the Revolutionary War.

From the position
of Secretary of the Treasury,

Hamilton proposed legislation
in three big rounds.

Hamilton guaranteed

that the federal government
would take charge of all of the debts

that the states had accrued
during the Revolutionary War

and pay them off.

It was necessary to tax at a large scale
in order to pay its debts.

Once it was doing that,
the government would have credit.

Once the government had credit,
it could issue debt.

That debt could then be bought
and sold in a secondary market,

and financial markets
would come into existence.

All of this, in turn,
would lead to a government

that was able to use money
that it borrowed

to do big projects, like build a navy.

But he had a very hard time persuading

enough members of Congress
that this was a wise thing to do.

It was controversial
for a whole bunch of reasons.

One of them being
some states had paid off their debts.

Some states had not paid off their debts.

States that had tightened
their belts and worked hard

to pay their creditors,

they were now gonna be
partially on the hook

for states that exercised
less fiscal discipline.

And suspicion arises from the fact

that these debts are owed
to some of the richest

and frankly most influential people
in the United States.

At the same time,

a very important issue
was establishing a national capital,

which had tremendous symbolic weight

because it would be
the only national territory.

The national capital
started out in New York City,

but the question was then,
will it stay there forever or not?

The capital city will have an importance

and maybe economic gain
in some way or another.

There's gonna be political power there.

Southerners were eager to have the capital
at a more southern location.

The location of the capital was
inseparable from the question of slavery.

Some Southerners want
to protect slavery at all costs.

They do not want
the national capital in a free state,

in a state where slavery
is going to disappear.

So they fought to have
the national capital in a slave state.

So Hamilton desperately needs votes

for his national and nationalist
financial program

that will stabilize the United States.

And the advocates for the Potomac region

need votes to support a permanent capital
in the slave states.

Thomas Jefferson tells a story
about how he caught Hamilton

standing in front of the president's house
looking distraught.

He's worried he doesn't have
enough votes in Congress.

And Jefferson, as Jefferson's wont to do,

invites him to dinner at his home
on Maiden Lane in Lower Manhattan.

The next night, Hamilton and Madison
sit down to dinner with Jefferson.

Madison is very influential
as a member of the Congress.

Hamilton has northern votes in his pocket.

Madison has southern votes in his pocket.

And you have Jefferson, who is a gourmet.
He supplies the meal.

And he says something to the effect of,
"Well, why don't you guys talk this over?"

What comes out of this

is Hamilton will trade some northern votes
for a southern capital,

and the Potomac Valley interest
will trade Virginia and Maryland votes

for Hamilton's financial plan.

If we think of American political history

as over 200 years of behind-the-scenes,

smoke-filled room dinner deals,

this is kind of the first one.

So the government
will be moved to the south.

What is now Washington, D.C.,
this ten-mile square center.

And Hamilton will get

the federal government
to assume the debts of the states.

I think Hamilton certainly thought
he got the better end of the deal.

It's a big prop
for a strong national government,

which is what everything he does is about.

Each side is getting something important,

and it's setting a model for compromises
that will occur in the future.

We need to remember that today,

when political positions
are terribly hardened

and bitterly partisan.

Our ancestors made very hard,
challenging compromises

they didn't want to make,

that were not rooted
in warm fellow feeling.

They were done
because they were necessary.

Jefferson will later come
to be very regretful

about this compromise.

He realized that he gave up too much
to Hamilton's vision.

Those pieces of legislation
formed the basis

for what became
the modern American industrial economy.

The idea of having
a national debt at all is scary.

It made Americans nervous.

But on the other hand,

the ability of the United States
to borrow money

is what made possible all kinds
of national improvements as time went on

to invest in roads, to invest in,
ultimately, the railroads.

The transcontinental railroad
was able to be built with federal support

thanks to Alexander Hamilton.

But it was radical.

It was unimagined
by many of his contemporaries.

Jefferson, who distrusts
this strong national government,

who doesn't particularly want
to serve the money men

Hamilton seems to be serving,

they fundamentally disagree.

And so the cabinet is not running
necessarily smoothly at this point.

Mr. Jefferson is at the head of a faction
decidedly hostile to me

and my administration.

He has thrown censure
on my principles of government

and on my measures of administration.

My objection to the Constitution

was that it wanted a bill of rights
securing freedom of religion,

freedom of the press,
freedom from standing armies,

trial by jury,
and a constant habeas corpus act.

Colonel Hamilton's was
that it wanted a king and House of Lords.

It's so bad,
Washington writes to both of them

and basically says, "Please stop."

But it becomes clear
this is profoundly personal and nasty.

To the discredit of both,

they used the press nefariously
in their battle.

Hamilton is going to give
lucrative government printing contracts

to a Federalist newspaper called
the Gazette of the United States.

He used government money
to fund a newspaper

and control the editorial content
of a newspaper

that was favorable
to the Washington administration.

Jefferson was opposed
to many of those policies.

He took government money.

Took it. Was not given it, but took it

to start a paper called
the National Gazette

whose function was to criticize
Washington's policies.

So the Gazette of the United States
and the National Gazette

are going to be these dueling mouthpieces
of these rising and emerging factions.

What's remarkable
about the polarization of the 1790s

is it came between people
who were close friends and allies

just a decade before.

Hamilton assumes
that Madison's gonna be at his side,

agreeing with him.

James Madison
is really the most unusual figure

in the generation
that created the Constitution.

Unusual to us because he's hard to place

on the kind of left-right axis
that we are used to now.

Over the course of the several years,

in which Hamilton introduced

the financial system
of the United States in legislation,

Madison went
from being close friends with Hamilton

to seeing him as his archenemy.

Madison began to believe

that Hamilton was violating
the core principles of the Constitution.

Hamilton, for his part, thought
Madison had a narrow, cramped reading

of what powers
the Constitution had allowed.

Madison shifted
toward the Jeffersonian camp,

deeply suspicious
of too much centralization.

And it was Madison
who would go into newspapers

and say things about Hamilton.

Jefferson says stuff to Madison like,

"Cut him to pieces
in the face of the public."

"Madison, sic him!" Right?
"Get him, attack."

So they are attacking each other.

I forbear to denounce you to the people

though a blasphemer of their rights
and an idolater of tyranny.

When will these political Pharisees learn,

that their countrymen
have too much discernment

to be the dupes of their hollow
and ostentatious pretensions?

What a perversion
of the natural order of things!

The head of a department
of the government is indelicate and unfit.

Hamilton writes a long letter

and says, "Let it be known
I now consider them my personal enemies."

So there's like a declaration of war.

That's a moment
when now there very clearly are two sides.

Eventually, Jefferson
and Madison formed a political party,

the Democratic-Republican Party,
to fight against what Hamilton was doing.

The hyper-partisanship
that we all complain about today,

unfortunately, was there
from the very beginning.

Washington did not want
to be president in 1789.

He accepted the presidency
because he knew he was the only person

that could be that first president.

By the end of his first term,
he understood

there was only one direction
his reputation could go.

He felt that he had established the office
on firm ground,

and it was time for him to leave.

All of his advisors,

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson,
who agreed on almost nothing else,

said, "You must serve another term."

"There's no one else."

"We need your stability
for another four years."

And they convinced him to stay.

By his second term,

Washington is becoming
more and more outspokenly Federalist.

That is the party of Hamilton.

He thought it was
the ruination of the country

that the Jeffersonians
had formed themselves into a party

permanently opposed
to what was then the majority party,

which was his party, the Federalists,
which he didn't think of as a party.

He thought this was just the majority
and everyone should be…

You can protest a law,

but you can't oppose us
on a regular basis.

So he couldn't see the future

that we now have
where, you know, opposition parties exist.

The closer Washington grows
to Hamilton as the years go on,

the more opposition he draws to himself.

He understood that as president,

invariably he would have to make decisions
that would sometimes prove unpopular.

And he would face criticism
over a number of different issues.

Washington was pilloried
by some of his opponents

in newspapers and pamphlets.

By this point, you now have
partisan politics really taking off,

and he begins to be attacked in the press.

Retire immediately…

You are utterly incapable…

You are an apostate or an impostor,

whether you have abandoned good principles
or whether you ever had any?

…how then will they reconcile
his being a slave holder!

There's a noteworthy example

in which there's a cartoon
being sold on the streets,

and it shows Washington
being walked up a guillotine.

And Henry Knox, who's the Secretary of War

and a slightly goofy guy…

You know, he kind of had a sense of humor,

he brings this into a cabinet meeting

and says to Washington,
"Look at what they're selling out there."

And Washington blows a gasket.

Washington… And we know what he said
'cause Jefferson wrote it down.

He says, "They think I want to be a king.
They think I want to be an emperor."

"I have not regretted
taking this position but once."

"And that is every minute
since I took this position."

"I don't want to be in this job!
I'm sorry I'm in this job."

"How can they be accusing me
of these things?"

His sensitivities to anything
threatening his dignity are great.

He is very angry.

He makes it perfectly clear
to his people close to him

that people shouldn't talk
about the president that way.

By the end of his second term,

he really did not want
to be president anymore.

He really didn't enjoy it at all
and wanted to be back at Mount Vernon.

He is being criticized.

He is feeling his age
really acutely more than ever.

If he dies in office,
that will set a precedent

and that every president who follows
will die in office.

They will keep serving until they can't.

And that is essentially a monarchy,
just in another name.

It's extraordinary.
The president is the head of state,

and it wasn't required
in the Constitution then

that you could only serve two terms.

So it ends up being
another precedent that he sets

that, of course, lasts until FDR
and World War II,

and then immediately
the Constitution is amended

so we can only have a two-term president.

George Washington,

one of the greatest leaders
in American history, and in world history,

didn't think of himself as indispensable.

If George Washington could go home,
anyone can go home.

That was seen as a major decision.

It was unclear what would happen next.

He knew that transition, first transition,

would need to happen
in a planned and intentional way.

The American people had to be taught
how to have a peaceful transfer of power

because it was not something
they had done on the national stage.

He ultimately decides
to write a farewell address of sorts.

He worked with Alexander Hamilton

to publish the farewell address
on September 19, 1796,

in one of the local newspapers.

And then it was then quickly reprinted
across the country.

In looking forward to the moment,

which is intended to terminate
the career of my public life,

my feelings do not permit me
to suspend the deep acknowledgement

of that debt of gratitude,

which I owe to my beloved country

for the many honors
it has conferred upon me.

Washington's farewell address
is remarkable

not just because

he's basically saying goodbye
to the American people,

which, again, no one did in those days,

but showing his reasons why he's leaving

and also giving a charge
to the public to say,

"These are the things I'm worried about.
And this is in your hands now."

The unity of government
which constitutes you one people

is a main pillar in the edifice
of your real independence.

The support of your tranquility at home.

Your peace abroad.

Of your safety.

Of your prosperity.

Of that very liberty
which you so highly prize.

The main theme of the farewell address

is the importance of union.

The independence that you have

as a people is dependent upon
you remaining a union.

The name of "American,"
which belongs to you

in your national capacity,

must always exalt
the just pride of patriotism

more than any appellation
derived from local discriminations.

Beware of anybody
who will try to separate you,

claiming there's big regional interests,

the North and South aren't alike,

that the East and West
are against each other's interests.

It is our true policy
to steer clear of permanent alliances

with any portion of the foreign world.

He talks about foreign
entanglements, the duty to be a citizen

and what it means
to respect the Constitution.

And he's very worried about partisanship.

Let me warn you,
in the most solemn manner,

against the baneful effects
of the spirit of party.

He warns the nation about factionalism,

which we might think of
as excessive partisanship now.

The alternate domination
of one faction over another

is sharpened by the spirit of revenge,

natural to party dissension,

is itself a frightful despotism,

but this leads at length to a more formal
and permanent despotism.

You're a United States senator.
Sit down! Okay. Sit down, please.

-Are your feelings hurt?
-Move her words down.

-Oh, girl, baby, girl.
-Oh, really?

This country was founded by geniuses,

but it's being run by a bunch of idiots.

I think he rightly understands
that when you become a rabid partisan,

you have attached yourself
to a program of ideas

that are more important
than the first duty you have,

that Washington always observed,
which is to be a citizen.

It serves always
to distract the public councils

and enfeeble public administration.

It agitates the community
with ill-founded jealousies

and false alarms,

kindles the animosity
of one part against another.

It opens the door
to foreign influence and corruption.

Essentially, he says to Americans,
"You can't let politics divide you."

Parties are a great way
to put people's interests together

and get them together
to be able to express

what they want
in a large way from a government.

The problem is
when they become hyper-partisan,

when they become focused
on their own survival

and their own interests,

they become more important
than the country.

Are you an American or a Democrat?

Are you loyal to the Constitution,
or to the Republican Party?

There's always been partisanship.

Before the Civil War,
Charles Sumner of Massachusetts

was beaten within an inch of his life
on the floor

for making a speech advocating abolition.

But I think it is fair to say that

we haven't seen it quite this extreme

since, I'm very… careful to say,
before the Civil War.

We are in a very divided
and very partisan time.

I think that's exacerbated
by social media.

Today, the left
listens to left-wing media,

the right listens to right-wing media.

If somebody disagrees with you,
you just unfriend them and they disappear.

And we're in two echo chambers

where each side is only hearing
views they already agree with.

I think that's really dangerous.

I think we ought
to be talking to each other,

having real conversations.

I think President Washington understood

democracy depends
on heavy doses of civility.

It's one of the reasons why,
in our legislature,

we have what appear to most people
to be fairly arcane rules about debate.

My friend on the other side of the aisle
is a good man.

He is just, I think,
misdirected on this occasion.

At the end of the day,
we're all Americans.

Treating one another
the way that we want to be treated,

showing a modicum of respect,
especially in disagreement,

creates the conditions
where you can find common cause.

Party comes
from the French word "partie,"

which means "a part."

Your party is just a part of the whole.

So if I'm elected
from Maryland's beautiful 8th District,

I report not just to the people
who voted for me,

I report to everybody,

whether they're Democrat, an Independent,
a Republican, a non-voter.

-We are the people!
-Yeah!

We won't be silenced!

Washington is concerned

that political parties will become
obsessed with maintaining power.

And they will do whatever it takes
to maintain power, and if they do that,

then what will happen is
they'll pave the way for a despot.

What Washington did next

is even more important
than the farewell address.

He showed up to John Adams's inauguration.

It wasn't expected of him.

There was no precedent
that an executive would do this.

There's a packed house in Congress.

As Adams steps up
to give his speech and to take his oath,

he looks out, and he says that he sees
kind of tears in people's eyes.

What's amazing is the people understood
they were seeing something extraordinary.

They understood they were making history.

John Adams talked about seeing
the rising of one sun

and the setting of another.

It brought tears
to every person in the room's eyes.

The peaceful transfer of power
is Washington's greatest contribution.

He did it after the Revolutionary War,

and his retirement

and his participation in this transfer

was essential to establishing
this practice in American history.

That is actually
what makes it a democracy.

That that handover of power
is something that is always possible.

That you wouldn't just hoard it all
for yourself.

It is quite remarkable
that in recent American history,

we've seen things very few people
would have thought possible.

I really do believe,
in these divided times,

the Constitution is the common ground
on which we can stand.

People often talk about the United States

as this great experiment.

And there's something wonderful
about that word.

It just gives us the sense of fertility

and creativity and possibility
and sparkiness.

But what are experiments?
Experiments are attempts.

We know of a lot of experiments
that come up with terrible outcomes.

Experiments can succeed,
and experiments can also fail.

And there have been moments
when we have failed American ideals.

We started off with good intentions

and very inspiring language,

knowing full well that "we the people"
did not include everybody,

inalienable rights
were not given to everybody.

But it was an experiment
that understood it would evolve over time.

The framers of the Constitution
understood change over time

would be necessary.

The population would change,
there could be technological change,

ideas could change, morals could change.

That's why they had
amendments to the Constitution.

If you can't amend a written document
to change fundamental law,

the only way to change fundamental law
will be by way of revolution.

Slavery obviously hangs over
the original Constitution

in an undeniable way.

And we also know

that slavery turned out
to be the irresolvable problem

in the Constitutional system

that couldn't be solved
by negotiation and bargaining.

The ultimate resolution
of this question of slavery

comes about at gunpoint.

You know, people just… resort
to killing each other.

720,000 people in four years

with relatively unsophisticated weaponry
is just astounding.

This was a bloodbath.

And it takes all of that to resolve
the question… of slavery.

And in order to nail this shut,

we see the emergence
of three constitutional amendments.

The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery.

The 14th Amendment
provides equal protection under the law.

It provides birthright citizenship.

The 15th Amendment provides
the right to vote to Black men.

Women will not get the right to vote
until the 19th Amendment is passed.

Amendment is
the peaceable mechanism for change.

But it has to pass
two-thirds of both houses

and three-quarters of the states
to be ratified.

Over time, what happened
in the federal government is that,

for complicated reasons,
amendment has very often been impossible.

The last time the US Constitution
was meaningfully amended came in 1971.

So amendment, which is foundational
to our very system of constitutionalism,

turns out not to work
anywhere near as well as was intended.

The framers of the US Constitution,

their calculations don't account
for the rise of the party system.

And they don't account
for the kind of polarization

that hobbles the United States today.

Congress has chosen not to play

the part it's assigned
in the separation of powers…

to not fight the president

when the president is of the same party
as the majority in Congress.

The willful weakness of Congress
is the constitutional problem

of 21st-century America.

I think the American people
would do well to reflect,

in the 250th year
since the signing of the Declaration,

on the framework of our Constitution,

and particularly encourage
our elected representatives

to take back the authority
and the role that the founders intended.

Every day, we should be thinking
if we are fully asserting our authorities

under the Constitution.

Is Congress right now?

-No.
-Some days, no. Yeah.

In general terms of our balance of powers,
it's not very balanced anymore.

Madison had talked about the way
the separation of powers would work

is we would pit ambition against ambition.

I think they never assumed
a Congress without ambition.

What happens if ambition
fails to counteract ambition?

What happens if stability
fails to assert itself

in the face of chaos and instability?

If decency fails to call out indecency?

Congress has gotta stand up.

There's a reason

that the framers of the Constitution
put it on us.

They wanted us
to be talking to our constituents.

They wanted us
to be the voice of the people.

We're not perfect.

We're never going to be perfect.

But we strive for ideals.

Just because we
haven't always realized these great ideals

doesn't mean there's something wrong
with the country.

It means there's just more work to do.

And throughout our history,

that is exactly what we have done,

through fits and starts
and disappointments and triumphs

and all kinds of compromise.

The opening line

of one of my favorite movies,
The Godfather,

is, "I believe in America."

Well,

I do believe in America.

My dad was born in Cuba,

was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba.

And he fled Cuba in 1957.
He came to Texas.

And he was an 18-year-old kid.

And he got a job washing dishes.
He made 50 cents an hour.

My father ended up
going to the University of Texas,

eventually becoming
a small business owner.

When I was sworn into office
in January of 2013,

I stood on the floor of the Senate.
My hand was on my father's Bible.

And in the gallery
was my father looking down.

And he had tears running down his face.

And he said that day, "Only in America."

1787, the United States
is 13 former colonies,

all on the eastern seaboard,
about three, four million people.

We're a country now, 350 million people
across the whole continent,

the richest,
most powerful country in the world,

maybe in the history of the world.

I think the Constitution
has a lot to do with it.

The American experiment
is democracy.

And it is our challenge,

and it's our honor
to make democracy work in our time.

I think we're at a place
where we can see the abyss in front of us.

In some ways, every generation faces
a profound constitutional challenge,

a question of whether
we're still up to this.

Americans really characteristically
tend to think that,

"Well, we might be the last generation."

"Things have gotten so bad, who knows
if my kids can have what I have."

It's actually in our nature
from the very beginning.

Think about the American national anthem.

Our national anthem is not a song
about how beautiful our country is

or how glorious our government is.

It's a song
about barely surviving the night.

This is the American attitude.

The American attitude is, we inherited
something wonderful and we're wrecking it.

And every American generation
has thought that.

But the fear
that we are on the verge of losing it

forces us again and again
to recur to the fundamentals,

to think about the Constitution,
to think about the Convention,

to think about what were they doing
and what are we doing.

The Constitution matters!

And I think, ultimately,
that fear of losing it all

is actually a source of our strength.

The question for us always is,

when we wake up the next time,
is the flag still there?

And that's up to us. That's our problem.

You don't have to run for office.

You need to do what you were put here
to do for this moment.

This experiment is not finished.

I just believe in this country.

I believe in the ideals.

It is when things feel really dark

that you need it the most.

We are at a point where we have to choose,

who do we want to be

on the anniversary of our existence
almost as a country.

This is a pivotal moment
to choose who are we.

Are we for some of us?

Or are we for all of us?

I'm not gonna lean back.

I'm not gonna quit.

I'm not gonna stop.

Democracy is worth it.

It's worth it.

Um…

-=[ Mercikes_BertVO ]=-
--=[ DeLeuksteThuis ]=--