Welcome to Philadelphia,
you are in rather remarkable surroundings that I recognize
with some mixed emotions, truth be told. Well, thank you for the welcome. Is it General or Mr. President? Well, it is General, sir, and I
am a Virginian, and I don't take hands, but I bow in your honor. I'm an old school Virginian. I will confess to you that
Colonel Hamilton pressed me rather strongly, and during my
presidency, he has urged me to take hands, and I do so 2 days
a year on Independence Day and on my birthnight celebration. But aside from that,
I bow in your honor. You may also call me whatever
you want, it is a free country, but given the
choice, I prefer General. As I expected. I think you were more
comfortable being General. Well, you know, the presidency,
I revere the establishment of the executive branch, but
truth be told it is rather experimental in nature and there
have always been generals, so I'm more comfortable
with general. A good point. Well, presidents are well
established now where the presidency is. How many have there been? There are - been 45. 40 and 5. Of whom a few were
generals besides yourself. Well, I'm heartened
to hear that. It is important to understand
what it means to send people into harm's way. Those who were not generals
that I would say, the largest group were governors. Ah. Coming from their
respective states. And we've been well
served by gods and generals. Other Virginians? By, yeah. By governors and generals. Other Virginians, yes, indeed. Yes, sir. You were the first of what
turned out to be 5 Virginians in the first 7 presidents. Really? Yes. Virginia's had
a great influence. One of my secretaries told me
that you are also a Virginian. Yes. Not by birth but
by longstanding now. And apparently, you are
living in lands that I as a 14-15-year-old,
I helped survey. They were lands, that were owned
by Lord Sir Thomas Fairfax out in the western
portion of Virginia. Indeed, it's the town
of Washington, Virginia. Ah, well, I appreciate the
approbation, but it is a little bit too monarchical
for my flavor. Well, indeed, it's
230 odd years later, and the attorney general
of our state is a Fairfax. Ah. Remarkable. Happy to see they
have come back. I'm not sure if a direct
descendant, but shares the name. So, General, you spent a
great deal of time here. I spent a third of a
year here - 4 months. We don't have actual notes of
the proceedings, not direct quotations, for the most part. We do have some,
Madison's notes. I will tell you, Mr. Madison
took copious notes. And they've been published,
and they’re accessible. They were not
published for a long time. I think 50 years. But, tell me, did
you speak often? Well, in reality, when I was
unanimously elected to be the president, the presiding
officer of this Constitutional Convention, I took my
position on the dais. You may see that it is
literally raised slightly. Yes, it is. And as such, when one takes that
position, one also assumes the role of an honest
broker in the process. Concerned with the process,
certainly the content, but also the process. And so I did not speak very
often because I felt it would be inappropriate to sway an
argument one way or another. I will tell you then when
matters pertinent to Virginia itself came up, I stepped
off the dais, and I joined the Virginia delegation. There was another gentleman
that took over as the presiding officer for that short
period of time, but then I resumed my role. I, of course, spoke in
the beginning, and I welcomed everyone. I told them that secrecy
was absolutely critical. And why was it critical? It was critical so that the
newspapermen would not have early advice with regard to
what we were speaking about and publish this discussion. Because the discussion
was a discussion in motion. Things could change during the
process, but once it is printed in their newspapers, the
public might be subjected to a premature speculation
and concern. And so everything
had to be secret. And then I pretty much
sat back without speaking. I will own to the fact that
there was one moment in which one of the delegates, Mr.
Jerry from Massachusetts Bay, he suggested that there be a
resolution in the Constitution that the United States army,
many people always fearful of a standing army, should never be
more than 5,000 soldiers if I recall correctly. I was heard saying,
you know sotto voce? Yes. Is a loud whisper. Yes. I was heard saying that that
will be fine, as long as any enemy of this country promises
never to attack with more than 3,000 soldiers. I spoke 1 more time to
chastise people for the secrecy issue, and then I spoke at the
end to thank everyone and to release them from the process. Well, first on the matter of the
soldiers, how many soldiers were under your command
during the Revolutionary War? It changed all
throughout the war. There were times where I had, as
many as 25,000s of people enlisted, and that was
shortly after France came into a treaty of alliance with us and a
secret military treaty with us. But there were also times
when we were down to numbers nigh on 3,000. More typically, for example,
when we marched into the Valley of the Forge in mid-December of
1777, I marched 12,000 soldiers into that valley, and
almost half of them were unfit for duty, or their enlistments
were about to expire. And then you had a very
severe winter, as I understand. We had a very difficult winter
at the Valley of the Forge, but it was not the weather
that was the enemy. We had far worse winters,
Morristown, for example. The weather was not the enemy. Deprivation was not the enemy. That followed us everywhere
throughout the war. The British warm and comfortable
here in Philadelphia City; they were not the enemy. Disease was not the enemy. The enemy that winter of 1777
and ‘78 was the Congress because the Congress was putting
everything into committee. They had countless committees
when we marched in, they had doubled the number of countless
committees when we marched out 6 months later, they
could not make a decision. It was not completely
their fault. They were responsible for
everything, but they had the power to do nothing because we
were still being governed under the Articles of Confederation,
which was a almost useless document. So they could not raise
a tax to support you. They could not raise
a tax to support us. They could not
negotiate treaties. There were many,
many limitations and they were substantial. You know, there was talk by
myself and some of our officers at that time, and I'm sure this
will bear no resemblance in your day and time, but we sometimes
referred to them as a Do-Nothing Congress. A phrase that resonates
right through to the present. It does? It does indeed, with
the metaphor of gridlock. I am very, very
sorry to hear that. Well, it has its advantages, but
it's not viable in the long run. Quite right. When you were presiding, did
people then have to seek your recognition to speak? Well, there was a protocol,
but by and large, it would have become far too unwieldy for me
to recognize every individual when things would grow to a
heated discussion, then I would, of course, set in to
control the process. I will tell you that I was
amused to learn from Colonel Hamilton that he felt that
though I spoke very rarely, he said that every man Jack in this
room kept an eye on my jawline. And depending on whether my
jawline was stiff or relaxed, they knew how I felt
about a given subject. And if truth be told, I did
speak with regularity after hours at the various
taverns, and over dinners, and suppers, and such. And I did convey my
feelings on many things. Let me ask you about Hamilton. He had served you in
the Revolutionary War - personally served you. Yes. And was a delegate here. Yes. And is quoted as having said
that he thought the British model of government was the
best that had ever been created. That is correct. In fact, that was
one of the plans. It was referred to informally
as the Hamilton Plan, that was considered very briefly
and immediately set aside. So, is that something
that divided you? It did, and it did not receive
much in the way of support. It was actually for a
monarchy, was it not? Well, it was for the
British form of government. He felt that it was the
longest-lived form of government, and it was a
successful model, and he argued for it, but to no avail. So, when Mr. Madison
produced his plan. The Virginia Plan. The Virginia Plan. Yes. Was that broadly
and quickly accepted? It was not broadly
and quickly accepted. It was debated greatly, and
particularly it raised concern amongst some of
the smaller states. New Jersey, for example. Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and so forth. And it was given very serious
consideration, but it was not ultimately accepted. There was actually a Small State
Plan if you would call it that, or the New Jersey Plan or the
Patterson Plan depending on who you were speaking to. And that came up
with a variation. And ultimately, well, let me
step back for just a moment. We came together in this
city, and it was a very, very miserable time. It was a rainy spring. There was an outbreak of black
flies, there was the conditions alone were enough to make
tempers flare, but yet we came together in a fairly reasonable
manner, and it looked as though things would be moving
forward with rather great success early on. And then by June,
things began to fall apart. And that is when some of
these various plans were floated if you would. Hamilton Plan, the Virginia
Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and things became very acrimonious. It was not until Mr. Roger
Sherman suggested what we called the great compromise, and he
borrowed from the Small State’s Plan, and he borrowed from the
Large State’s Plan, and he wed them together in something that
while not everyone was happy everyone could live with. And that is the essence
of the story of the formation of this country. Both at its beginning and in
this room when we constrained ourselves under
this Constitution. The essence being that we
as Americans can overcome absolutely any obstacle. We can, if you will, defeat
any adversary as long as we ultimately set aside
faction and set aside division. That is what we did here
with the great compromise. Well, that has been a sometime
thing in the ensuing centuries, and it is definitely
necessary for success. So when we've come together for
foreign wars, of necessity, the country's unified. As soon as the wars are
over, the country goes back to divisions. I must ask you a question that
is bothering me greatly because you spoke of 45
chief executives, chief magistrates, presidents. Yes, indeed, and so
many of them with 2 terms and 1 with 3 -
4, pardon me, 4 terms. Well, there is no constitutional
requirement that there is a limitation. Oh, that has been changed, sir. Oh. There is now a 2-term limit. Oh. 2 4-year terms. Well, that is part of
an amendment process? Yes. It's done by amendment -
legitimate amendment. Well, we can speak to that, but
I must ask you a question that is burning deep inside me. The Union stands? The Union stands, but
it has not always stood. The great omission, if you will. The thing that you didn't
compromise on was slavery. Ah, the single subject
that I most sincerely regret. And the result was a civil war. A civil war with
600,000 dead. It was a catastrophe. You know what? I have a strong bias for action. My personal credo
is deeds, not words. And I also believe that an
imperfect something is better than a perfect nothing. And I say by way of explanation,
not by way of excuse, that our decision to shelve the issue of
slavery was made because, quite simply, if we had continued
to press the subject, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
indeed my beloved Virginia, would have gotten up from
their chairs - the delegates - the Constitution would
not have come together. And so, with great discussion
and thought, we did shelve the issue for 20 years. It seems like from what you are
suggesting that we created, in essence, a cancer that grew. Well, in fairness, I will point
out that slavery was becoming uneconomical in the South. It's a bad economic model. I came to realize that. And it was only because of a
subsequent invention by a man from Connecticut - the way
of picking the cotton more efficiently - that the
institution was revived and survived as long as
it did into the 1860s. But let me ask you, you say had
we pressed the issue, but were you pressing the issue, sir? You were a substantial
owner of slaves. This is correct. And of course, I, like every
individual in this room, have their own story. I have my own arc of
thinking, if you will, in my own change of thought. You know, it was Mr. Jefferson
that said that a man of 50 cannot wear the same
clothing as a boy of 15. We change. That said, I did not, as I
indicated to you earlier, speak much on the subject, other
than my primary concern, at the deepest root, my greatest drive
was to come together in union. And as I mentioned just a moment
ago, had we pressed the subject that would not have happened. You know, this may not be
understood widely, but what we signed here on September
17th, 17 and 87 was completely provisional. The entire thing could have
devolved when we released it to the various states
for ratification. If the ratification had not
followed, if it did not become the law of the land, we would
have become 13 individual countries again for that is what
we were a decade or more earlier when we met at that first
Continental Congress in the carpenter's guildhall, I
was a Virginia delegate. My country was Virginia. We were meeting in the
country of Pennsylvania. We had 13 different economies. We had 13 different currencies. We had 13 different armies at
the time of the first Congress. Connecticut was at war with
Pennsylvania and Virginia. 9 of the colonies
had standing navies. We had different customs. Different countries,
different customs. I remember walking into the
carpenter's guildhall, and a gentlemen of rather diminutive
stature comes at me with his hand out, and he says, “Colonel
Washington, my name is John Adams from Massachusetts Bay.”
I look at his hand, and I took a step back. I'm a Virginian.
We don't take hands. He, being a New Englander,
closes the distance with this hand out. I take another half a step back. It's a miracle that we even came
together, and it all, in this room, had that subject
been pressed could have likely devolved. When those colonies came
together first for the first Continental Congress, these
separate nations, if you will. By the by, we did not call it
the first Continental Congress. We didn't know there was
going to be a second one. Yes, of course. We called it the
Philadelphia Congress. What came out of that were
the Articles of Confederation. Correct. When you came back to do what
ultimately became the writing of the Constitution, your charter,
as I recall, was merely to amend and fix the problems with
the Articles of Confederation. It's a little more
involved than that. So the Articles of Confederation
actually do not come out of the first Continental Congress,
but they come out subsequently during the war by Congress. Okay. That is how we are governed. I always called that a document
that was on crutches, teetering, ready to fall over at any time. And so we had met in Annapolis,
Maryland a year before this Constitutional Convention
occurred here and only 5 of the states attended. And we met so that we could iron
out matters of commerce, betwixt the various states. There was all kinds of tariffs,
and it was very problematic. We did not have a unified
currency, and it was Colonel Hamilton who suggested we need
to meet, Philadelphia would be a good place to do so, 1
year from now with all of the states in attendance. And so we did assemble here
ostensibly to rewrite the Articles of Confederation. But most of us knew that
was going to be unlikely. And in very short order, we not
literally but symbolically tore up those articles. And we began to do something
that was, if truth be told, not illegal but extra-legal because
we had been authorized by our various state legislatures
as delegates - myself, from Virginia - to come here to
re-discuss and rewrite the Articles of Confederation,
not to write a Constitution. So what we did here was
actually, if you will - you are a jurist, am I correct? Yes, yes. Extra-legal by nature. I take the point of
the term is well chosen. So mid-September, your labors
are finally completed, the document is ready to
be sent to the states. One-third of a year of work. And was the mood celebratory,
optimistic, congratulatory? You know, we signed
that document on the 17th of September. Doctor Franklin made a mention
of the top of the chair that I had been sitting in
throughout the entirety of the Constitutional Convention. I'm not sure if you can see it
from here, but there is a sun on the horizon that the woodcarver
has carved into the chair. It's slightly gilded. He said that throughout this
proceedings, he was looking at that sun on the horizon, and
the problem with a sun on the horizon, whether it's painted or
carved in wood, is that one can never tell if it is a
rising sun or a setting sun. And with the great rancor of
the discussions and debates that occurred, he felt that perhaps
this union was crumbling before it could even take form. But on that day, he said that he
had the great happiness to know that it was a rising sun on
America and not as setting one. So yes, I released all the
delegates to go to their homes for the ratification process
to commence, but many of the delegates met that night at
the city tavern very close by. We met in the long room, which
was the second-largest meeting space in all of United America,
the largest meeting space in this building here up
on the second floor. And we had a celebratory dinner. But make no mistake
of it, Judge, it was not a raucous affair. It was an affair in which we
realized a sense of awe in what had been accomplished, and
there was also a great deal of fatigue, truth be told. That said, there were
many toasts, Madeira wine. We had a hearty meal, and
then we bid each other a fare-thee-well as we then
returned to our various homes. Your countryman, George Mason,
did not sign, after all of this labor and these proceedings
because he wanted to have a bill of rights in the Constitution. He felt that it should be
there from the very beginning. And was that a
great disappointment? Well, it was a disappointment,
both personally, and of course, with the idea of having his
signature and a unanimous support of the Constitution. Sadly, it weighed on our
friendship ultimately. But I could
understand his thinking. It was just, again, going
back to what I said earlier; an imperfect something was
better than a perfect nothing. And I gave him assurances,
others gave him assurances, that a bill of rights would be among
the very first things that the new Congress would take up. But, he still felt that
it was not appropriate. I want to ask you a question
only because I do enjoy wine. Are there great celebrations
in your day and time when the Congress comes together
and accomplishes what they need to accomplish? Do both houses of
a bicameral house come together in celebration? Well, I first should point out
that each house is divided just as you had feared, perhaps,
certainly not hoped, into parties, into factions. This is the great bane. I warned about it in
my farewell address. Yes, and it did not take long
for parties to coalesce and to create coalitions that span the
states and that are quite rigid, in that very rarely does a
member of one party leave to join a different one. And so it is likely very
difficult for members of one political party to celebrate
with members of another political party? In public it's no
longer the custom. In recent years, in particular,
there have been times when it was done more in private, not
as a public matter or not as something that's
even publicized. But - and friendships form - and
they form even across party lines, but less and
less so in recent decades. This is a cause of
great upset to me. I had written that political
party does little to benefit the country but raise the interest
of party above the interest of the nation, and sometimes the
self-interest of a small number of unscrupulous individuals. And that is, that
is of great concern. And the other concern is that
if we do not come together in union, then what did we
really accomplish here? The people do put party before
country except when the country is threatened. And then typically, if there is
an external threat, if there's a possibility of war, or
there is indeed a war, it's fought uniformly. And it has often been said that
political differences stop at the water's edge. If I may ask another question?
I apologize. I welcome it. It is so much to ask. You know, when I assumed the
role of the chief magistrate, the president, I was seen at
times by some as being stoic, aloof, if you will. The newspapermen would criticize
Mrs. Washington and myself. Of course, understanding our
times, we embarked upon this experiment at a time when the
entire rest of the world, every nation on earth, was under
the control of men and women of absolute power. Kings, queens, lords, ladies,
sheikhs, viziers, khalifas, potentates, maharajahs, mikados,
emperors, even a tsarina. I ran out of fingers. Our demeanor was such that I
felt it was important to provide an example of the national
character of the American citizen in a world where the
rest of the world was nobility and royalty. Things change. I am very curious with regard
to the national character of America in your time and day,
and I don't suppose that is a particularly easy question for
you to distill for me an answer, but I request it anyway. Well, it's not easy,
but I will attempt it. Please. In the centuries that followed,
immigration continued apace. The country grew to the
extent now of 330 million. There's nothing different
there with the exception of the aboriginals, the Indians,
everyone who came to these shores was an immigrant. The Washingtons no different. Exactly. And so everyone here is the
descendant of an immigrant. And forging a national character
out of such diverse ingredients might seem a great challenge. But, I think it actually
happened over the first century, perhaps after the revolution,
putting aside the division over slavery, and the Civil War, and
the right of a state to secede, which was the legal question
surrounding slave states. A national character of
people who were entrepreneurial, whether as farmers or tradesmen,
or merchants, who prized creativity, who came here
seeking success and continued, when they were
here, to seek success. And so we've been
great beneficiaries. And they contributed to the
national and public cause. Just so. And they became
Americans, quickly. This is what I envisioned. Of people coming here who
have no English, find that their children half of them
are not even literate in the parent's language. They've become English speaking,
English reading, and writing. Well, I actually suggested
this in one of my correspondence pieces, as well, that immigrants
are welcomed from all corners of the earth as long as they come
and they contribute, they learn our languages, and they avoid
staying in their own enclaves, if you will. But they join into the
American experience. Well, the enclaves persisted
but not to the exclusion of participation in
the larger community. So, there were, for instance,
cultural associations based on country of origin. There were newspapers in
other languages published in the great cities. I understand this one cannot
deny their sanguinity, and this is appropriate. But assimilation occurred
rapidly and more successfully in this country than anywhere else. To that question, I am very
interested in another topic with regard to assimilation. We had great problems
with the aboriginals, the Native Americans. They had great problems with
Europeans and the white man. Mrs. Washington has said it
takes 2 people to dance, and that is the same with
animosities as well. There needs to be 2 sides. I always had a belief that over
time, through the migration of citizenry from the eastern
seaboard to the westward, and through ultimate marriage
betwixt these individuals, there would be ultimately assimilation. And I am curious
about the aboriginals. It's a sad story, and that's 1
instance in which assimilation has been less successful. It might - one might
say even unsuccessful. As the country expanded and the
population grew, moved West, new states admitted to the Union. How many are there? There are now 50, and I think
that's the limit of our growth. 48 in the
continental United States. And believe it or not, we bought
Alaska from Russia and acquired the Hawaiian Islands. The Hawaiian Islands? In the middle of
the Pacific Ocean. Good distance away. But the Native Americans
were forced further and further west - and I mean forced - and
often confined in reservations large, but nonetheless limited
spaces, and have not fared well and not been treated well. It remained as if oil and water;
the assimilation did not occur. It did not occur to anything
like the extent that it has with immigrants from abroad. Ironic since they were
here before any of us. Correct. By the way, on the question
of the national character and assimilation, when people come
to this country, they take an oath to the Constitution. I am heartened to hear that. To become citizens, not to
the government of the day, but to the Constitution. I am greatly heartened
to hear that. You know, the document that
was signed here represented the first time, to the best of my
knowledge, in human history that a nation was raised
up - indeed a government formed - based on ideas.
Not based on religion. Not based on might makes right. Not based on regionalism. But based on ideas. Those ideas have been
copied and emulated in many other countries. Taking our Constitution,
with very little adaptation, to different circumstances. Never with quite
the same success. You know, I'm
sorry, I am smiling. I'm just recalling we had pretty
much gotten to the point in the process where we
were ready to sign. The document was about
to be turned over to the Committee of Style. In fact, actually, it had. Gouverneur Morris was the
primary one on that committee that contributed. But there had been so many
arguments, and it seems as if the Committee of Style when they
presented the 4 pages of the document, that much of
the upset disappeared. And then it began again,
and people wanted to make modifications yet again. Dr. Franklin wanted to include a
statement that the Congress had the right to create,
dig, and build canals. Mr. Mason, of course,
wanted a bill of rights. Mr. Madison wanted a national
university, and all these ideas started piling on yet again. And finally, we just said a
variation of what I have shared with you twice in
this discussion. An imperfect, something is
better than a perfect nothing. But the genius of that imperfect
something was that it didn't try to deal with issues of canals
and universities, and some of the countries that have emulated
or adopted our Constitution have extended it to have
300 articles. The specificity was avoided. They’ve confused legislation
with a Constitution. Correct. Correct. And of course, we do have the
amendment process so that it is a living document. Well, it's taken on life I must
say with regret, more from the judicial re-interpretation than
it has from actual amendment through the legitimate process. I need you to
explain that to me. My understanding of the
amendment process was that - first of all, we had
12 amendments proposed, some of them were lost, actually more
than that initially, but we had 10 amendments that were the
Bill of Rights - there are how many now? There are an
additional 17. So that's 27, and
there's one that may be ratified any day now. I personally warned that the
amendment process should not be approached with a spirit of
innovation, regardless of how spurious the pretext
was to that innovation. It should be a difficult
process to change it and a well thought out process. But I did not see the
judicial branch as being a part of that process. Well, as you and your colleagues
so clearly understood, the ambition of individuals and the
institutions that they run is a fact of nature. Irreducible. And so, all of the branches of
government have attempted to slip the bonds, to
acquire greater authority. And the judiciary has not only
acquired greater authority in its own right but has blessed
the acquisition of extra-textual authority by the other branches. You have talked to me and spoken
to me of 2 areas of great upset; 1 is the rise of
political party and this idea of self-interest. Well, it can't be
a big surprise. That's why I warned about it. Well, I'm sorry if you've
been disappointed by what you spawned, but - or what I've told
you how things turned out, but on balance has
been a great success. More than you could've imagined. I am not disappointed
in the whole. For you to say that there are
45 Presidents, there are 50 states, that this
Constitution, and this Nation, this Republic, has
continued despite its ups and downs - because we've
always had problems - I am actually very heartened. Well, I'm very grateful because
it's the Constitution that made all that possible. Thank you, sir. Oh, pardon me. I forgot the
customs of the country. Sir, I take your hand
in the Quaker manner. Thank you, General. I am your humble servant.
