American Constitution's Global Influence and Political Comebacks

Lucas Winford, Executive Director of the Yale University Office of Online Education and Digital Dissemination, introduced a segment of Professor Amar's constitutional law course. This course is structured around chapters from Professor Amar's books, with each chapter featuring two lecture segments and a third interactive segment. Winford explained that this third segment would be experimental, incorporating live video discussions, discussion forum prompts, or conversations between Professor Amar and a guest. Guests might include Yale undergraduates, professional colleagues, or lifelong learners with diverse perspectives. Winford himself participated in the first such segment, posing follow-up questions to Professor Amar.

The Global Impact of the American Constitution

Winford, immersed in digital communications, asked Professor Amar about the global dissemination and impact of the Constitution, noting that its effects couldn't have been immediate.

Professor Amar explained that the full impact of the American vision of democracy would take centuries to unfold, truly turning a corner in the 20th century with its influence spreading across Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. However, from the outset, the framers harbored grand ambitions.

Early Aspirations and Global Attention

The Declaration of Independence, for instance, addressed a "candid world," aiming to justify the American revolt to enlightened thinkers globally. Thomas Jefferson's words, "let facts be submitted to a candid world," underscored this international appeal.

Even before the Constitution, the world was watching. Professor Amar recounted the story of King George III's reaction to Benjamin West's prediction that George Washington would disband his army and return to his farm after the war. George III reportedly stated that if Washington did so, he would be "the greatest man in the world," recognizing the unprecedented nature of a military leader relinquishing power rather than seizing it. This contrasted with historical figures like Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell, and Napoleon, who used their armies to establish personal rule.

The Federalist Papers and the Experiment of Self-Governance

The framers themselves believed their actions held global significance. Professor Amar quoted the opening paragraph of Federalist No. 1, written by Alexander Hamilton, which states that the American people were called to decide "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." This audacious claim, coming from a relatively small and peripheral nation, suggested that the American experiment would determine the viability of democracy for the entire world.

James Wilson, a framer from Scotland, echoed this sentiment on July 4, 1788, after the Constitution's ratification. He declared the spectacle "the most dignified one that's yet appeared on our globe," asserting that even ancient civilizations like Sparta, Rome, and Athens never presented such an exhibition. The framers, perhaps "delusional" in their self-importance, genuinely believed their work would matter for all time and for the entire planet, either proving or disproving the fundamental workability of democratic self-governance.

Dissemination and Early Influence

Practically, news dissemination was slow, taking weeks or months to cross the Atlantic by ship. Nevertheless, the American experience inspired the French Revolution, led in part by figures like Lafayette who had spent time in America. Although the French Revolution ultimately failed to establish lasting democracy, leading to Napoleon's authoritarian rule, it was undeniably influenced by American ideals. Democratic reforms in Europe in the 1840s also drew inspiration, though many collapsed in 1848.

As late as the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln articulated the global stakes, stating that the United States was "the last best hope of earth" and that the success of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" was crucial for its survival globally. Professor Amar argued that only with the conclusive success of the American project after the Civil War did democracy become clearly established on a large scale. The 20th century further solidified this, with World War I fought to "make the world safe for democracy" and World War II seeing democratic powers prevail against authoritarian regimes. While the framers might have been "a little delusional" about the world watching from day one, Professor Amar concluded that "it turns out they were right about all that."

Political Comebacks: James Monroe and the Constitution

Winford then shifted the discussion to political comebacks, noting that in contemporary politics, figures can recover from significant missteps. He asked how James Monroe, who opposed the Constitution, managed to become president, a feat that seems impossible by today's standards for someone on the "wrong side of history" regarding such a pivotal decision.

Professor Amar distinguished between two historical periods:

1776: The American Revolution – No Comebacks for Loyalists

In 1776, during the American Revolution, opposing independence was a career-ender. Those who sided with the British were effectively "cast off the island" politically. No staunch loyalist ever became an important political figure in independent America. This was a "life or death" war, where allegiance was absolute, and there was "no redemption" for those against the cause.

1787-1788: The Constitution – Room for Disagreement and Comebacks

However, the situation was different during the debate over the Constitution in 1787-1788. This was a time of peace, not war, allowing for more mutual respect in disagreements. Many prominent figures who opposed the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, went on to hold high office: - James Monroe: Became president. - Elbridge Gerry: Became vice president. - George Clinton: Became vice president. - Samuel Chase: Became a Supreme Court Justice.

Professor Amar explained this phenomenon by referencing Federalist No. 2, written by John Jay. Jay emphasized the shared experience of fighting together in the American Revolution as the unifying factor. Despite disagreements over the Constitution, all who fought for independence were considered "Americans." Jay's reference to "a band of brethren" echoed Shakespeare's Henry V, suggesting that shared sacrifice in a "life and death war of national liberation" forged an unbreakable bond. James Monroe, having fought alongside George Washington, earned credibility and loyalty that transcended his opposition to the Constitution.

This meant that while being on the "wrong side" of the American Revolution was unforgivable, being on the "wrong side" of the Constitution was acceptable because all were "in this together." Furthermore, the Federalists recognized the validity of some Anti-Federalist criticisms, particularly the lack of a Bill of Rights. This led to the swift adoption of the Bill of Rights, which allowed Anti-Federalists to "save face" and be brought back into the fold, acknowledging their contributions to improving the Constitution.

The "Corporate Merger": Rhode Island and North Carolina

Winford then asked about the two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, that initially did not join the "corporate merger" of states under the Constitution. He inquired how they were eventually persuaded to ratify.

Professor Amar explained that the Anti-Federalists' main objections were: 1. Congress was too small to be truly trustworthy and representative. 2. There was no Bill of Rights.

The first Congress immediately addressed these concerns: - They proposed amendments, including one (though not ratified) to increase congressional size, and committed to a census to ensure a larger House of Representatives. - Crucially, they proposed a Bill of Rights.

This strategy allowed the skeptics in Rhode Island and North Carolina, as well as Anti-Federalists in other states like James Monroe in Virginia, to "save face." The Federalists essentially told them, "We heard your criticisms. We've addressed them. Now, this is your Constitution too. You are the authors of our first set of revisions. Come join us."

By proposing the Bill of Rights, even before its ratification, Congress signaled that the system would not be tyrannical and was open to criticism. This allowed Rhode Island and North Carolina to say, "Okay, that's enough of a signal... They heard us. We won."

Professor Amar concluded by highlighting the contemporary lessons: in a system of majority rule, minorities must acquiesce, but they will only do so if they feel heard and listened to. This historical example demonstrates the importance of addressing concerns and finding common ground to ensure unity and cooperation.