 Well, hello from the National Archives Public Programs and Education Team. My name is Missy McNat and I'm an Education Specialist in Washington, D.C. And welcome to the National Archives Comes Alive Young Learners Program. You can find information about our future programs on the National Archives website, www.chance.gov under Attendant Event or on the National Archives Facebook page. This morning, we meet James Madison, portrayed by John Douglas Hall. Mr. Hall presents a unique historical representation of his portrayal of James Madison. Mr. Hall professionally reliving the life of James Madison every day brings us James Madison in historical context. So what does that mean for us? Well, today is September 16, 2021. When we meet James Madison, it will be September 16, 1821. And by that time, James Madison has twice been elected as President of the United States and has retired to his home Montpelier in Orange County, Virginia. So when President Madison talks to us about the Constitution, which is the focus of our program today, he is remembering it and reflecting on it from 34 years ago in 1787. James Madison had a long and prolific career in public service. In 1774, he served on the Committee of Correspondence from Orange County, Virginia. That was before the Revolutionary War, and eventually he was elected to the Constitutional Convention. Upon ratification of the Constitution, he was elected to the House of Representatives from his home state of Virginia. He eventually goes on to serve as Secretary of State under President Jefferson. And then, as I said earlier, was twice elected as President. The National Archives has in its holdings numerous records related to James Madison. And on this slide, this next slide that we see, there is a portrait of James Madison by Gilbert Stewart that was done in the 1820s. And the other document is the notes from the Annapolis Convention that James Madison attended. And that was in 1786. And it was at that convention that it was determined that the current federal government under the Articles Confederation needed some revisions. On the next slide, we have the Docs Teach featured activity, which is actually a compilation of numerous activities on the Constitution. So it's docsteachdocsteach.org. And I encourage teachers, parents, students to check it out because there are numerous activities related to the Constitution for all grade levels and abilities. And we'll share this slide again at the end of the program. So we will have a question and answer session with President Madison at the end of his presentation. So please write your questions in the YouTube chat box. We have a National Archives staff member who is monitoring it. And let us know where you're watching from this morning. This program is brought to you by the National Archives Public Programs and Education Team, the National Archives and the National Archives Foundation. And now it is my great pleasure to introduce to you the Honorable James Madison. Today, I'm delighted that we have an opportunity to be with one another on the recollection of the Constitution 34 years ago when so many of us had signed that document in September. Many who are in Congress today were very young men when that Constitution was written. I find that many people have now perhaps passed over the actual events that led to the Constitution and are engaged in the operation of our government. But as I look back on those moments in September, I think of all the circumstances that brought it about in the first place. Surely the Constitution in giving sovereignty to the people at large was a very, very new concept in the annals of mankind. So the most different than any other form of government on such a large scale that it is noteworthy to know how and why it came about and why it becomes then so significant. We were 13 colonies under England for a number of years. Virginia coming in and perhaps in 1609 established as a colony and in Georgia in 1725 we had anywhere from 50 to 150 years of rather autonomous colonial legislatures. And those legislatures took care a great deal of what happened in each one of those each one of those colonies. As we progressed and established court systems, many generations established here in North America, we still felt ourselves as Englishmen, but retained a great deal of control over what was happening domestically right in our own colonies at the time. This continued fairly unabated until the seven years war started in 1750s. And those seven years war was between England and France, and it cost England a great deal of money. At the conclusion of that war, England then wanted the colonies to pay for some of the expenses, particularly in that part of the war that was fought in North America, what we call the French and Indian war. And it led to a number of acts on part of England imposed on these colonial legislatures. And the colonial legislatures obviously objected to some of these taxes, and tried to find resolution in England by sending representatives and letters and other communication to resolve the issue of England imposing taxes without us having a say at all in Parliament as to how those taxes were going to be applied or even the amounts. As a consequence, this effort of resolution one with the other between England and the colonies led to a great deal of dissension. But we must remember at that time the colonies had a direct each one of the colonies had a direct relationship to England. That is going from Massachusetts to Georgia would inevitably be sent first to England and then down to Georgia and vice versa. So this contact with England this connection with England was separate for each one of the 13 states or the 13 colonies rather. And when the problems of relationship between England and each one of the colonies began to grow. The colonies began to recognize the similar difficulties in dealing with England and formed that first Continental Congress in 1774 and then the second Continental Congress thereafter in 75. And an effort on the part of the various colonies to act together to negotiate with England and a peaceful resolution of the differences that were there. One thing led to another and the controversy certainly in Massachusetts a hotbed of revolution to be sure and eventually led to the Revolutionary War. The war was conducted loosely by these 13 colonies become states independent states. They united finally in 1781 with a the Articles of Confederation a list of 13 articles that would determine how this the various independent states would work together as a league as a confederation to fight the war. It was finally successful with Treaty of 1783. And then shortly thereafter we begin to see the difficulties amongst the states in dealing with one another. Western land claims we the war of the Treaty of 1783 led to the establishment of a great deal of land that was given to the United States. Beyond the Appalachians to the Mississippi and many of the states had conflicting land claims to that land. One of the problems was also the removal of the hostile Indians and British garrisons in the Western lands. There were issues amongst the states regarding their demarcation of lines state lines between Maryland Virginia for example there was controversy over who would control the Potomac River and who would control the Chesapeake Bay. For fishing rights and other navigation issues. Many of the states also sent representatives to Europe in matters of negotiation for treaties. Much in conflict with one another two states would send representatives to Spain or to France to negotiate separate treaties that would actually counteract the activity of the other states and its negotiations. The United States did not to speak with one voice. We had issues of foreign debts and state debts. There were conflicts about the use of the Mississippi River and in seeking to have the Western lands be able to use the Mississippi River and particularly the port of New Orleans for international trade. All of these difficulties became apparent in the mid 1780s after the Treaty with England. You found that the states could not work with one another. We were founded as a as a United States in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. And that declaration reported that all men are created equal in their job by the creator with certain inalienable rights. And amongst the user life liberty and as Mr Jefferson said the pursuit of happiness and lock would say the pursuit of property. But in creating the revolution with England and fighting a long war after the war was over it becomes very critical and occupy the attention of many of how this new nation of 13 independent sovereign states would be able to continue in with any degree of unity. There were national issues amongst all the states including all the states for which no one of the states or group of states could effectively resolve themselves. And the Articles of Confederation was the form of government in which we were to address national issues. But as the 1780s proceed we realized that the the government under the Articles of Confederation to lose confederation of 13 independent and sovereign states was not effective. It had neither the authority nor the energy to deal with these national issues amongst the states. And that is the reason why a convention was called in 1786 in Annapolis to see if we could resolve the deficiency of energy and authority of the national government. It was off to a difficult start. I recall I recall in Maryland that only five states arrived that time in September of 1786 and Maryland worthy or the convention was taking place in Annapolis, Maryland did not even send representatives itself. And this was not a very promising start. Mr. Hamilton and I and a few others in company with one another in Annapolis decided we would with greater resolve call for convention the following year convention in 1787 September. And this would require the attendance of many more of those independent sovereign states to send representatives deputies as some of them called to a new convention to discuss the problems that were very apparent under the Articles of Confederation. This effort at a constitutional convention had to have force and consequence. We needed leading men from the various states to be in attendance and to ensure that we had to ensure the attendance of General Washington, a man whose preeminence in the American mind was unquestionable, undeniable. And with his attendance, we could ensure that other representatives being representatives from other states could also and would also join that convention in September of 1787. But if we're to address the Articles of Confederation and find them with the lack of energy, the lack of authority, what is it about the articles that were so deficient. It had no power to tax. It had no power to compel any one of its members, the 13 members of the confederation to do anything. They could be asked for contributions to support of the national expenses, particularly foreign debts and domestic debts incurred during the revolution. It could ask the states to help resolve issues of the Western lands. In fact, Virginia took a leading role in 1785 and said that the Western land claims of Virginia would be given over to the new Congress into the new government, the Articles of Confederation was then commanding. In the resolve of these issues, it became apparent without the energy and authority that the articles would have to be changed. But any change to be made with the Articles of Confederation, according to the Articles of Confederation themselves, required all 13 states to agree to the change. And this would never happen. Frankly, in New York and Rhode Island were frequent objectives to any change in the Articles of Confederation and any demonstrative efforts, the articles would make in resolving national issues. I remember writing a paper called The Vices of the Confederation, and it was a rather deliberate attempt to indicate the various deficiencies of the Articles as a national government. When we met in September of 1787, it was the resolve of all those in attendance in Philadelphia to cherish, preserve and perpetuate the Union of the States. We realized that if any one of the states were going to survive, it required the action of all the states together to ensure that survival of each of its members. In the issues of the Articles of Confederation, it dealt with national issues, as I said, that no one state or group of states could affect. And so a new national government had to be established on different grounds in the Articles of Confederation, on different grounds entirely. And in this pursuit of the unity of the states, the independence of the 13 states, the sovereign nature of each one of those states, the ability of the state to control everything that the state did, both internally and externally from the state, would have to change fundamentally. At those issues of the 13 states that dealt with national concerns, the states would each of them have to give up their authority to deal with that aspect of national issues. Think of perhaps the national currency, a united voice in creating treaties with foreign nations and negotiating treaties of commerce with foreign nations to establish resolution amongst the states for the difficulties of the western land. Dealing with the Indian nations that each one of the states virtually had to cope with the difficulties of treaties with individual Indian nations. And this would be assumed by the national government. There were other issues of transportation of the use of the western lands beyond the Appalachians. How new states would come into the union. How a government could be established that would not be compelled to violence. Every time a change had to occur at the national level, that we had to find some means of establishing a new kind of government that would allow for the peaceful transition of administrations of congresses of legislatures at the national level. And this was the object of those meeting in Philadelphia in 1787. Now some say that the Congress that was meeting under the Articles of Confederation meeting in New York never gave permission to the convention in Philadelphia to change entirely the Articles of Confederation. But in the instructions to the convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, there were striking words and was to render the national government adjacent to the needs of the people and of the states. And this required quite a change in the philosophy of government that the states had to give up their sovereignty in certain realms of governance. And that this giving up of this authority they were able to exercise each of them separately would now be given over to a national government. It was important to distinguish between national issues and state issues. And this is where the idea of a federated government comes into play. The governance does take place on issues of a national character and also of a domestic character. Those of a national character had to be greatly defined to separate them from state authorities. And the Constitution then sought to become a limited form of government at the national level that dealt with solely national issues that no one state or group of states could accomplish on their own right. And as a consequence, the states had to give up some of their authority and many states were reluctant to do that. We get into the issues of the Constitution itself and the elements that composed it, the checks and balances of the new government. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. But under the circumstances, we know that men, particularly in groups, enlarge assemblies are anything but angels. So we had to create a government that would not only control the people, but a government that could control itself. These thoughts of many of the men at the convention in Philadelphia in that summer of 1787. The idea of religious beliefs, many of the colonies turn provisional states to independent sovereign states. Some of those states had established religions. And great fines and punishment would be imposed on individuals that neither paid the taxes or the tithes to the churches in their respective states. People punished and imprisoned and such. Remember much in Orange County, the reaction to the Baptist, the handover presbytery that sent petitions regarding their right to preach and to pray and to establish churches. These are matters very serious in Virginia and they certainly were prevalent in most of the other states as well. So a distinction between the church and the state was almost implicit in establishing this new government. We wanted to establish a government whose sovereignty rested in the people, not in the hands of a king, not in the hands of an aristocracy, or bureaucracy as some call the government even today here in 1821. The effort was to establish a form of government that had implicit assumptions about the nature of republic. And this effort to create a republic, to embrace the idea of energy and authority in the national government, to distinguish between national affairs and state affairs, to render the document agreeable to sufficient numbers of people that it could be ratified and implemented over many of the provincial and partisan views that were extant in each of the states at the time. It was a very difficult course. The questions that were posed, the ideas of republican government, that is, a government founded on the principle that the sovereignty remains in the hands of the people. It was very different. Under the article's confederation, the sovereignty was in the hands of the states. But we wanted to embrace the states. We wanted to embrace the people of all of the states, not as one consolidated government, but as the people represented in their respective states. So the constitution was finally written and finally prepared and sent to the United States in Congress assembled meeting in New York as the formal organized body of the article's confederation. The document was sent off. Not many of us were very enthusiastic about it. I was rather depressed that it did not contain certain elements which I thought were important. But nonetheless, it was sent to New York and then sent to the several states for their ratification. But it's important to recall the ratification was not to take place in the state legislatures themselves. But rather that each state would form a special ratifying convention for the sole purpose of accepting or rejecting this new proposed constitution. And by the people sending representatives to their respective conventions in each of the states, ratifying conventions in each of the states. The most general and the most generous determination of voting suffrage of voting abilities were extended in the choosing of the delegates in each of the states to their respective ratifying conventions. And it's important to realize that the representatives then at each ratifying convention in each of the 13 states would be representative of most of the people at the time. And that by their ratifying the constitution by convention, the people were ratifying this new constitution and not the respective state legislatures. It's one of the first acts which the state legislatures have to give up their authority to speak for the states rather the people spoke for the state. And when sufficient number of states had ratified the constitution, it would be implemented. This is a long story. But it's requisite to realize that the course of events in an independent relatively independent autonomous colonial situation as part of England sending raw materials to England for their manufacture. That this experience of generations growing up in these 13 colonies, soon to become independent states after the war. That this idea of Republican government, this idea of people governing themselves was so fundamental that questions about how they would govern themselves. What kind of what form of government would they establish for themselves becomes critical and requires a certain degree of attention. Not only in upon the people who were there in 1787. Most of them are gone now I reflect. But as I think of it, there. There were questions that were posed at the time. But received resolution because we had to establish the document. The questions that revolve around a Republican form of government are numerous. And they will continue to be numerous, because they're never actually resolved to the satisfaction of a pure Republican government. Each generation must address the same issues. They must address the same kinds of problems that arose and creating a government where the sovereignty is left in the hands of the people. There is no other authority than the people themselves. And so it is important to hear in this September of 1821 that we revisit the issues that arose about the Constitution. Who should be governing national affairs? Should New Hampshire be having any part in judging what Georgia should do regarding the Florida question or the Yazoo Lens scandal or the Mississippi River? Should Georgia be involved in resolving issues between provinces of Canada? And British claims in Canada were their claims in the Euristic County area in the North of Massachusetts. These are problems that will ever persist in this nation and must be revisited and given consequence. And that is why I think in this particular forum, we can realize that we don't address questions that the founders did. They did not accomplish their task and then go on to other issues. The kinds of problems that they sought to resolve, the questions that they sought to answer were temporary and formed under the best of intentions and under limited experience. And that renders our government a continual experiment in Republican government. And one which no generation can avoid by passing off the obligation of its consideration, its foundation onto other individuals. We are all tradesmen. We all have different skills. We have obligations to our family, the most church. We have many obligations to our professions, to our local communities. But in all cases, no matter who we are and what we're doing, we should resolve these issues and continually address them each generation. And the 17th of September, this month of September, is always a good time to visit many of these issues and discuss with others their opinions. Many will resolve that our differences in opinion can divide us, but our similarities of principle to further perpetuate and keep the union of the states a union should supersede all of these difficulties. I hope my reflections have been of some value to you and I hope we may continue the discussion through the course of the day and the days ahead. Well, thank you so much, President Madison. I mean, that was a wonderful explanation of how the Constitution came about and brought up many, many questions. So we're going to get to some questions in just a second, but I would like to say first thank you to the folks who are watching. And if you haven't written in where you're watching from, let us know. We've got some people from Lake Charles, Louisiana. I hope you are safe. I know that's been difficult with the hurricanes that area. We've got folks from North Carolina, Long Island, New York, Minnesota and Tennessee. And I'm sure there are folks out there from other places. So let us know. And, you know, interesting, of course, many of those states, President Madison, would not have been states you would have recognized. In fact, I think, well, North Carolina, New York, but the others are new and since 1821. And so I think that goes along with, you know, talking about the Western lands and how that those issues were going to be dealt with. But I think, too, the other comment that you made is something that we need to reflect on each year. And that is, you know, where we are. And we do continue to struggle with many of the same questions that you have brought up. And it is the Constitution is not a simple document that explains everything. And that actually brings me to a question from one of our listeners. And I know that this is maybe a little bit difficult. But we do have some some young folks and could you explain the Constitution briefly in terms that people who don't know a lot about our government could understand. That's a lot to ask. But, you know, I think it's anyway, so please look forward to your answer. Forgive me if, like General Washington, I've grown old in the service of my country and I'm afraid that the need for spectacles becomes apparent. He said that at Newberg when confronting the officers. Louisiana came into the Union in the 30th of April in 1812 during my administration. So I have a lot of pride in Louisiana. In the convention, there were basically two objects. The first was to form a structure of government. And this is where there was a establishment of a legislative branch being obviously the most formal and perhaps should be endowed with the most authority in the government if one is to look to one of the branches as a source of authority. The executive branch obviously to execute the laws of the land and the Supreme Court to resolve issues at the national level that pertain amongst states, citizens and states, states with one another and even conflicts with foreign lands. So the structure was very important how it was established. And of that element of the Constitution that is most critical, it is probably the most important aspect of the Constitution that should not be subject to flip and change. The second subject of the Constitution is where its authority lay. At the end of that convention in 1787 we created a committee of style that took all the information from the four months of the convention discussions and put them into a written form. And there was a committee of style. I was on that committee of style along with Gouverneur Morris. Gouverneur Morris had it in mind to set a preamble to the Constitution. And that was to it would itself not be a source of authority, but it would describe what the Constitution sought to do. And many people are familiar with that preamble and the promote domestic welfare and such and provide for the common defense and such a general indication of the authority of the national government. Now that authority would probably change and the way that authority is exercised would change as new experience with this new government would come to pass. And so in dealing with the Constitution, we're dealing with the structure of the of the government, which really should be subjected to the very narrowest of changes if there's any change at all. And secondly, to the authority that that government might exercise. And this is perhaps a bit more subjected to the vicissitudes of politics at rage and the changes that occur as as the government is exercised over a period of time. Now I give an example in the first example with the structure of government, we made a change in in 1802 with the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amendment changed the method by which the president and vice president would be chosen. They would be chosen separately. Under the Constitution, the president, there would be an electoral college that would choose the president with the one with the highest number of votes, electoral votes become president in the sex second highest to become vice president. This was changed in 1802 a structural change in the Constitution that each of those offices would be chosen separately. In the matter of the second authority that came in actually an example of that came in during my administration at the very end after the war that started in 1812 was concluded in 1815, the government had a great deal of money. Extra revenues, probably $16 million in extra revenues if one wants to become specific. And it was one of the few governments in the world that the inclusion of the of the war in Europe between England and France and other parts of the world that had excessive revenues. And the question my administration is how do you use those revenues. I recommended to the Congress that they use the monies to improve roads and bridges canals projects that had begun years before, and were endeavored to be completed by local groups or private local groups or public local groups, and were somewhat dependent on one another the conclusion of a canal would be dependent on something else occurring to the east. I recommended to the Congress they spend the money in this repair of roads and bridges and canals. But I also said to the Congress and that address in December of 1815 that to do that there was no authority under the Constitution for the government to undertake this commercial exercise. We prepared words for the for the post office and established military roads but the general commercial endeavors of the nation, there was no authority in the Constitution to do that. So I recommended the Congress that they prepare a amendment to the Constitution, since everyone was pretty much an agreement that we had the money we had the ability and the, and the will to do it. That we prepare a constitutional amendment that would give the national government this further national authority to improve roads and bridges and canals. They discussed it for nearly two years and on the day that was leaving office and on March 3 and March 4 and in 1817 the bill came to my to my desk was called the bonus bill introduced by Mr. Calhoun from South Carolina. Well, I vetoed that bill. And I vetoed it because it was unconstitutional. They had done all this work to distribute money they argue to where the money should go and what state should get it. But fundamentally, it was unconstitutional in my mind. And in that in mind I vetoed the bill for its lack of constitutionality. And the bill was suspended. It was brought up I understand and Mr. Monroe's administration. And I have not heard the status of that improvement of roads bridges and canals, but I also have not heard of any constitutional amendments so I'm hoping it will not pass, and that no government will exercise authority that the Constitution does not afford. Well, thank you. And I mean, that's a lot of information and yes and looking ahead in 2021, you know, we're looking at similar issues in our Congress of money going forward so we're jumping ahead 200 years. And yes, that issue of what is constitutional and what is not is something a question that continues to it continues with us today. So just to add a few more we've got some folks from Finland Europe which is fantastic, and some folks from Bellevue, Washington. Here's another question and more about the Constitution after was signed on 7 September 17 1787. Did the Constitution and you actually talked a little bit about this immediately go into effect but maybe review that. And what happened between Oh, I guess in terms of government September 17 1787 and March 4 1789 when the Constitution commenced its authority so two questions, did it immediately go into effect and in those years in between. What was the federal authority. The under the articles confederation the the governing body was called the United States and Congress assembled there was no executive the the Congress itself from amongst its own number would would would elect a president we had 14 presidents under the articles of confederation, but your the presence were only chosen by the delegates to preside over their own meetings in the Congress there was no, there's nothing of a Supreme Court or or an executive branch per se. When the Congress had had had had recommended that a convention be called for people to review the articles of confederation or pair a report on the status of the national government. They did so, as a committee, and the committee at the end of its activities in September of 1787 submitted their report it was not called the Constitution in the report, it was a report from the convention, recommending changes in the national government. And that's why it was sent to New York, New York under the articles confederation the Congress was debating then of whether they could approve or not approve the document. But decided it was better to send it to the respective states for their ratification from the period of September 17 1787 to the implementation of the new government under the Constitution in the fourth of March, the governing body until November. It was November of 1788. The governing body was still the articles confederation. They suspended their operations in November of 1788 would do so anyway, and said that the new government would would meet, presumably in March, but a quorum had to be established in March of 1789. And that that that quorum was really not achieved until April 1789. That that's the nature of events that took place in the authority of the government. It was merely report from the Constitutional Convention. So when they signed that document they merely signed the Constitution or what they call the report that was going to be sent to the Congress and meeting in New York, and that Congress in New York the United States and Congress this assembled would send it to the respective states for their ratification or not ratification if enough states, if nine states did not ratify that Constitution, the new Constitution would not go into effect. That's why the issues of the ratifying conventions became very critical. So the idea of progressing to this new government, which we have cherished now these last 34 years, the issue of it coming into being was was very, very tenuous one cannot begin to suggest the number of occasions, which the opportunity for this new Constitution to be established would have been laid asunder. And it was a very difficult time for those of us who are trying to follow the course of events and to make sure that the Constitution would be finally approved. It was not a foregone conclusion by any means. Thank you. So we're just time for a couple more questions and this is actually sort of a dual question. Were you satisfied with the new Constitution and then looking back on it in retrospect from 1821. Has your opinion changed about it in any way. Well, my opinion about the Constitution has not changed. I think I think I mentioned earlier that many of those who are in Congress today in 1821 were very young even if they were born at the time the Declaration of Independence was made. They were very, very young when the Constitution Convention met in 1787. And I think perhaps it is normal that generations proceed under a certain degree of momentum. And revisiting earlier questions that brought about the Constitution revisiting questions involved in writing the Constitution seemed to become less important to them. And as a consequence you see members of that Congress submitting that bonus bill to me in 1817 with the thought that if something could be done if they had the money to do it, the will to do it, and the resources to do it, that that's enough authority for the national government to be engaged in doing that particular function, the improvement of roads, bridges and canals in this particular instance. And they begin to forget that the Constitution is supposed to create a national government of limited authority and that only authority is granted to it would allow it to engage in activities. And that much is already lost in 34 years. If they can present a bonus bill that has no constitutional authority and expect that the president is going to sign off on it. And it's this momentum with lack of examination that perhaps disturbs me. A general education for individuals a familiarity with the issues that surrounded that government that issues that can perpetually revolve around efficient and appropriate republican government. It is not a question of they ought to do it. They have to do it for it to persevere. And I think even in 34 years we've seen perhaps that younger generations are are only familiar with the eventual outcomes of issues and not dealing with the issues themselves who examines the anti federalist points against the Constitution today. The anti federalist lost. So their opinions can't be very important, but they in fact they are, because they're part of the discussion of what it constitutes good republican government and we really cannot survive. Unless people are dealing with those difficult questions and not passing off their obligations to former generations, or to others, simply because they have neither the energy inclination or interest to do it. We become all members. We become all founders of the republic by our continuing examination, as did the people 34 years ago in 1787. Well, thank you. And we, we have quite a few more questions that we are really running out of time here. And, but I do have one last question for you. And today, or in on September 16, 1821, and you have talked about the younger generation quite a bit, but what, what advice would you give to young people in your day? The establishment of the new United States of America under the Constitution engages citizens always to be engaged in the running of its government. We don't have the convenience of a monarch monarchy where a king will determine ultimately or parliament will determine what is going to happen. We are all responsible for choosing those representatives who are enlightened, who constitute a political virtuousness, who are able to engage with intelligence, the issues of the day to become familiar with the issues of the day. And the great function of children is to have the desire to be engaged in choosing representatives, to be engaged in knowing what the events that are taking place that require them to choose responsible legislators. And certainly, and above all, not to devolve their responsibility, even as young citizens onto the shoulders of others. There was no one more responsible to the governance of the American people than each one of the American people. And hopefully the number of participants in the government locally and in the states and the national government will begin to embrace more and more elements of the society. And that those more and more elements will become responsible citizens, no matter what their trade, no matter what their vocation, what their advocations. They have to be engaged and not devolve that responsibility on the shoulders of others, or they themselves will suffer the consequences and the momentum of a republican government will be lost to inattention and to probably to violence. And we must avoid that at all costs. Perpetuate the union of the states and to be involved in that activity. Well, thank you. And I, you know, that engagement is so important in a way that takes me back to that first line of the Constitution. We the people that, you know, we are the people who are make up the government and you have mentioned that actually a number of times throughout. Thank you so very much for joining us this morning. And this has been an enlightening discussion and talk and I certainly and I should I know our audience has enjoyed hearing from you. So we wish you an excellent rest of your day. And perhaps we will meet at your home in Virginia someday. Thank you. So as I had mentioned, here is our Docs Teach Constitution activities. Please check it out. If you go to docsteach.org and then backslash topics and click and then Constitution. There are quite a few of activities. So please check it out. I think you'll find something for all grade levels and all abilities. And then join us the end of October on October 28 to meet Washington Irving, which I found out. Mr Irving had visited the Madison's at Montpelier in Virginia in Orange County, Virginia during his travel. So a really great connection. And of course, I'm sure as many of you know, Washington Irving is the is often called the father of the short story, the American short story and is the author of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, which makes it especially appropriate program as we get closer to Thanksgiving, excuse me, Halloween. So thank you for joining us and enjoy the rest of your day and happy Constitution Day to everyone tomorrow, September 17.