Constitutions are often thought of as the agents of change for monarchies and empires, usually it spells doom for them. But the history of constitutions is far more complicated than a revolutionary tool, in fact some of them were penned by monarchs themselves. 

Linda Colley is a professor of history at Princeton University. Her latest book, The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World is a deep dive into some of the most notable constitutions, how they came to be, and the impacts they have in today’s world. 

Linda and Greg discuss how constitutions often borrowed and plagiarized constitutions before them, how the purpose of the documents has evolved over time, and how a constitution-less Britain still influenced so many other constitutions. 

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Episode Quotes:

Do constitutions borrow from each other?

05:16: Publishers started producing not just the text of one constitution; they started bundling together the texts of multiple constitutions. And these compendia became very useful for governments wanting to initiate or amend a constitution, particularly if they had to act quickly. Because they could say, "Oh, I really like that bit in Argentina's constitution." Or, "Oh, that Hawaiian constitution hits it on the spot." And if you analyze the makeup of some constitutions, the Norwegian constitution of 1814 is an extreme example. You can see them adopting sentences, sometimes whole paragraphs, because Norwegians had to act quickly before a Swedish army was moving in. So they had to do this in a matter of weeks. So they bought and acquired all these compendia of constitutions, and they just cut and pasted.

The evolving role of constitutions

21:37: So, constitutions, because they go into print and now go online, can work as advertisements and proclamations to foreign audiences—not just something that caters to domestic and legal purposes.

The british identity

49:51: In the British case, power and success have notably receded since the Second World War. There's been more uncertainty, therefore, about national identity and British identity. Hence, the independence movement in Scotland in part. And so, that's another factor that might influence future constitutional thinking. Given that some of the old props of national identity no longer work, would a statement of constitutional unity and definition be helpful?

How lockdowns hurt the poorest countries

48:15:The poorest countries reorganize their economies to fit in with the West. That's what brought a billion people out of poverty. The lockdowns essentially were a violation of that promise, right? What the West basically said was, "We're going to pull up the drawbridge because we're scared." And all of those trade promises we made to you were gone. The markets that we promised to you are gone, and the people at the lowest rungs of world society, meaning the poorest of the poor, became even poorer, and millions died as a consequence of that. On the first day of the lockdown, Prime Minister Modi of India ordered half a billion people to walk, bike, and find some way to go back from the city centers where they were working, migrant workers, to their home villages. And a thousand died en route that day. The life savings of those half a billion people were crushed overnight.

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

• Thomas Babington Macaulay
• Eric Foner
• “The United States’ Unamendable Constitution” by Jill Lepore

Guest Profile:

• Faculty Profile at Princeton University
• Professional Website

Her Work:

• The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World 
• Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837
• Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850
• The Ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh: A Woman in World History
• Acts of Union and Disunion