When we think of the American Founders, we typically imagine figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison—all Protestant gentlemen. But what about the Catholics? And how did a nation built on religious establishments become a model for religious pluralism?

In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon and James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee, explore the religious landscape of early America and the surprising role that Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, and other minority groups played in shaping the nation’s commitment to religious freedom.

The conversation begins with the often-overlooked Catholic founders, including Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and founder of Georgetown University. Their experiences reveal how religious minorities helped shape the early republic.

Brogdon and Patterson then turn to the debates that led to disestablishment in the states, focusing on Virginia’s struggle over whether the government should tax citizens to support clergy. 

Ultimately, Americans discovered that removing religion from political competition lowered tensions among religious groups and protected liberty of conscience for all. The result was a uniquely American approach to religion and politics: a system where many faiths could flourish without direct state control. Let’s dive in.

In This Episode

• (01:12) Catholic founders and Maryland’s history
• (02:19) Catholic experience in colonial America
• (03:17) Catholic representation and treatment
• (04:34) Religious pluralism in colonial America
• (07:27) Suspicion of Catholics and religious freedom
• (09:13) Reasoning behind religious pluralism
• (10:01) Jefferson, Madison, and the religious freedom bill
• (12:33) Weakness of the Anglican establishment in the South
• (15:57) Class and financial issues in church establishments
• (19:29) Disestablishment and religious pluralism
• (20:24) Harvard and the concentration of religious power
• (21:14) Support for pastors vs. modern vouchers
• (23:30) Patrick Henry’s defense and its limits
• (24:23) Religious schools vs. church subsidies
• (27:15) Catholic bishops and American ecclesiology
• (29:02) John Carroll’s appointment and Georgetown
• (31:24) French Catholic influence and Washington’s support

Notable Quotes

• (06:52) "They were also very upset that the British, after winning Quebec, retained its Catholic establishment. They could not believe this.” —James Patterson
• (08:05) "One of the causes for unique suspicion of Catholics was a very legitimate concern that Catholics were trying to usurp political authority. I mean, this is the thing that happened with Mary, Queen of Scots. There was the Guy Fawkes attack on Parliament, and then there had been the tumult of James II. And so there was a very big concern." —James Patterson
• (08:59) "So religious freedom was, as Michael Breidenbach puts it, it was 'dear-bought,' right? " It was one that they fought on the battlefield to secure, and it was important that they did so in order to earn that trust that was maybe not so earned yet." —James Patterson
• (13:08) “Madison actually traveled to see one of these people preach from his prison cell. Their congregants would gather outside, and they would preach through the prison bars.” —Matthew Brogdon
• (24:00) "Why do people have to tithe to the state first for the state to then give that to the church? Can't they just tithe to their own church?" —Matthew Brogdon
• (25:55) “You mutually benefit from the protection of conscience rights much more than you do from the competition over state patronage.." —James Patterson

Did you know that while Americans were celebrating independence on July 4, 1776, it took until August for the news to reach London? Across the Atlantic, the reaction was far more muted, highlighting how information traveled slowly in the 18th century and how the bold step of declaring independence was experienced differently on each side of the ocean.

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon explore how the world reacted to America’s bold declaration of independence. They trace the document’s uncertain journey across the Atlantic, with copies lost in shipwrecks and others seized by British vessels, and examine how foreign governments and the press responded once the news finally reached them.

In Britain, officials publicly dismissed it, but the press debated it vigorously. Some magazines printed the full text alongside loyalist rebuttals. Jeremy Bentham issued a sharp critique, and King George III cast American leaders as reckless agitators misleading their people.

France paid close attention, but real support only came after the American victory at Saratoga proved the revolution could succeed. 

Savannah and Matthew also examine the Declaration’s built-in restraint, especially its warning against changing governments for light and transient causes. That note of prudence may explain the world’s initial shrug. Military victory secured independence, but over time, the Declaration’s ideas reshaped global thinking about liberty and self-government.

In This Episode

• (00:00) Opening and introduction
• (00:17) International reaction overview
• (01:56) Universal and provocative language
• (03:53) Prudence and limits on revolution
• (05:19) Comparison to other revolutions
• (06:47) Declaration as diplomatic statement
• (07:23) Spread of the Declaration in Europe
• (08:11) Suppression in Russia and Spain
• (10:06) British reaction: official response
• (11:57) King George III’s speech
• (13:57) Parliamentary debate
• (16:53) British press reaction
• (23:32) Impact on US-British relations
• (23:55) French reaction and delayed support
• (26:32) Spanish reaction and suppression
• (30:43) Summary and long-term impact

Notable Quotes

• (00:30) "The Declaration of Independence is wonderfully important within the colonies, but internationally it's kind of met with a bit of a yawn.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (00:44) "The rest of the world, now they know that this isn't a British civil war, but these colonists think they're actually independent. But mostly it's still a shrug." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (05:53) "This is the place where I think the American Revolution is revolutionary, but it doesn't become global in the sense that the French Revolution does. The French Revolution sparked basically a world war." — Matthew Brogdon
• (09:06) "These Germans living in St. Petersburg knew that the Russian government would never put up with them printing the word 'independence' in a newspaper." — Matthew Brogdon
• (09:27) “The Spanish government suppressed the Declaration, even though the Spanish are going to play a very important role in the American Revolution. The Spanish will suppress it.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (12:23) "No people ever enjoyed more happiness or lived under a milder government than those revolted provinces." — King George III (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)
• (18:43) "The unalienable right of talking nonsense." — British magazine editorial aside (quoted by Savannah Eccles Johnston)
• (27:53) "It's a bit of a compliment to the British, actually. The country with which we're actually at war has a robust discussion about our claims in its newspapers. The allies that we wind up with in the war do not want this published." — Matthew Brogdon

Was the American presidency meant to be weak, or was it powerful from the start?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston sits down with Dr. Sai Prakash to examine the original design of Article II and how George Washington shaped the presidency in practice. They explore the Vesting Clause, the creation of a unitary executive, and why early Americans ultimately embraced a strong president after rejecting monarchy.

The conversation then turns to the modern “living presidency.” Executive power has expanded through precedent, practice, and political necessity rather than constitutional amendment. From war powers to campaign mandates, Professor Prakash argues that today’s presidency is stronger than ever while Congress grows weaker.

At stake is a central question. Can constitutional balance be restored, or are we drifting toward government by executive alone?

In This Episode

• (00:00) Introduction to Dr. Sai Prakash and his forthcoming book on the presidential pardon
• (02:11) Washington as commander in chief and father of the Constitution
• (03:26) The anti-monarchical moment and weak state executives
• (04:36) The Philadelphia Convention and the move to a unitary executive
• (06:50) Creating the presidency with George Washington in mind
• (07:44) Comparing the presidency to an elective monarchy
• (11:27) Washington’s theory of executive authority
• (12:39) The Vesting Clause and foreign-affairs power
• (15:07) How Article II came to be seen as weak
• (17:31) The rise of the living Constitution
• (19:09) War powers and presidential precedent
• (21:27) Delaying statutory mandates and administrative reinterpretation
• (23:24) Is a living presidency necessary?
• (25:58) Campaign promises and the idea of a presidential mandate
• (27:00) The presidency as law-enforcement officer, not policy engine
• (28:30) Congress’s institutional decline
• (29:19) Restoring constitutional balance

Notable Quotes

(06:50) “We kind of created this office with George Washington in mind.” — Sai Prakash

(12:39) “The Constitution grants executive power. It’s a suite of powers related to law execution and foreign affairs.” — Sai Prakash

(19:29) “The strongest declaration of war is from the mouths of cannons.” — Sai Prakash

(25:03) “We can’t wait.” — Referencing modern executive justification for unilateral action

(27:00) “The president is meant to be the institution of law enforcement, not primarily about making law.” — Sai Prakash

(29:19) “Letting a president get away with usurping another branch’s authority today might be in your short-term interest, but it isn’t healthy for the country.” — Sai Prakash

What good is a declaration if no one hears it? After the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the real work began: Announcing it to the American people and the world. 

In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to explore how the Declaration of Independence was published, proclaimed, and received in 1776. Together, they trace the Declaration’s journey from Congress to the public square, examining how a fledgling nation used print culture, public readings, and a robust free press to unite the colonies and justify rebellion to the world.

Savannah and Matthew walk through the critical timeline from July 2 to July 4, explaining why Independence Day commemorates publication rather than the vote itself. They unpack the importance of John Hancock’s role as the public face of the Declaration, the significance of the Dunlap Broadside as the first printed versions Americans actually read, and why the famous handwritten parchment played little role in the document’s original impact.

The episode highlights how the Declaration spread rapidly through newspapers, churches, courthouses, and military camps, becoming as much an oral event as a written one. Public readings mobilized soldiers, artisans, farmers, women, and those unable to read, transforming the Declaration into a shared civic experience. Savannah and Matthew also explore the dramatic colonial reactions from celebrations and statue-toppling to loyalist resistance and rebuttals, revealing a nation deeply divided even at the moment of independence.

Finally, the conversation turns to the Goddard Declaration, the first printed version to include the signers' names, produced by Mary Katherine Goddard in 1777. The episode argues that the successful announcement of independence was not just a political achievement, but a triumph of the American free press and a powerful early expression of democratic communication.

In This Episode

• (00:18) The challenge of announcing independence
• (01:04) What’s new about the Declaration?
• (01:31) Congress’s role and the importance of eloquence
• (02:47) The Declaration’s immediate impact and fading
• (02:57) Timeline: July 2 vs. July 4
• (03:28) Why July 4th matters
• (05:24) John Hancock’s role in publication
• (08:10) The Dunlap broadside: the first printed Declaration
• (10:33) Dunlap’s editorial changes and official record
• (12:10) The engrossed copy vs. the Dunlap broadside
• (15:38) The technology and democratization of the Declaration
• (16:11) Distribution and public readings
• (17:45) First public readings and military announcements
• (19:11) The Declaration’s oral and print spread
• (21:07) The Declaration in print culture
• (23:20) Speed and reach of distribution
• (24:20) Colonial reactions: revolutionary celebrations
• (28:19) Colonial reactions: loyalist responses
• (32:13) The Goddard broadside: publishing the signers
• (35:21) The Declaration’s enduring legacy

Notable Quotes

• (03:32) “A declaration doesn’t matter unless you make it public.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (05:47) “It’s not Jefferson who is the face of the Declaration at first. It’s John Hancock.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (10:23) “It  was the eighteenth-century version of going viral.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (16:11) “There’s something very democratic about the Dunlap broadsides.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (17:24) “The Declaration was written to be read out loud.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (25:22) “We’ve been tearing down statues since the very beginning.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (35:34) “The Declaration of Independence announcement is a testament and a victory of the American Free Press.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston

Who really wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was it Thomas Jefferson’s carefully crafted vision, or the outcome of an intense, compromise-driven process inside Congress?

In this episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Matthew Brogdon to examine how Congress transformed Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence into the document the world would come to know.

The conversation traces the Declaration’s path from the Committee of Five to the Committee of the Whole, where Congress cut a quarter of Jefferson’s draft. Savannah and Matthew unpack the most significant changes, including the removal of the slavery passage, the shift from emotionally charged rhetoric to a more legal tone, and the deliberate decision to aim grievances at the Crown rather than the British people. These revisions, they argue, were driven by prudence, diplomacy, and the need to persuade both domestic and foreign audiences.

The episode also highlights Congress’s surprising additions. References to divine providence and a Supreme Judge of the world were strengthened, shaping a civil religious language that would echo throughout American political life. In the end, Savannah and Matthew argue that while Jefferson’s genius is undeniable, the Declaration is best understood as Congress’s declaration. It is a democratic document, forged through collaboration, compromise, and representation, and a model for how Americans would speak and govern themselves from the very beginning.

In This Episode

• (00:00) Opening and introduction
• (00:17) Background to the Declaration
• (01:00) Drafting and committee process
• (02:12) Congressional revision process
• (03:23) Major edits and reactions
• (04:34) Removal of the slave passage
• (06:57) Strengthening legal arguments
• (07:31) Toning down emotional language
• (08:30) Example of emotional language removed
• (10:41) Toning down anti-British rhetoric
• (12:06) Example of anti-British language removed
• (15:07) Summary of major changes
• (15:17) Addition of religious language
• (16:22) Significance of religious additions
• (20:27) Motivations for religious language
• (20:45) Is Congress’s version better?
• (23:00) Examples of improved rhetoric
• (25:00) The Declaration as a collaborative product
• (26:44) Conclusion and podcast outro

Notable Quotes

• (04:25) “25% Congress slashes and burns. I mean, they took a red pen to the thing.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (01:34) "So this wasn't just Jefferson's hand. You know, it wasn't like Jefferson the author. Everybody else is a clerk. There's actually quite a lot of collaboration." — Matthew Brogdon
• (07:32) “By making it more legally efficacious, some of that means making the document a little more boring.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (08:07) "Adam says he defended every word of the draft like he didn't want to see any of this change, as though he grudgingly admits to Abigail later that maybe some of this was prudent, making this less personal, less antagonistic." — Matthew Brogdon
• (14:10) “The road to glory and happiness is open to us too. We will climb it in a separate state and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting adieu." — Matthew Brogdon
• (22:41) "All the changes seem to be for the better." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (25:05) "Yes, Jefferson is the primary author of the declaration, but it's actually Congress's declaration." — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (26:30) “I think the best way to sum this up is with the title of the declaration itself.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (26:42) "It's Congress's declaration. It's not the committee's, and it's not Jefferson's. It's not Adams's. It's Congress's declaration speaking for the United States of America." — Matthew Brogdon

How can the same Declaration of Independence lead Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. to such different conclusions about the Constitution? 

In this special MLK Day episode of This Constitution, host Savannah Eccles Johnston is joined by Dr. Lucas Morel, professor of ethics and politics at Washington and Lee University, to delve into how Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. interpreted the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the American political order.

The conversation traces Douglass’s intellectual evolution from initially condemning the Constitution as a pro-slavery pact, influenced by William Lloyd Garrison, to later embracing it as a “glorious liberty document” capable of delivering on the Declaration’s promise of natural rights and equality. Dr. Morel explains how Douglass came to see the Constitution as fundamentally anti-slavery when read according to its text and purpose, rather than the clouded intentions of its framers.

The episode then turns to Martin Luther King Jr., examining how King remained deeply committed to the Declaration’s ideals while growing increasingly skeptical of whether the constitutional order and the American people could fully realize them without massive federal intervention. From I Have a Dream to Where Do We Go From Here, the discussion highlights King’s shift toward arguments for reparations, equality of outcomes, and expanded federal power.

Ultimately, Savannah and Lucas ask a profound constitutional question: Which vision better preserves America’s founding principles? Is freedom best secured by equal laws and fair play, as Douglass believed, or by equity-driven reforms designed to correct historic injustice, as King increasingly argued? The episode offers a rigorous, thoughtful comparison of two towering figures whose legacies continue to shape debates over equality, rights, and constitutional meaning.

In This Episode

• (01:07) Why Frederick Douglass matters
• (03:21) Douglass’s early constitutional views and Garrison
• (07:37) Douglass’s break with Garrison and shift in views
• (07:51) Douglass’s reinterpretation of the Constitution
• (12:08) Douglass’s arguments for congressional power over slavery
• (13:46) Douglass vs. Lincoln on federal power
• (18:41) Principled vs. rhetorical shift in Douglass’s views
• (19:53) Douglass and Lincoln as statesmen, not founders
• (25:45) MLK’s relationship to the Declaration and Constitution
• (27:15) MLK’s shift toward reparations and federal intervention
• (28:28) MLK’s critique of colorblindness and equality
• (30:30) MLK’s influence on modern equality debates
• (31:04) MLK’s reinterpretation of the Constitution
• (35:41) Competing notions of liberty and the Declaration
• (36:14) Who got it right, Douglass or MLK?

Notable Quotes

• (07:24) “Douglass believed in the Declaration more than Garrison did.” — Lucas Morel
• (00:27:15) "Frederick Douglass can be considered a statesman because of the way he used the English language, the king's English, as it were, on behalf of the principles of the regime." — Lucas Morel
• (36:40) “I’ll put all my eggs in the Douglass basket.” — Lucas Morel
• (37:08) “Frederick Douglass, as you said earlier, was a true believer in these principles. He believed in them more than most white Americans believed in their principles.” — Lucas Morel
• (37:37) “King came to believe what he called this thing called color shock, that there was a way in which color still has this power over people in the United States.”— Lucas Morel
• (38:51) “At the end of the day, Frederick Douglass vision overlapped much more closely to Lincoln than Martin Luther King's did.”— Lucas Morel

Was Thomas Jefferson the sole author of the Declaration? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Holly Megson, senior documentary editor on the Quill Project at Pembroke College, Oxford, to trace how the Declaration of Independence actually took shape inside the Second Continental Congress. Together, they move beyond the familiar image of Jefferson writing alone and uncover the collective effort that produced one of history’s most influential political texts.

Matthew and Holly explore the formation of the Committee of Five—Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston—and examine what little documentary evidence survives of their work. From Jefferson’s heavily marked “rough draft” to the conflicting memories Adams and Jefferson recorded decades later, the episode reveals how the Declaration emerged amid secrecy, overwhelming workloads, and deep uncertainty about whether independence would even be approved.

The conversation also asks a critical historical question: how should credit be assigned? While Jefferson clearly served as the Declaration’s primary draftsman, Holly explains why the document is best understood as a collaborative act of statesmanship, shaped by shared grievances, inherited political language, and editorial interventions from Adams, Franklin, and Congress itself.

This episode ultimately shows that America’s most iconic statement of independence was not the product of a single moment of inspiration; instead, it was the result of collective judgment under extraordinary pressure.

In This Episode

• (00:14) Meet Holly Megson and the Quill Project
• (01:13) Why the lone-author myth persists
• (01:25) The Committee of Five explained
• (02:23) Sources Jefferson consulted while drafting
• (03:17) How legislative committees actually write documents
• (04:24) What instructions Jefferson may have received
• (05:47) Earlier grievances and preexisting language
• (07:44) Why Sherman and Livingston fade from the record
• (08:52) Adams vs. Jefferson: conflicting memories
• (10:10) Jefferson’s response to Adams’s account
• (12:58) The crushing committee workload
• (14:33) Drafting under wartime pressure
• (16:25) Congress edits, Jefferson objects
• (17:38) Was Jefferson the author or the draftsman?
• (18:44) Why contemporaneous records matter

Notable Quotes

• (00:46) "Americans sort of walk around with an image in mind that Jefferson sat down in his boarding room and drafted the declaration, showed it to a few people, and then Congress adopted it. And there's a much more complex drafting process." — Matthew Brogdon
• (01:46) " There are no records, unsurprisingly, of when they met because of the nature of what they were discussing." — Holly Megson
• (07:02) "Jefferson, very helpfully after the Revolutionary War, decided that he wanted to mark [the Rough Draft] document... he doesn't attribute any of the changes to Livingston or Sherman." — Holly Megson
• (10:13) "The committee unanimously decided that he should write the draft, refuting the idea of any kind of subcommittee and really reinforcing that. It was a one-man endeavor,"— Holly Megson
• (17:53) " Jefferson is definitely the primary author, but if he were an academic, he'd be quite a bad academic. He hasn't properly cited his co-authors." — Holly Megson
• (17:39) "I don't necessarily dispute that he was the author. I do think the term draftsman is more appropriate." — Holly Megson
• (19:04) “I do think it is important, in summary, to say Jefferson plays the principal role. He is in many ways the draftsman author of the Declaration, but owes so much to the collaborative work that goes on in this committee.” — Matthew Brogdon

What if the Declaration of Independence wasn’t just Jefferson’s triumph, but John Adams’s victory too?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon make the case for giving John Adams his due. Often remembered as prickly, pompous, or perpetually overshadowed, Adams was in fact one of the most important and hardest-working architects of American independence.

Savannah and Matthew trace Adams’s rise from a New England farmer’s son to the fiercest and most relentless advocate for independence in the Continental Congress. Long before July 4, 1776, Adams was pushing Congress toward self-government, drafting foundational documents, organizing the war effort, and building the coalition that made independence possible.

The episode explores Adams’s deep commitment to the rule of law, his principled defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, and his decisive role in nominating George Washington as commander in chief. It also reveals how Adams shaped the Declaration itself, not just as Jefferson’s editor, but as the strategist who insisted a Virginian write it, helped outline its structure, supplied key ideas and language, and then defended it on the floor of Congress as its fiercest champion.

Along the way, Savannah and Matthew unpack Adams’s political philosophy, especially his emphasis on consent, safety, and happiness as the true ends of government, and show how his thinking echoes throughout the Declaration and later American constitutional design.

The episode concludes with Adams’s enduring legacy, a founder who may never have been popular, but whose ambition, integrity, and relentless work helped create a nation and who deserves far more credit than history often gives him.

In This Episode

• [00:10 Introduction and justice for John Adams
• [01:20] Adams’s early life and background
• [03:14] Personality and public perception
• [07:17] Principles and the Boston Massacre defense
• [08:23] Role in the Continental Congress
• [09:21] Adams’s push for new governments
• [12:55] Lee’s resolution and Adams’s advocacy
• [15:48] Adams’s personality and coalition building
• [18:23] Formation of the Committee of Five
• [22:43] Adams’s self-awareness and Jefferson’s drafting
• [24:20] The drafting process and Adams’s influence
• [27:13] Adams as defender of the Declaration
• [28:10] Adams’s language and philosophy in the Declaration
• [32:59] Adams’s post-revolution contributions
• [34:27] Adams’s legacy and death
• [35:28] Adams in popular culture and the need for a monument
• [38:04] Conclusion and call for justice

Notable Quotes

• (00:21) “The theme of this episode is justice for John Adams.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (11:07) “Adams pushed Congress in the fall of 1775. We're months, half a year from independence. And Adams is saying Congress should tell states to establish new governments based on the consent of their own people, exercising their own judgment with the idea that they would conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents and America in general.”— Matthew Brogdon
• (18:07) “It does take a person like John Adams who will just ignore the social cues, like ignore all of the social opprobrium attached to being caught making trouble, to actually induce everybody to move, get the job done right.”— Matthew Brogdon
• (23:00) “You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business.”— John Adams
• (27:50) “In many ways, yes, Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but it’s Adams’s Declaration too.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (34:29)“John Adams deserves a lot more credit for the Declaration of Independence and for the American system of government in general.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson originally wrote a fierce condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence, only for Congress to remove it before signing the final document? And did you know that in 1776, no one was certain whether slavery in America would fade away, transform, or expand?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Dr. Nicholas Cole, Pembroke College, University of Oxford, explore the complicated world of slavery at the time the Declaration was written. Together, they walk through why Jefferson’s anti-slavery passage was removed, how Americans understood slavery in 1776, and why the institution stood on a very uncertain foundation during the revolutionary period.

Dr. Cole explains how the Atlantic world, English legal rulings, gradual emancipation proposals, and the widespread reading of Montesquieu shaped early American thinking. The conversation also explores the financial barriers to ending slavery, the moral and religious arguments circulating in the colonies, and the troubling realities within slaveholder families, including Jefferson’s own. They then discuss figures like George Washington and John Adams and how their attitudes toward slavery reveal a more complex political and moral landscape than many assume.

This episode shows how the Declaration of Independence emerged from a moment filled with unresolved questions, intense debate, and moral tension. It challenges the idea that the founders were blind to the contradictions of slavery and highlights how close the nation may have been to choosing a very different path.

In This Episode

• (00:00) Introduction and episode setup
• (01:17) Jefferson’s stricken slavery passage
• (01:28) Physicality and emphasis in Jefferson’s draft
• (04:29) Context and debates on slavery in 1776
• (06:00) Legal and social shifts against slavery
• (09:20) Gradual emancipation and economic obstacles
• (12:53) Humanity vs. property: enslaved persons as ‘men.’
• (14:29) Changing racial attitudes and moral regression
• (15:38) Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and family complexities
• (17:47) Christian and moral arguments against slavery
• (19:09) Philosophical and legal arguments on slavery
• (21:10) Montesquieu, republicanism, and slavery’s contradiction
• (22:08) George Washington, Adams, and founders’ approaches
• (25:13) Slavery and the founding compromises

Notable Quotes

• (06:01) “Montesquieu said you can't really have a republic and slavery, and that the arguments in favor of slavery are illegitimate.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole
• (11:08) “But I think there is this real problem that so much money has been loaned in order to allow people to own slaves. And so that makes ending it very difficult.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole
• (13:14) “Jefferson knew his property consisted of men. He understood the moral weight of that contradiction.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole
• (23:41) “Washington does things as a slave owner that we would find utterly abhorrent, including rotating slaves from his household when he's president and in a state that doesn't recognize slavery.” - Dr. Nicholas Cole
• (24:37) “Maybe it's better to speak more about Washington and certainly Adams and less about Jefferson as kind of core founding fathers. Hopefully, we're more Washingtonian and more like Adams, the American political project, than Jefferson.” - Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (25:20) “If anybody had tried to use the convention to settle the question of slavery, there would have been no union. That is absolutely clear."- Dr. Nicholas Cole
• (26:19) “1776 is murky on the question of slavery, and this actually helps us understand the moment and the document and what it represents and what it led to understand that everything was kind of up in the air.”- Savannah Eccles Johnston

What if the story of American independence didn’t actually begin with Jefferson at his writing desk? What if long before the Declaration of Independence, more than a hundred towns, counties, militias, and even grand juries had already taken matters into their own hands and declared themselves free of Britain?

In this episode of This Constitution, Savannah Eccles Johnston and Matthew Brogdon uncover the astonishing world of forgotten declarations that came before July 4, 1776.

Savannah and Matthew trace how these early statements emerged from every corner of American life: Massachusetts town meetings, South Carolina grand juries, militia battalions in Pennsylvania, and even groups like the New York Mechanics Union. These weren’t fringe ideas. They were the building blocks of a national identity forming from the bottom up. Long before Congress acted, Americans were already asserting natural rights, condemning monarchy, and proclaiming themselves a new people.

They also walk through the most famous example, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, whose language helped inspire both Jefferson and the later Bill of Rights. Along the way, they explore why virtue, frugality, temperance, and justice were once considered essential political principles, and how Americans gradually shifted from moral to material thinking in the Progressive Era.

This episode reveals a powerful truth: America wasn’t created by one declaration. It was created by hundreds of voices speaking the same political language long before the nation was officially born.

In This Episode

• (00:00) Introduction
• (00:52) The Quill Project and early declarations
• (01:25) Season of declaring independence
• (02:31) Who issued declarations?
• (03:31) Examples of local declarations
• (04:43) Massachusetts town declarations
• (05:51) Elements of declarations
• (07:48) Declaration as national restatement
• (08:46) Virginia Declaration of Rights
• (10:41) Philosophical statements and rights
• (11:02) Virginia Declaration’s enduring language
• (12:44) Virtue and state constitutions
• (16:56) Virtue’s decline in the Progressive Era
• (19:23) Common elements in all declarations
• (20:09) What does declaration writing say about America
• (21:35) Federal character and consensus building
• (22:16) Distinctly American rights and traditions
• (23:03) Conclusion and further resources

Notable Quotes

• (00:44) “Politico estimated that there are over 100 such declarations, but now we have them all in one location.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (03:37) “There's a grand jury indictment in Charleston, the 23rd of April in 1776, that declares that the local government is, in the opinion of the local government, the American colonies are independent.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (05:40) “Thomas Jefferson says, the Declaration is just a statement of the American mind. And quite literally, that's what it is.”— Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (07:25) “You should really think of these like a list of elements. Grievances. Independence. Form of government. Statement of political principles.” — Matthew Brogdon
• (08:25) “So who really is the spirit of America, Massachusetts? Is it you or is it North Carolina? I'm going for Massachusetts.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (09:22) “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights...That's just the philosophical statement of the Declaration of Independence in a little clunkier form.” — Savannah Eccles Johnston
• (23:03) “Let's end with that line that these declarations, both the National Declaration and the State Declarations, the local declaration, the Association declarations, are what constituted America.” — Matthew Brogdon