This Constitution

Season 4, Episode 1 | A Watery Revolution: How the Sea Decided American Independence

When we picture the American Revolution, we see George Washington on horseback, minutemen at Concord, and the signing of the Declaration. But what if the real story of independence was written not on land, but on water?  In this season premiere, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with National Book Award–winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick (author of Bunker Hill, Valiant Ambition, In the Heart of the Sea, and Travels with George) to explore the revolution as a maritime conflict.  From the siege of Boston to the desperate crossing of the Delaware, from Benedict Arnold’s makeshift “mosquito fleet” on Lake Champlain to the French naval victory at the Battle of the Chesapeake that sealed Cornwallis’s fate at Yorktown, Philbrick reveals how control of rivers, lakes, and oceans determined the war’s outcome. Philbrick also discusses the power of visiting historical sites, the essential role of Washington’s resilience and leadership, and why the coming America 250 anniversary is the perfect moment to get on the road and see these places for yourself. He shares how moving to Nantucket first ignited his passion for history, why the Revolution was far longer and more fragile than most textbooks suggest, and how a hurricane in the Caribbean, not a land battle, set the stage for victory at Yorktown. Tune in to learn why the American Revolution was, in Philbrick’s words, a “watery revolution” and how understanding the sea changes everything we thought we knew about the fight for independence. In This Episode * (01:37) Meet Nathaniel Philbrick * (02:10) Why physically visiting Revolutionary War sites matters * (04:30) America 250 and renewed interest in historic travel * (06:39) From Nantucket to becoming a historian and writer * (09:01) The next book: the gold rush and the western frontier * (12:25) The sea as a key force in America’s origins * (13:55) Why the Revolution was more naval than we remember * (15:10) Rivers, lakes, and controlling movement during the war * (16:39) Boston, New York, and British naval dominance * (20:09) The Hudson River and the fight for key waterways * (21:19) Washington’s crossing of the Delaware: myth and reality * (24:38) Washington’s leadership under pressure * (25:27) Creativity and leadership during moments of crisis * (28:39) Benedict Arnold and Lake Champlain’s role in the Revolution * (33:05) Ingenuity and the “Mosquito Fleet” at Valcour Island * (36:25) Saratoga, Arnold, and the New York campaign * (37:35) Yorktown, Washington, and the French fleet * (40:07) What if Washington had joined the British Navy? * (42:01) Why the French nearly abandoned the American cause * (45:25) Hurricanes and the overlooked role of the French Navy * (46:40) The Battle of the Capes and the road to Yorktown * (48:16) Leadership, statesmanship, and chance in the Revolution * (49:00) Where to go for America's 250th * (49:57) Final reflections  Notable Quotes * (06:04) "You don't take a trip,  the trip takes you. There's always something unexpected." — Nathaniel Philbrick, quoting John Steinbeck * (13:56) "The narrative of the revolution for most of us begins with the minutemen at Lexington and Concord. And then each battle is like a stepping stone that inevitably leads us to Yorktown. The fact is, this war went on forever — for close to a decade." — Nathaniel Philbrick * (16:48) “Washington began to realize, wow, I need to really consider the water if we're ever going to have a chance of winning this battle.” — Nathaniel Philbrick * (25:30) "There was a military tradition at that time that your army went into winter quarters and the fighting stopped. Washington decided one last gamble — one roll of the dice — was worth it." — Nathaniel Philbrick * (34:48) "Benedict Arnold, during a naval battle fought inland on a lake, saved America in the fall of 1776." — Nathaniel Philbrick * (44:48) "Three successive hurricanes hit in the fall of 1780, including the Great Storm of 1780, where 20,000 people were estimated to have died — to this day the most devastating hurricane ever recorded." — Nathaniel Philbrick * (46:59) “Without the French Navy, we would not have won the American Revolution.” — Nathaniel Philbrick * (48:16) "It all came down to leadership. Without Washington, we would not have won the American Revolution — and we probably would not have formed a long-standing republic." — Nathaniel Philbrick * (49:33) "Wherever you are, think about what did Americans contribute to the winning of independence in that place." — Matthew Brogdon

Season 3, Episode 19 | Saving Principles: Frederick Douglass, the Declaration, and the Soul of Civic Education

Why has civic education taught students to look to Washington, when citizenship starts in their own neighborhood? In this episode, host Matthew Brogdon sits down with David Bobb, president of the Bill of Rights Institute, to explore the state of civic education in America as the country approaches its 250th birthday. Together, they make the case that civic life begins not in Washington, D.C. but in local communities, mediating institutions, and the habits formed early in life.  Bobb introduces BRI's expanding library of free resources, including BRI Jr. for elementary students, and argues that civic education has overindexed on government and underinvested in the kind of local, associational life Tocqueville recognized as the beating heart of American self-governance. The conversation delves into Frederick Douglass's landmark July 5 oration of 1852, unpacking his image of the Declaration as a "ring bolt," the anchor to which the ship of American destiny must cling.  Brogdon and Bobb trace how the Declaration's "saving principles" of freedom and equality have served as the touchstone for abolition, suffragists, and the civil-rights movement, and why those principles must be actively chosen, not passively inherited.  They also wrestle with what it means to demote politics in favor of human dignity, how Lincoln warned of the danger of alienation from our laws, and why the appeal to universal principles through a specifically American inheritance is not a contradiction but a necessity. In This Episode * (01:29) BRI's offerings: thinking about the next 250 years * (03:09) Why local civic engagement matters more than national politics * (06:37) Civic engagement vs. political engagement * (09:05) The telos of civics * (11:37) Storytelling as civic education * (13:51) American citizenship vs. "global citizenship." * (16:16) Lincoln's Lyceum Address and the danger of losing attachment to law * (20:39) The shift to primary sources: why textbooks are being set aside * (26:25) The Declaration as the "ring bolt" of American destiny * (30:01) Frederick Douglass's July 5 oration * (39:52) The Declaration as an anchor in storms of change * (42:28) The "positive-good" school, Woodrow Wilson, and the fight over the Declaration * (49:39) Limited government as ground for consensus Notable Quotes * (06:00) "Tocqueville said, if you want to draw an American out of their kind of individual orbit, you propose to build a road through their property." — David Bobb * (07:29) "Being engaged in a productive activity, benefiting your community, employing people, bringing services and goods to the public is in fact the fulfillment of a civic role, I think that people play." — Matthew Brogdon * (14:06) "I don't understand what the term 'global citizenship' means. It seems to me an oxymoron. We do American citizenship, an education in universal principles, instantiated in the American experiment." — David Bobb * (16:16) "About 30 percent of Americans are willing to say that we need a leader who is willing to break or bend things that can lead to the mobocratic spirit. We have to be very careful about that." — David Bobb * (30:11) "Frederick Douglass speaks with admiration and alienation, two complex emotions woven through a message of hope and hopelessness. The 'you' is bracing. A ring bolt is an anchor, but also the thing to which an enslaved person could be shackled." — David Bobb * (35:13) "You have a choice to cleave to these principles or not. You can choose to abandon them, or you can choose to move into greater conformity with them. It's a powerful reminder." — Matthew Brogdon * (48:05) "To demote politics is to elevate the limitless opportunity of every human person. That's the message of ultimate dignity." — David Bobb

Season 3, Episode 18 | Who Counts as the Press? From Printing Presses to Afroman

Does the freedom of the press protect only journalists with printing presses or everyone with something to say? From the founding era to social media, the line between “speech” and “press” has blurred. In this episode, host Savannah Eccles Johnston talks with legal commentator and former DOJ official Sarah Isgur about how the First Amendment’s protection of the press has evolved and whether it has gone too far. They explore three eras: the original understanding in 1791 (when “press” meant owning a printing press), the Supreme Court’s twentieth-century expansion of free speech, and today’s dilemmas over influencers, citizen journalists, and government access. Sarah explains why she’s a textualist free-speech absolutist (and why that means Jefferson is the bad guy in her bedtime stories), revisits the infamous Skokie Nazi march as the “apotheosis of the First Amendment,” and breaks down two very different recent cases: Afroman (lemon pound cake, police mockery, and a jury victory) and La Gordil Loca (a citizen–journalist arrested for asking a state employee for information). The conversation also covers New York Times v. Sullivan, the Pentagon press access fight, and why Sarah’s new book, Last Branch Standing, argues the Supreme Court is more Ted Lasso than Game of Thrones. In This Episode * (00:00) Introduction * (00:11) Meet Sarah Isgur and episode overview * (01:32) What did “the press” mean in 1791? * (03:03) Freedom of the press vs. freedom of speech * (03:46) Defamation and truth at the founding * (05:43) Are Americans freer today than ever before? * (06:17) New York Times v. Sullivan and modern defamation law * (09:21) Free speech and the search for truth * (09:47) Originalism vs. textualism * (12:57) The Skokie Nazi march * (13:35) Free speech in extreme cases * (14:01) Is Mill wrong in 2026? Echo chambers, algorithms, and truth * (17:18) Crisis and the dangers of “this time is different.” * (17:26) The Afroman case and viral speech * (20:41) Citizen journalism and the Priscilla Villarreal (“La Gordiloca”) case * (22:19) Profit, media, and credibility * (23:05) Juries and American free speech instincts * (24:46) Pentagon press access rules * (26:31) The complexity of press freedom in practice * (28:09) Viewpoint neutrality and unintended consequences * (29:57) Sarah’s book: Last Branch Standing * (32:06) Outro Notable Quotes * (05:07) “An American living in 2026 has a greater protection under the First Amendment for their speech than at any time in the rest of our history. And it’s not even close.” — Sarah Isgur * (10:42) “A textualist would simply look at the text of the First Amendment that says, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.’ Sorry, that’s an absolutist statement. I don’t really care what you thought you were doing at the time.” — Sarah Isgur * (12:11) “Jefferson is the bad guy in every story. When I tell my kids bedtime stories, it’s Jefferson who is the boogeyman coming after them in the night.” — Sarah Isgur * (12:58) “The greatest moment in American legal history is when the Nazis marched through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois. 99.9% of people found it repugnant. As a country, we said, fine, say it. See who you can convince.” — Sarah Isgur * (17:26) “Doesn’t every road lead us to Afroman?” — Sarah Isgur * (31:46) “Congress isn’t doing its job. The President is trying to take over all the jobs of the other branches. The Supreme Court is the last branch standing.” — Sarah Isgur (on her book title)

Season 3, Episode 17 | Congress Underrated: Representation, Gridlock, and What We Miss

Is Congress the most underrated institution in American government? Widely criticized for gridlock, partisanship, and dysfunction, it’s often seen as the weakest branch. But what if that frustration reflects a misunderstanding of what Congress is designed to do? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon sits down with Princeton professor Frances E. Lee, author of A Case for Congress, to challenge the narrative that Congress is broken. They begin by rethinking “gridlock.” While fewer individual laws are passed today, modern legislation is far more expansive, often bundling multiple policies into single bills. By that measure, Congress is doing more, not less. They then delve into what really holds Congress back. It’s not just partisan opposition, it’s internal division. Narrow majorities and cross-pressured members make sweeping agendas difficult, even when one party holds power and procedural barriers like the filibuster are removed. Lee also reframes Congress as one of the most representative institutions in government. Its partisan makeup closely tracks the national electorate, and its members are deeply rooted in the communities they serve.  Tune in to challenge what you think you know about Congress and discover why the institution we trust the least may be working more as intended than we realize. In This Episode * (00:38) Why Congress is underrated * (01:45) Is Congress really gridlocked? * (03:53) Congress as an obstacle to parties * (05:12) Unified vs. divided government * (08:27) Role of cross-pressured members * (09:39) The filibuster’s real impact * (10:25) Budget-reconciliation process * (11:54) Filibuster as a scapegoat * (13:01) Congress as a mirror of America * (15:03) Diversity and local ties in Congress * (18:20) Geographical representation & pluralism * (19:51) Bipartisanship in lawmaking * (22:32) Voice votes and consensus * (24:46) Why Congress is unpopular * (26:39) When parties enact big agendas * (29:15) Quality of rushed legislation * (31:04) Improving Congress: institutional patriotism Notable Quotes * (00:54) “The ratings for Congress have been low for a long time. It's really nothing new.”— Frances Lee * (03:25) “The contemporary Congress actually passes substantially more legislation than the Congress of the middle 20th century.” — Frances Lee * (11:45) “What the filibuster does for a majority party is that it often allows them to hide their divisions behind the other party.” — Frances Lee * (13:15) “It’s credibly representative in partisan terms that the parties are getting the share of seats in the House and the Senate that reflects the party’s strength in the national electorate.” — Frances Lee * (23:28) “It will surprise you if you take a look back, how many matters go through without any dissent.” — Frances Lee * (26:28) “Checking and balancing, when neither party really has the confidence of the American people, is that something we would say is dysfunctional? I tend to think it’s not dysfunctional.” — Frances Lee * (32:32) “I would like to see Congress operate in a more pluralistic way; I think it works better when the committees are able to work through the legislative issues, rather than have it all happen behind the scenes in leadership offices.” — Frances Lee * (33:27) “I do think members of Congress feel a sense of personal honor that they've been selected as representatives, but I think they also need to feel a sense of pride in the institution of which they're part” — Frances Lee

Season 3, Episode 16 | Religion in the Public Square: When Protestants, Catholics, and Jews Learned to Get Along (Mostly)

How did America move from the religious pluralism of the founding era to the “Judeo-Christian consensus” of the twentieth century? Why did that consensus begin to fracture? In this episode of This Constitution, Matthew Brogdon continues his conversation with James Patterson, associate professor of public affairs at the Institute for American Civics at the University of Tennessee. They explore how religious pluralism evolved during the twentieth century as immigration, world wars, and political movements reshaped the nation’s religious landscape. They begin the conversation with the massive immigration waves of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which dramatically expanded America’s Catholic population while also bringing German Lutherans, Scandinavian Protestants, and other religious communities. These demographic shifts sparked political battles over public education, sectarian funding, and the role of religion in civic life, illustrating how deeply religious differences shaped American politics. The discussion then delves into the emergence of the “Judeo-Christian consensus” after World War II. Influential figures such as Archbishop Fulton Sheen and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. helped articulate a vision of American public life in which Protestants, Catholics, and Jews could cooperate while maintaining distinct theological traditions. The conversation wraps up with an examination of our present moment: the resurgence of religious affiliation after decades of decline, the arrival of significant Muslim and Hindu populations, and the internal tensions within contemporary conservatism between what Brogdon calls ‘South Park conservatives’ and religious traditionalists. The First Amendment consensus, they suggest, remains very much a work in progress. In This Episode * (00:00) Introduction and recap of previous episode * (01:11) Religious diversity and immigration in the 20th century * (04:31) Post–Civil War religious conflicts and school controversies * (07:43) Religious violence and media adaptation * (09:15) Rise of the Judeo-Christian consensus * (11:36) Jewish immigration and inclusion * (13:03) Visionary leadership and civil religion * (15:00) Religious leaders and the civil rights movement * (16:21) Rise of the Moral Majority and partisan religion * (21:02) Changing religious and political dynamics * (22:28) Media, technology, and generational shifts * (25:40) Increasing religious diversity beyond Judeo-Christianity * (26:18) Religion, politics, and the Trump era * (29:37) Internal tensions among conservatives * (30:40) Summary and end of conversation Notable Quotes * (01:18) "Even though we're a very religious people, we've got broad freedom to form our own associations and worship freely." — Matthew Brogdon * (05:41) "The reason why this was such a harm isn't just because I'm a partisan of Catholicism, but it actually contributes directly to the ignorance of the population." — James Patterson * (15:32) "We can't meet in the same pew, the same church, but we can all meet on our knees in prayer." — James Patterson * (17:53) "American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And at the moment, in spite of the people." — Jerry Falwell (quoted in discussion) * (25:05) “American religious institutions have been very adept at using either old but still effective technology or using new technology to reach souls." — James Patterson * (30:30) "We have religious pluralism in America. We have great religious diversity in the country. And across those lines, we typically have a very strong attachment. You call it a sort of First Amendment consensus, a strong attachment to the idea that government doesn't tell us what to believe and how to worship." — Matthew Brogdon