d "candid" has almost flipped meanings over time. Two examples that Professor Kaminski gave were for the words "pathetic" and "nervous." Back in the 1700s, when someone said "His words were pathetic," they didn't mean "weak" they mean pathetic as in "pathos" - "full of emotion and poignancy." Likewise, if someone said he gave a "nervous speech," they meant he gave a "powerful" speech. In other words -- he "had nerves." Hence, a historian also has to be conscious of the changing meaning of language when reading primary source documents. James Madison gave us a great gift when he took detailed notes of everything that was said at the Constitutional Convention. He wrote these notes for posterity. During his study of ancient constitutions in preparation for the Constitutional Convention, he was often frustrated by the lack of historical documentation of the creation of these ancient documents and governments. Madison did not want historians of the future to have this same problem. He knew what he was doing and he understood the significance and implications of the discussions surrounding the creation of our Constitution. Professor Kaminski argued, however, that you shouldn't use the arguments
in the Constitutional Convention to determine the meaning of the
different articles and clauses in the Constitution. The reason for this
is that sometimes, delegates gave exaggerated proposals of what they wanted because they knew they were going to have to give up something to compromise. So what they said may not have actually been what they wanted. Secondly, many delegates changed their minds of the course of the months of the Constitutional Convention, so you can't look at any one thing they said to determine original meaning or intention. So to find the true original meaning, it would be better to look at the ratification debates. Furthermore, the Constitution we have today is not entirely the same as the one Madison originally designed. "He's not the father of what we got," Professor Kaminski explained, but he did take the lead in shaping it and passing it successfully through the convention. Professor Kaminski asked, "How did a tiny twerp from Virginia decide he wants to save the country? He was 36 years old. He should be deferring to the older delegates like George Mason, who was in his 60s, or Roger Sherman or Benjamin Franklin." Madison understood that the Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was better than the Articles of Confederation. He was not only a politician, but a scholar. Professor Kaminski said that had Madison not become a politician, he would have made a wonderful professor of government and history.
In the afternoon, we had a wonderful walking tour of Montpelier's Landscape by Sandy Mudrinich, Horticulturist at Montpelier. She was very passionate about the landscape of Montpelier and knew all the history behind most of the trees that were planted on the grounds. She also told us a very interesting story about the fence in front of Madison's house. You'll remember how the archaeologist told us that they found where the fence posts were located by finding the char remains of the bottoms of the posts, indicating where the holes were. Then they installed the fence two feet away from the original post holes so as not to disturb the original holes. So the fence is not in its exact historical location. Sandy Mudrinich told us that this is not the only thing historically incorrect about the fence. The archaeologists and restorers had a few different historical engravings and paintings of Madison's house that also showed the fence. One painting was done by a Baroness (I didn't get her whole name). In her picture, both the tops of the fence points and the cross piece below them are scalloped. When the restorers went to create this scalloped cross piece, they had to use a 2" x 12" piece of wood. They threw away the extra wood they didn't use. Sandy Mudrinich said that Madison would not have done this. He was actually an early environmentalist and conservationist and believed it was important to take care of the trees and no