This chapter presents the main theoretical argument of the book. It starts by discussing the role of representation in the Madisonian baseline. It then argues that several assumptions that may have held at the founding no longer held by the turn of the (last) century, giving rise to an acute problem of trust between the electorate and representatives. A partial solution to this problem, the chapter contends, is for the legislature to delegate authority to administrative bodies and to constrain their actions through administrative law. Under this scheme, the legislature establishes objectives (e.g., fair and reasonable railroad rates), and administrative bodies establish the means in publicly credible ways. Delegated authority thereby tends to improve the public’s welfare, as well as to serve the electoral interests of representatives who suffer under less suspicion. The appendix to this chapter presents a formalization of this argument.

This chapter lays out the core claims of the book and situates the theory in the literature. It emphasizes the limitations of the common view about expertise as a rationale for the administrative state and begins to substantiate the case for viewing credible reasoning as its distinctive feature. The chapter also contains a roadmap of the remainder of the book, previewing the argument, case studies, empirics, and normative and doctrinal conclusions.

The introduction outlines the book’s argument that biblical and constitutional debates over slavery introduced a sense of historical distance from the founding era and the biblical past. It also defines key terms, including historical distance, sacred texts, and favored pasts, and outlines developments by which the Bible maintained its status as a sacred text, while the Constitution achieved a similar kind of status in antebellum America. These developments set the stage for the process by which debates over slavery began to historicize the biblical and constitutional pasts. This process corresponded with the broader emergence of a modern historical consciousness. And yet, the nature of American religious and legal culture, and the presence of slavery, gave unique shape to American historical awareness. The book makes its most innovative move in showing how slavery encouraged interpretive shifts to read both the Bible and the Constitution as historical texts. I focus on a range of thinkers and interpreters and read their writings with an eye toward measuring historical consciouness. This approach demonstrates that the crisis over slavery in America became a crisis of historicity.

The prologue spotlights twenty-first-century uses of both the founding era and the biblical past to introduce the book’s central contention that biblical and constitutional debates over slavery cultivated a sense of historical distance in antebellum America. The prologue points to examples of how contemporary Americans both ignore and highlight historical distance in making political use of the founding era and the biblical past. It suggests that in both the antebellum era and in the twenty-first century, politics has shaped American approaches to these pasts and their corrsponding texts – the Bible and the Constitution. At the same time, the prologue maintains that the idea of the past as distant, which has become a common assumption in our period, only began to emerge in the antebellum era. To highlight the continuities and differences between antebellum and twenty-first century thought, the prologue references phrases such as “black lives matter” and “make America great again,” even as it points towards its central focus on the antebellum developments that shed light on the meanings of such phrases.