Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substat or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekanyonasshow dot com.
You'll see all the ways that you can support me there.
And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of
you that I can put out the amount of material
that I do. I can do what I'm doing with
doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together and everything else,
the things that Thomas and I are doing together on
kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you. And yeah, I mean,
I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you.
The Pekanyonashow dot com. Everything's there. I want to welcome
everyone back to the Peking Yona's show. George Bagbee returns
to the show. How are you doing today, mister Bagby?
I'm doing wonderful.
Speaker 2: I've had had a very scholarly time. I've been hitting
the books lately, and I've been enjoying it very much.
Speaker 1: Awesome, awesome, all right. So this was a every quest
from a listener. They wanted a they asked free detailed
lead up to the war between the States, and there
was nobody else that I would I was going to
reach out to other than you, and yeah, can you
why don't you tell us? You have an outline for
several episodes, so you want to just like hit an
outline of a couple episodes and then jump into what
you have prepared for today.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, So, the idea for the series is the origins
of the American Civil War. I haven't come up with
a finite number of just how many we mean to
have to lead up to this auspicious subject. I've got
several several episodes sketched out in advance. Today we're going
to be talking about the convention, debates about the Constitution
and the anti federalist concerns which figure largely in the
coming sectional conflict. The second episode, I mean to zero
in on Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution in the Washington administration,
So we'll go into his reports on the public credit
and his key interpretation about the clauses of the Constitution,
the Necessary and Proper Clause and the General Welfare Clause,
and the rise of our first two political parties based
on the interpretation of that issue. On the third episode,
I mean to go into Jefferson and John Taylor and
their agrarian vision for the United States, which figures very
largely in the sectional conflict, being that the North was
more industrial of the South was more agrarian and farm based.
And the fourth episode, just as a sample, we're going
to go into the alien and sedition acts during the
Adams administration and the remarkable response of Jefferson's faction in
the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which also figure very strongly
in the coming sectional conflict. So I've got a few
more episodes sketched out beyond then, but just as a
taste of future attraction. That's that's a brief for us.
Speaker 1: That sounds great. That sounds great. So today you had,
you know, some of the notes that you sent me
started with anti federalist concerns, But why don't you, Why
don't you start wherever you want.
Speaker 2: Indeed, I actually just started a series with the Old
Glory Club. I'm going to be appearing on the American
Spirits stream and we're doing a series on the Bank
of the United States over there. But we're going to
be focused on other issues over here, though the material
can overlap in many ways. We just had a conversation
a couple of nights ago about the convention debates and
the problems, especially the financial problems under the Articles of Confederation.
So let me give an introduction to the issue. The
Articles of Confederation were our first constitution. They ambitiously stated
that it would be the perpetual It would be the
perpetual union for the States. And ironically, most Americans aren't
aware of this document at all. It has been completely
forgotten basically in the public mind anyway. No one refers
to it in our politics anymore. But it set itself
this very ambitious goal that it was going to permanently
unify the states in a confederacy. The confederacy element is
very important. A confederation is a union of sovereign powers,
and the Articles of Confederation were a way to unite
thirteen distinct political organizations, the original thirteen states. They were
organized a year after our independence. That was when the
states finished ratifying the Articles, and under the Articles, all
the states were entirely equal. It created a single body
for the Union government, and that was the Continental Congress.
Now the states were free to send as many representatives
as they liked to that Congress, but no matter how
many people they sent to represent their state's interests, the
state only had one vote. So the panel of delegates
from a given state in the Continental Congress would argue
among themselves and then democratically determine, you know, whoever had
the majority in the committee from that state would cast
the vote in the name of that state. The states
also had veto powers, which is of sovereign right. I
used to tell my students that sovereignty is the right
to say no to something and to resist it. And
this was an element of sovereignty that was given to
the states as sovereign actors in the Continental Congress. So
if one state really disagreed with what was going on
with something that the majority of the states wanted to
do as legislation, they could use their veto power and
make the whole thing null and void. Now, one of
the effects of this was because the Articles of Confederation
had no tax power, the Continental Congress had no power
to tax. They were given a kind of short sightedly,
a power to borrow money and a power to print money.
So they did both of those. They got some alliances abroad,
especially with France and Holland, who were the first to
recognize our independence during our warfare independence, and they printed
the Continental Dollar, which was our first paper currency. The
result was runaway inflation, hyperinflation, and the inability of the
Continental Congress to pay the debts they owed abroad and
even to pay their own soldiers. So this results in
major financial catastrophe. You have the patriot benefactors of our independence,
people like Robert Morris, who is a very famous financier
of that generation. He is ruined because the Continental Congress
cannot pay its own debts. Even after independence, they are
still incapable of passing any reasonable measure to pay their bills,
and so Robert Morris ends up in debtors prison before
this whole thing gets rectified. And that is a that
is a travesty. These are the patriots, These are the
people that actually won, and in victory they find themselves ruined,
and that's a gross injustice. The veterans are unpaid, and
the veterans are increasingly restive, very upset about this. In
Newburgh in New York State, they plot a mutiny. Horatio Gates,
the hero of Saratoga, is plotting this mutiny and it
gets diffused at the last moment through the timely intercession
of George Washington, who kind of shows up on a
spected in Newburgh and appeals to the soldiers to not
march on Congress in Philadelphia to seize the treasury as
they had planned to do. Chay's Rebellion is also an
instance of this, where veterans in western Massachusetts they riot
and they prevent a court from holding session. The court
had on its docket a number of foreclosures for a
non payment of taxes for farms of veterans of the
Continental Army, and so these veterans they organized and they
prevented the court from auctioning off or initiating what would
end up with the auctioning off of the farms of veterans. So,
in response to all of this, and in response to
the articles creating a system where needful business could not
be accomplished. In the Continental Congress, the states had all
of the political power that mattered, and the result was
that the union was imperiled. And this is the basic
theme of our whole series. Really the twin values that
America Americans hold deer in the period that we're addressing
in particular, and those are liberty and union. So we
want an accountable representative government. We want one that has
reasonable safeguards against centralization, unaccountable power, tyranny, but we also
want union. We have collectively acted in the Declaration of Independence.
The Continental Congress speaks with the unanimous voice. In spite
of some minority opinions in the body that we're still
reticent about declaring their independence, the majority had it, and
so all of the states voted with their single vote
unanimously in favor of the declaration. Even though this predates
the articles. This is how the Continental Congress was operating
at the time. And we pool our resources, we fight
for the same cause for independence. We win. The Continental
Congress successfully prosecutes this war. So we win collectively in
union together, and then we want to stay in union
together for all number of advantages that come with a
large state. We become a continental power, we become eventually
one of the great powers of the world. We have
an incredible economic opportunity here to develop our internal economy
that would be stymied by the states breaking up or
forming smaller confederations among themselves, regional powers and such. There
was a lot of worry among these people that if
union failed, we would re enact the history of the
warring states on the continent of Europe, that we would
have all sorts of jealousies and petty grievances against one another,
and we would fight it out among one another, and
that would be very bad for us collectively. So we
want to maintain union to preserve our independence. We see
a risk that an independent state, say Virginia or Georgia
down on the periphery, they would fall under the control,
They would fall into a protectorate status or an alliance
with some hostile European power, which probably would have happened
if Georgia had spun out on their own, or if
the New England States had organized together, they would have
fallen under some foreign control or interest. They would have
done that more easily in that smaller unit than they
would have done collectively, where we have a common interest
to pursue national interest or collect our collective interests in
the federal government. So all that said, we see a
party form behind the scenes. So while the Articles of
Confederation are kind of stumbling along, the Continental Congress really
isn't getting any of these needful things done. The Federalists organize.
George Washington starts writing his friends, people like Alexander Hamilton,
people like James Madison, and he starts organizing behind the
scenes for the replacement of the Articles of Confederation. Now
that's not what they actually pitch. Alexander Hamilton goes to
a meeting of the Continental Congress in Annapolis in Maryland.
Their meeting at the Maryland State House. Because they don't
have any permanent seat of government, they go around, They
move around and meet in different places at various times.
Hamilton is lucky enough to find a quorum of the
Continental Congress because frequently there weren't enough representatives from the
various states to conduct official business. This is the point
at which the Continental Congress had declined that there may
be elected representatives to the Continental Congress, but they wouldn't
even bother to come because nothing of consequence would take
place there. All the action was at the state level.
That's where all the authority was, and the states had
really pressing problems. They had crushing war debts because all
the states had financed their own war efforts independent of
one another, and then they collectively finance a consolidated effort
with the Continental Congress. But that's only one part of
what's going on. So all the states have these incredible
bills from the war, and they're all pursuing various measures
to try to directify those problems. But Hamilton finds a
quorum of the Continental Congress in Annapolis and he proposes
a convention to amend the articles, and this receives a
mostly positive response. So twelve of the thirteen states then
send delegates to the proposed convey that meets in Philadelphia
in seventeen eighty nine. At the convention, Hamilton is one
of the first there, and he is one of these
really dynamic Federalist actors. He's what we call this group,
the Federalists. These are the men that are contending for
a new constitution and a new organization of the American Union.
And they say that it will preserve both the liberty
that had been one from King George. We're going to
have an independent government here, and it's going to guarantee
American liberties, the concerns that were widespread among the patriots
back in seventeen seventy six when independence is declared. But
it will also preserve union. So they're talking about a
functional union, and they are emphasizing the unity of the
American States. But there's a big problem that comes with that.
If they are states, if they are sovereign powers that
have won their sovereignty in the War of Independence, how
can they collectively act without imperiling the liberties they've won.
What powers do they cede to a general government to
act in their name? And this is what the Constitution
portends to do. The Constitution is not a list of
the abstract philosophy of man and his happiness, but the
list of things delegated to the federal government in its
three branches, the things those branches can and cannot do,
and also a list of things the states can and
cannot do, and the powers that create this general government
that is all vested in the states themselves. It's ultimately
up to the states whether or not they will join
this union. So the Philadelphia Convention is a very fascinating episode.
It is not publicized. There are no journalists allowed to participate,
take notes, or to publicize the proceedings of the convention.
It's a closed meeting. And this was done so that
everyone could freely speak their mind and freely propose anything
that might solve American problems without fear of retribution or
public backlash. And with that in mind, Hamilton is one
of the first to arrive, and once he has an
audience there the dell gets start to arrive, he proposes
something very controversial. He proposes a president that is elected
for life, that the president has the power to veto
state legislation, and that the president appoints the governors of
the various states. Now this is a model an inspiration
from the British Empire itself, and for this, for this
kind of reputation that the Federalists have Hamilton's proposal in
this instance, it is not publicized until decades later, when
the notes of his speeches finally are published, So no
one at the time knows in the reading public what
Hamilton had proposed at then when it sits. But this
this comes back much later when Hamilton's goals Hamilton's ambitions
are a more contentious matter. After the ratification of the
Constitution many many years later, but the Federalists come to
Philadelphia with a plan for a new a new government,
a new union government for the states. What they come
up with is the Philadelphia Constitution that we are nominally
using today. The real fight isn't at the convention where
the Federalists have organized beforehand. They they put Washington as
the chair of the convention, so the Federalists are running
this convention. They don't get unanimous approval. Even at the convention.
There are a lot of dissatisfied delegates that were sent
by their states to the convention that they go home,
they become anti Federalists. They vote against the Philadelphia Constitution
in its ratification debates in the state conventions. But the
convention has been organized by the Federalists. The Federalists are
the ones proposing the big ideas there. But that isn't
where the Constitution is decided as a political question. The
convention only creates the Constitution. It's up to the states
to decide whether or not they will be part of
that union. So it goes back to state conventions. Now
I mentioned before only twelve states showed up at the
Philadelphia Convention. Rhode Island decided to sit it out entirely.
Rhode Island was of a very libertarian mindset. Rhode Island
was known before this time to be the veto vote
in every sensible financial measure proposed in the Continental Congress.
When it came time to raise revenue to pay the
troops or anything, Rhode Island would always veto the legislation.
So they didn't want a general government doing anything financially
responsible in that instance, they did not. They were particularly
jealous of the taxing power, we might say, but the
result was financial irresponsibility to the point where we're looking
at the mutiny of the Continental Army. Well. Rhode Island
is also the very first state to vote on the Constitution.
They're the only state to put the Constitution up to
a popular vote, a plebiscite, and it is overwhelmingly voted
down in Rhode Island. The two other conventions that are
worth noting are the New York Convention, where the Constitution
is passed by a single vote in the majority. I
think it's fifty one to forty nine and the Virginia Convention,
which is maybe the most artful of the debates held
about the constitution. The leader of the anti Federalists in
Virginia was none other than Patrick Henry, who was perhaps
the greatest orator of his generation. So the opponents of
the constitution, the anti federalists so called, they did not
choose that name for themselves. They they like the term federalists.
Everyone likes the term because it means a liberty union government,
a government that safeguards the prerogatives of the state. And
when we use the term federalism in a modern context,
like if we were to describe a federal constitution in
Brazil or Mexico, we would be describing a constitution that
has two levels of authority. It has a state level
authority where the institutions or are more responsive to representation,
more responsive to local concerns and such. Just because of
the of the ratio of representation, it's always going to
be a far more a far more responsive sort of
organization at a local level or regional level. So federal
a federal government means that you have two levels of government.
You have a general government that that is over the
states that conducts foreign policy, a common economic policy, a
common defense policy, perhaps a monetary system, and the rest.
And then you have a local level government, a state
level government, if you will, and that these things exist
side by side and they serve one another in some way.
So the anti federalists, they like the term federalism, They
want that as a union government. What they say is
that the Philadelphia Constitution is not a good plan for this.
The Federalists, led by Washington, Hamilton Madison, John Jay of
New York, and other great minds of that generation, these
are all brilliant statesmen. They are contending that the Philadelphia
Constitution is a good solution to the questions that beset
the American States and their union at this time. So
now we turn to the anti federalists themselves. The anti
federalists are not anything to be sniffed at. My students
are always surprised by this when I addressed the issue
that there were people that found themselves arrayed against George Washington,
that they didn't like the Philadelphia Constitution. What is what
is better for America than our constitution? We all venerate
the constitution. And this is you know, these are just
high schoolers. They don't know so much about modern arguments
about how the government's working. But I always remind them, no,
these were men of the best reputations of their day.
They have their bona fides from the War for Independence.
These are people like John Hancock of Massachusett. These are
people like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry and George Mason.
These are really remarkable men of their generation, and we
should certainly take their ideas about the Constitution seriously in retrospect.
At our point today, the anti federalist concerns about the
Constitution look like visionary prophecy of what the federal government
is going to do to the states. And this was
the major concern of the anti federalists. They said, yes,
this will accomplish union, but this will be a national
government and not a federation. This will be a consolidation
of political power in the national government and it will
strip the powers from the states. It may even do
this by force of arms. So we see a lot
of concern among the anti federalists that the Constitution is
going to create a permanent, standing army that will eventually
be used to collect taxes, which is precisely the way
that the War for Independence began. So the anti federalists
are thinking back to the circumstances in which Americans declare
their independence from the Kingdom of Britain, and they say,
we do not want to recreate here in America the
same form of government that we just want independence from.
We don't want to copy the British model. We don't
want to imperil our liberties that we had so recently
and dearly won. So these are the talking points of
the anti federalists. Incidentally, if you want a brief the
most concise list of anti federalist concerns, you can do
no better than to read the Bill of Rights. The
Bill of Rights is the articles of major concern that
you hear from anti federalist writers. That was amended to
the Constitution right after its ratification. It was one of
the first things Congress does when they assemble in New
York City, our first capital city under Washington's administration. They
ratify the Bill of Rights and send it to the
States and it's added to the Constitution. So it's an amendment.
It's an addition to the Constitution to satisfy the anti
federalist concerns. So it's actually a wonderful example of politicians
keeping their promises and a real compromise in American politics.
So the Bill of Rights is a brief of the
anti federalist concerns, but we're going to be talking about
other particular concerns of the anti federalists today. We're going
to start with Brutus number five. Brutus was a pseudonym
for an anti federalist writer in the state of New York,
and Brutus was He takes his name from the classics.
Of course, he's the enemy of tyranny, the assassin of
Julius Caesar, the ambitious King. And in Brutus number five,
which was published in seventeen eighty seven December December of
seventeen eighty seven, he titles his essay on the Nesi
and Proper and the General Welfare Clauses, and on Congress's
power to tax the States will be destroyed. This is
the title of his essay. So opposed to these essays
that we're going to sample from today are of course
the famous Federalist essays, the so called Federalist Papers, which
were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison,
some of the great leaders of the Federalist faction. So
brutus he says about the clauses. He says. In the
first article, eighth section, it is declared that Congress shall
have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States. In
the preamble, the intent of the Constitution, among other things,
is declared to be to provide for the common defense
and promote the general welfare. And in this clause the
power is in express words given to Congress to provide
for the common defense in general welfare. And in the
last paragraph of the same section there is an express
authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore
evident that the legislature under this Constitution may pass any
law which they may think proper. It is true the
ninth section restrains their power with respect to certain objects.
But these restrictions are very limited, some of them improper,
some unimportant, and others not easily understood. As I shall
hereafter show, it has been urged that the meaning I
give to this part of the Constitution is not the
true one. That the intent of it is to confer
on the legislature the power to lay and collect taxes, etc.
In order to provide for the common defense in general welfare.
To this, I would reply that the meaning and intent
of the Constitution is to be collected from the words
of it. And I submit to the public whether the
construction I've given it is not the most natural and easy,
But admitting the contrary opinion to prevail, I shall nevertheless
be able to show the same powers are substantially vested
in the general government by several other articles in the Constitution.
It invests the legislature with the authority to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to provide
for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and
to pass all laws which may be necessary and proper
for carrying this power into effect. He says, what limitation,
if any, is to set the exercise of this power
by the Constitution, And he predicts that the supremacy of
the general government will overrule the states on any contentious point. Now,
in retrospect we see this is, in fact, how the
Constitution has worked at any point in our history where
the states have found themselves in conflict with the general government,
particularly after the Civil War. Brutus's prediction is entirely correct.
Brutus goes on to say later in his essay, I
remark that the power given to the federal legislature directly
annihilates all the powers of the state legislatures. There cannot
be a greater solicism in politics than to talk of
power in government without the command of any revenue. It
is as absurd as to talk of an animal without blood,
or the subsistence of one without food. Now, the general government,
having in their control every possible source of revenue and
authority to pass any law they may deem necessary to
draw them forth or to facilitate their collection. No source
of revenue is therefore left in the hands of any state.
So he predicts, in so many words, that the conflicts
which will inevitably arise between the powers of the states,
in the powers of this new central government, not adequately
protected in the sphere of the states, the general government
will always prevail. Now I turn to another essay of Brutus,
Brutus eleven, which was published in January of seventeen eighty eight,
again in New York. So in this essay. It's a
particular argument, as his essays are organized rather like the
federalist papers, concerned particular concerns about the constitution. He says
that the proposed Supreme Court is a great danger to
the States, and this is the bete noir of the
anti federalists. They're very concerned about the new proposed institutions
of the general government. He says, I'm not competent to
give a perfect explanation of the powers granted to this department,
that is, the Judiciary. I shall attempt to trace some
of the leading features of it, from which I presume
it will appear they will operate to a total subversion
of the state judiciaries, if not to the legislature of
the States. In Article third, section second, it is said,
the judicial power shall extend in all cases in law
and equity arising under this Constitution the Laws of the
United States, and treaties made or which shall be made
under their authority, etc. The first article to which the
power extends is all cases in law and equity arising
under this Constitution. What latitude of constitution this clause should
receive It is not easy to say, or what latitude
of construction under this clause, it's not easy to say.
At first view, one would suppose that it is meant
no more than this that the courts under the General
Government should exercise not only the powers of courts of law,
but also that of courts of equity in the manner
in which these powers are usually exercised in the different states.
But this cannot be the meaning, because the next clause
authorizes the courts to take cognizance of all cases in
law and equity arising under the laws of the United States.
This last article, I conceive, conveys as much power to
the general judicial as any of the state courts possesses.
The case is arising under the Constitution must be different
from those arising under the laws, or else the two
clauses mean exactly the same thing. A case arising under
the Constitution must include such as bring into question its
meaning and will require an explanation of the nature and
extent of the powers of the different departments under it.
He goes on to say that the Constitution, in setting
up the Supreme Court, is going to overpower all state judiciaries.
It is going to overrule them. The anti federalists are
adamant about this though they are not organized. This is
one of the remarkable things about the Anti Federalists as
a faction. They were not organized for this fight. They
were not corresponding with one another beforehand, as the Federalists did.
The Anti Federalists had no alternative to the Philadelphia Constitution.
They did not have their own convention in which they
draft their own articles of union, and so what they
have is fears prognostications about the political future of the country.
They don't have a good alternative.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, isn't that something that you see with
proper right wingers. Historically they can diagnose the problem, but
when it comes to initiating the solution, that's where they
tend to falter.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think so they are a conservative force and
that they are opposing a new innovation. They are conservative
in the sense that they are advocating for the political
rights they just so recently won in independence. They are disorganized.
They don't have a clearly considered alternative, and that is
one of the key reasons that they fail. Not to
say that they were not an elite of their day,
not to say that they were not very capable, but
they were not coordinated. They're coming from various points of view,
and they fail to carry public opinion, though we do
have a couple. We have several examples where they came
very close New York where it came down to a
single vote. The outstanding states that reject the Constitution initially
North Carolina and Rhode Island. North Carolina rejects it in Convention,
but they do ratify it later on after the Union
is organized. So brutus to summarize this piece. He's saying
that the Supreme Court is going to strike down state
laws and even state constitutions, that the supremacy of the
courts in this construction, it will lead to that result.
And certainly it did, and it did much earlier than
the other fears manifested. So now I turn to Sentinel.
Sentinel was the pseudonym of one Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania,
who also wrote a series of essays against the Philadelphia Constitution,
and he outlines general concerns here. He says, the late
Convention have submitted to your consideration a plan of a
new federal government. The subject is highly interesting to your
future welfare, whether it be calculated to promote the great
ends of civil society, vis a VI the happiness and
prosperity the community. It behooves you well to consider uninfluenced
by the authority of names, instead of that frenzy of
enthusiasm that has actuated the citizens of Philadelphia in their
approbation of the proposed plan. Before it was possible that
it could be the result of rational investigation into its principles,
it ought to be dispassionately and deliberately examined in its
own intrinsic merit, the criterion of your patronage. If ever,
free and unbiased discussion was proper or necessary, it is
on such an occasion all the blessings of liberty and
the dearest privileges of freemen are now at stake and
dependent on your present conduct. Those who are competent to
the task of developing the principles of government ought to
be encouraged to come forward, and thereby to better enable
the people to make a proper judgment. For the science
of government is so abtruse that few are able to
judge for themselves without such assistance. The people are too
apt to yield an implicit assent to their opinions of
those characters whose abilities are held in the highest esteem
here Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Hamilton, and the rest the
leaders of the Federalists. He says, the pure intention may
be made instruments of despotism in the hands of the
artful and designing. He goes on to say, the wealthy
and ambitious, who in every community think that they have
the right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have
availed themselves very successfully of this favorable disposition for the people,
thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede
to any extreme of government. All the distresses and difficulties
they experience proceeding from various causes have been ascribed to
the impotency of the present Confederation. Now we've talked about
the ways in which the Articles were not operating. Nevertheless,
the anti federalists are very interested in saying, well, we
need to amend the existing constitution. We don't need to
replace it, and they point to the successes of the Articles.
They did win their War of Independence under the Articles.
They did organize the Northwest Territory under the Articles. There
were several major accomplishments in our early history done under
the Articles. But here we see the worry of the
anti federalists that the articles will be used by an
interested elite to subvert the liberties of Americans. He says,
I'm fearful the principles of government inculcated in mister Adams's
treatise and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in
the newspapers have misled some well designing members of the
Late Convention. But it will appear in the sequel that
the construction of the proposed plan of government is infinitely
more extravagant. He worries that the government proposed in Philadelphia
is going to be a consolidationist regime. It's going to
consolidate all political power under one general government, and it's
going to render the more responsive authorities of the individual
states null and void, basically make them impotent in political matters.
This is the regular concern of the anti federalists. They're
very worried about the implied powers in the Constitution for
the general government, and as we immediately see in Washington's administration,
those worries were well founded. Sentinel continues. He says, Congress
will have the power to lay and collect taxes. Once again,
we see the taxing power is a major concern of
the anti federalists. These are people that are very concerned
to keep the power of taxation, the power of getting money,
getting government revenue, and spending that revenue. They want to
keep that power as close to home as possible, because
the further away that power is, the less accountable it becomes.
And as you remember, this is precisely the kind of
argument that we had in seventeen seventy six when independence
was declared, that Parliament in far away Westminster in England
was passing taxes and regulations over the American colonies, and
that they were unaccountable to the Americans. The Americans had
no representation there and also did not want representation there.
They had their own legislatures in their own capitals. And
this was all charges against King George that he allowed
this to happen. He gave the assent of his authority
for Parliament to regulate the American colonies and to tax them.
So he says again the general welfare clause granted to
Congress for these taxing powers is a particular danger. He
actually highlights general welfare and says this is a dangerous
expansive clause. It can be interpreted in any possible way.
It's not limited. And this is going to be a
point of contention. He says, Now, what can be more
comprehensive than these words, not content by other sections of
this plan to grant all the great executive powers of
a confederation and a standing army in time of peace,
that great engine of oppression, And moreover, the absolute control
over the commerce of the United States, and all external
objects of revenue, such as unlimited imposts, upon imports, etc.
They are to be vested with every species of internal taxation,
whatever taxes, duties, and excises that they may deem requisite
for the general welfare by any imposed on the citizens
of these or may be imposed on the citizens of
these states levied by the officers of Congress. He also
warrants of the judicial power that it will overrule the
state governments and state constitutions, even declaring constitutions null. Now
we turn to a piece of oratory June fourth, seventeen
eighty eight, the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where the anti Federalists
are led by the Great Patrick Henry. Henry gives the
opening speech at the convention, which is a sign of
the anti federalist strength in Virginia. Now the eyes of
all concerned are very focused on Virginia for this. Madison
is the Federalist delegate in the Virginia Convention, of course,
an author of the famous Federalist essays in New York.
Madison is a small and quiet sort of man, and
Henry is this great force of nature. So the anti
federalists really have their best chance to stop this, this
Philadelphia Constitution there in Virginia, in spite of many other
states ratifying it famously, Delaware is the very first to
ratify the Constitution and Convention if Virginia opted out. Virginia
is such a vital state in the Union. You could
not imagine an American Union working without Virginia's assent because
it would geographically divide the Union. And Virginia was of
the most populous states up there with Pennsylvania and New York.
As one of the most populated states, it was in
some ways the largest state territorially. It's a very interesting question,
so Patrick Henry, he says, the public mind, as well
as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change
of government. Give me leave to form one of a
number of those who who wish to be thoroughly acquainted
with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and
why we are brought hither to decide on this great
national question. I consider myself as the servant of the
people of this Commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty,
and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say they
are exceedingly uneasy, being brought from that state of full
security which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things.
A year ago, the minds of our citizens were a
at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the Late Federal
Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquility
prevailed in this country. But since that period they are
exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment
to this convention, my mind was extremely agitive for the
situation in public affairs. I conceive the Republic to be
in extreme danger if our situation be thus uneasy. Whence
has arisen this fearful jeopardy. It arises from this fatal system.
It arises from a proposal to change our government, a
proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most
solemn engagements of the states, a proposal of establishing nine
states into a confederacy to the eventual exclusion of four states. Now,
in this he mentions the Constitution's means of establishing the
new union. It required only the assent of nine states
to form the new federal government four states. Up to
four states could remain out, and the federal government would
become a functioning authority. So he goes on to say,
now I'm looking for the quote. He mentions the preamble
of the Constitution as the focus. He says, sir, give
me leave to demand what right had they to say,
we the people. He's referring to the preamble, we the
people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect union, established justice, insure domestic tranquility, and so on.
He says, what right do they have to say we
the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude
for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized
them to speak in the language of we the people
instead of we the states. States are the characteristic and
the soul of a confederation. If the states be not
the agents of this compact, it must be one great
consolidated national government of the people of the States. I
have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the convention,
and were some of them not there, I would express
some testimonial of my esteem for them. America had on
a former occasion put the utmost confidence in them, a
confidence which was well placed. And I am sure, Sir,
I would give up anything for them. I would cheerfully
confide in them as my representatives. But Sir, on this
great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct,
even from the illustrious man who saved us by his valor.
He's mentioning George Washington. There, I would have a reason
for his conduct, that liberty which he has given us
by his valor. Tells me to ask this reason, and
I am sure I am. Were he here, he would
give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here
who can give us this information. The people gave them
no power to use their name. That they exceeded their
power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that
actuates me. I wish I could hear the real, actual
existing danger which should lead us to take those steps
so dangerous in my conception. So he says, they are
claiming democratic mandate, that the people of the United States
form the Union. Now we can be technical about this,
and we can say the only people who actually voted
on this constitution were the plebisite in Rhode Island. That
was the only place where it was put up to
a popular vote. Now this is not this is not
to disavow conventions as a means of designing of deciding
political questions. But Henry's point is very important. The Constitution
does not start out with the authority of the states,
that the states form the federal government as their agent,
and it should have said that. And Henry himself, he
was invited to go to the Philadelphia convention as a
delegate for Virginia. He refused. He said he smelt a
rat in Philadelphia. He sensed that there was an interested
party that was organizing the affair, and he suspected their
motives even then. And here he is giving us some
reasons why. And this this becomes very important, as we
will see in the many arguments about roalism in American history.
The agent that grants the federal government its authority is
a key element in these debates. And Henry realized it
even before the Constitution comes into effect. He says this phrase,
we the people is going to be used as the
democratic authority to overrule the states. That the federal government
has a greater mandate of power in that it has
this democratic phrase that undergirds its authority, and it's not
the states that are said in the document itself to
set it up. That is no mere rhetoric. That becomes
a very powerful argument, as we will see now. Finally,
in my survey of anti federalist literature, here I turned
to George Mason. Now, he is a very interesting fellow
anti federalist leader from Virginia, representative governor, a founding father.
He's called the father of the Bill of Rights. And
this is because Mason makes a very consequential decision in
the Virginia Convention. He goes to the convention as one
of the key anti federalist delegates. While he is there,
James Madison, the federalist, brokers with Mason and several other
federalist anti federalist delegates. He brings them into the federalist camp.
So Mason actually changes his position in the course of
the convention and its debates. This happens because Madison and
pledges the Bill of Rights as his first order of
business to satisfy anti federalist concerns. And that is very important.
And this is obviously going to develop in other episodes
when we address these concerns and how the interpretations develop
based on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights
is the Jeffersonian concern as opposed to the Hamiltonians and
their scheme to develop the powers of the federal government
through inference. So at this point, George Mason, when he
gives this speech the very same day Patrick Henry gave
his opening remarks June fourth, seventeen eighty eight, he is
an anti federalist in this he says, mister Chairman, whether
the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly
discovers that it is a national government and no longer
a confederation. I mean the clause which gives the first
hint of the general government laying direct taxes, again the
tax power of focus of anti federalist concern. The assumption
of this power of laying direct taxes does of itself
entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated government.
The power, being at discretion, unconfined and without any kind
of control, must carry everything before it The very idea
of converting what was formally a confederation to a consolidated
government is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto
governed us. The power is calculated to annihilate totally the
state governments. Will the people of this great community submit
to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers.
Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two
concurrent powers cannot exist long together. The one will destroy
the other. The general government being paramount to and in
every respect more powerful than, the state governments, the latter
must give way to the former. Is it to be
supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country,
embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different
in manners, habits, and customs. Is it ascertained by history
that there never was a government over a very extensive
country without destroying the liberties of the people. History, also
supported by the opinion of the best writers, show us
that monarchy may suit a large territory and despotic government
ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can
only exist in small territories. Is there a single example
on the face of the earth to support a contrary opinion?
Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was
there ever an instance of a great national government extending
over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety
of climates, etc. Where the people retained their liberty? I
solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to
a firm union of the American States than I am.
But Sir, if this great end can be obtained without
hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur
to such dangerous principles? So we see with Mason here
he again identifies the main theme of the series. How
might we rectify the vast expanse of the American States?
How can we organize them in a union government and
retain the liberties that had been sought with our independence?
An interesting note here, just to put a cherry on top,
if you will, The Treaty of Paris, which resolves our
independence after war, is one, especially with the climactic Battle
of Yorktown. King George did not treat with the Continental Congress. Instead,
King George declared the thirteen individual American states as independent.
He lists them out, He rights them all by name,
and he says, I recognize them as independent states, that
they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
and do all those other things which independent states may
have right do. That's what the Treaty of Paris says.
And the question here is to what degree do the
states surrender certain powers or surrender all of their powers
to some other agent. This is what the anti federalists
are very concerned about, and they are saying explicitly this
is not being done, frankly, openly, clearly. It will be
done by inference of clauses in the Constitution. Lawyers and
future generations are going to read the Constitution and they're
going to use the implied powers of the Constitution to
abrogate the prerogatives of the state governments, and they will
do that to consolidate power, especially the taxing power. That
will be the reason why the institutions founded under the
Philadelphia Constitution start abrogating the prerogatives of the states. And
we look over these anti federalist writings these days, there
happens to be an excellent collection of anti federalist literature
edited by Joseph Sobrin which I recommend to you all.
My copy is packed up in my storage unit because
I'm in the middle of the move right now. But
it's it's this beautiful cloth bound edition with a with
a forward by Soberin himself. When we when we review
these documents, we see in in uh prognostication the debates
that later take place in American history, and indeed have
not left us even now. The tension between local authorities
in the states and the federal government remain a very
important part of our political life and concerns today. So
that is my brief on the anti federalists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it all comes down to things that you know,
Sam Francis wrote about extensively, mass and scale. Absolutely, people
are still arguing, Oh, if we don't keep the union
to together, the leftists win China comes in. It's like, okay,
so keep you know, keep doing something that doesn't work,
trying to keep trying to keep three hundred and fifty
million people now of what seventy five one hundred different cultures,
multiple races, you're trying to hold that together. Good luck
with that.
Speaker 2: It's really interesting that George Mason touches on that exact question.
He says he wants union for the American States. He
says he's always advocated it. I'm genuinely curious to what
the anti federalists would have come up with if they
had as symboled together in a convention. But contrary to
John Jay, and I know in our circles we frequently
talk about federalists too, John Jay is emphasizing the things
that Americans have in common. He says, we have the
same ancestors, we have the same religion, we have same manners.
It's one united people, and the federalists are always playing
to those optimistic takes on the collective country. Mason recognizes
the things that are going to set us at odds
with one another. He says, we have many different climates,
we have different manners in different regions. He does not
say that we have a diversity of national origins, which
indeed at that time we didn't. It was overwhelmingly British
in origin. We don't have a variety of languages. He
doesn't say that we do. We have a small number
of German speakers in Pennsylvania somewhere. We were overwhelmingly Protestant
at this point in our history. But obviously we have
to have some things in common now in our American reckoning.
We look at the Constitution as the thing that we
all have in common, the supreme law of the land.
But unwisely we did not codify other things other than
this document that can be read in such widely divergent ways.
We needed other things, more organic things to unite us,
and other empires had things like this. In the Roman Empire,
they required everyone to have Latin to be a citizen,
and for the very simple reason you can't. You can't
participate in citizenship without being able to read the law
and interpret it. They required a standard of religion. Everyone
had to be a Greco Roman polytheist, and this is
the start of various persecutions against Christians and others. The
human sacrificing Druids of Gaul were prescribed, the human sacrificing
Carthaginians in North Africa were banned. They were not allowed
to practice through religion, and the Romans felt strongly about that.
They had an official religion, and this was supposed to
unite them under a common government, and that was an
empire is made of various nations. But the Romans had
a more official policy on that than we ever did,
and are optimistic liberalism that people of any number of backgrounds, languages, religions,
and laws could all live under the same government somehow
is obviously untenable. We talk about this frequently in other contexts.
There has to be more in common. Citizens must have
some things in common, as Aristotle wisely observed in his politics.
And yet Mason says, we have these different regions, We
have different economies in the different regions, We have different
manners in different regions because different parts of the British
colonial effort they concentrated in certain regions in the Americas.
And he identifies that as a problem for the union.
And yet he still wants a union. And yet he
also comes over to the federalists when they finally call
a vote at the convention, so he turns more optimistic
as the convention goes on about the constitution. He gets
his Bill of Rights, a liberal construction obviously, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion, so on, But
he still recognizes those differences, and that I think that's
really fascinating. There is a lot to be mined out
of the anti federalist literature as far as political observation,
wisdom about the American situation goes. And they foresee the
political problems in our future at this early stage.
Speaker 1: Awesome, awesome, thank you, professor. I would encourage you now,
please tell people where they can find you and show
anything you wish through the shillings.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I am running a small publishing house. It is
called Tall Men Books. You can find it at www
dot Tallmen books dot com. And today, incidentally, my catalog
has almost doubled in size on the website. I have
a lot of books that I've been working on that
I've been piling up for my website admin to add
to the site. And so I've got like twenty books
that I added onto the site today, including a new series, well,
a couple new serieses histories of the Mississippi Valley which
are called Riverbooks, and also a new series on outlaws
and lawmen of the Old West. A new offering a
biography of Billy the Kid by Pat Garrett, the man
who killed Billy the Kid, MHM and his friend. Wow.
That is uh, that is uh newly posted on the website.
You can find it there right now.
Speaker 1: Awesome. I'll make sure to link to it and I
look forward to part two. Thank you very much. Be Yes,
it is take care of it h h Yah