That spaghetti as you would call it, has pretty much well happened today, 200 years and the Government is exactly how the Anti Federalists said it would be
Looks like they called it 100%. All of their concerns absolutely came true. I don't know if I completely blame the constitution for that, as i was likely just corrupt power hungry bureaucrats finding ways to cheat the constitution. That could have possibly also occurred had the constitution not been adopted.
@@aj41926 No? Better read Article 1 Section 8 look what Justice Benjamin Cardoza had to say about it in his ruling, then go over the 14th Amendment and see how Lewis Powell turned Corporations into people.
@@ozwunder69 Close enough, Personally I wouldn't have been either, or maybe I would have been a softcore Antifederalist. I mean even the Antifederalists who signed the Constitution were still Federalists, they proved that by signing the document illegally, America was a Republic under the Articles Of Confederacy back then, they needed 100% of the States to agree to trash the Articles Of Confederation and adopt the new Constitution, they simply did not have that. This is in part the reason they made the Declaration Of Independence an illegal Document. They had to, or it could have been used against them in the many counter Revolutions that happened. Such as Shays Rebellion and the Great Whiskey Rebellion, We Fought against and won our Freedom from one Tyrant, and the wealthy that gained their Freedom from our blood, enslaved us. Imagine that, you fight for someone to gain their Freedom from a Tyrant, and they turn around, take your land a and write a document that enslaves you to them.... But that is not the best part. the best part is, over 200 years later the people/slaves are so complacent that they wear this Document of enslavement like a badge of honor.
Yeah but what has changed are people’s viewpoints. Today’s democrat would be more of a federalist and a libertarian/republican would lean more anti-federalist. This shows with dems globalism and increasing number of federal policies and laws. Republicans lean more toward Jefferson’s style of government with individualism and states rights.
And here we are faced with the tyrannical government we all feared. Soon everyone is going to be forced to choose, to take a side. Choose wisely and confidently. Serve and change what is already mostly good; or tear down what can no longer be fixed and has become hopelessly corrupted and is bad.
I agree with you, but I wonder if that is due to the weakness of the Constitution or the fact that our government simply ignores the Constitution, finding some way to twist its meaning to make it appear to the masses as though it is acting Constitutionally. Add to this the vast bureaucracy of Federal Agencies that have been established and given essentially dictatorial powers. These agencies are populated by people with great power over our lives yet have no accountability to tot he people over whom they exercise such authority. I mean, in what universe would anyone think that an agency of the Federal Government has the authority to determine how many gallons of water my toilet can use to flush! And the legal vote-buying scheme of the Federal Welfare system (both individual welfare and corporate welfare) assures the politicians that they can do pretty much whatever they want so long as they keep the checks coming.
@@RVGrace I believe the problem is a little bit of both. It would have been great if the Constitution contained a limit on the rate at which we could be taxed, as well as term limits for members of Congress.
I had to read the Federalist Papers in College. All of them for my Poli Sci degree. As an undergrad. All told, some pretty powerfull, well-reasoned, and poignant stuff. I legit didn't even know there were anti-Federalist papers. I kinda get intuitively that that the opposition had literary objections, but I never saw them p.s. Did you know that the designers of Washington D.C. hated John Jay so much, that on the axis of numerical (1-whatever) vs lettered streets (A-Z), there is no "J" street. That's an infamous legacy.
this is an urban legend and not accurate. J street was likely omitted because it's too similar to I, and the two letters were often used interchangeably at the time
Great, great video!!! This was my first time on this channel and as a Political Scientist I have to say I am incredibly impressed how you have explained the Anti-Federalist papers so easily and clearly! Bravo!
Almost sounds like the arguments given by the Anti-Federalists are being mocked here when many of the fears have come to pass. I dunno perhaps it's the tone or what not lol.
Hip, I have a question for you, wouldn't all of the states had to have voted and agreed to change or replace the existing Constitution in the first place, and not just changed the entire Government to a Federalist system in secrecy, which is what they did.
The Anti-Federalists were the original Federalists. Federalism at the time was believed that there should be strong Independent Sovereign states with a loose, but reliable confederation of states for mutual benefit and security. The Federalists seized upon the name and branded the opposition of original federalists as anti-federalists and therefore unpatriotic. The Federalists were united in advancing the US Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were united in their opposition, but for a great many differences. Every point and issue the Anti-Federalists wrote and spoke with regard to the US Constitution was well reasoned and thought out, and the Federalists had to respond. It must also be noted that there were some of the founders that were Federalists, and Anti-Federalists at the same time. John Jay, and Edmond Randolph are two of the most notable. Only nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. Any state that refused to ratify the Constitution was not forced to join the union and would be left alone. The Anti-Federalists held enough sway in the states to prevent the ratification of the Constitution, and they were able to force the Federalists to agree to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. Even so all the concerns, and fears of the Anti-Federalists have been borne out to greater degrees than they imagined.
Never stop making videos! I'm in my 2nd year of Univeristy and I still watch every one! Even though I'm not a history major lol. Seriously, you don't get as much credit as you deserve.
The writers of the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers were both correct. We needed a stronger federal goverment, but it beeded be restricted to a very narrow specific focus. The federalist papers were an eaxpression of the need to prevent the federal goverment from curtailing the liberties of the people. The anti-federalist papers expressed the belief that giving a federal goverment goverment any real power would lead to the supression of individuals liberties. They were both right, as we can see today. Their are people today that argue that we are more advanced today and the views expressed when those papers were written no longer apply. That is far from reality. They were talking about human nature and the need to protect ourselfs from our own nature. That hasn't changed since those papers were written. We have better technology and more access to information, much of which is not accurate, but our nature hasn't changed. We are still human with all the flaws that entails and we still fall pray to those who wish to have power over us. The ferderal goverment has grown to an extent that was never intended and has taken more power than it was ever supposed to have. The very things that the anti-federalist papers warned about.
Forget sending your kids to school just have them watch his videos! I'm 35 and can say I think I've learned more of the world and history than I did all my time in school. This is more expansive than most public schools. Text books are so dated and only cover a small amount of history.
lol 😁 yeah don't do that. I say let them see both worlds(this, other like minded people vs public schools.)and let the critical thinking child to choose for themselves. mold the mind to read in between the very small fine print. 😃👍
You're insane I'm 35 now so I know what wasted time is by now. Being in school for that long was a waste. It just is. Go start own idea about how kids should have to be school for the better part of a day like a work shift. It's daycare for working parents.
I enjoyed this a lot. Actually, I knew there were anti-federalists, but I did not know that there were anti-federalist papers as well as federalist papers. But then, it is not like I actually paid attention in history class. I also liked the way you compared the anti-federalists to the modern Tea Party. I have never bothered to read any official declaration by that group to know for certain what their primary issues are, but from what I have heard of them, I am in sympathy with their general view of things. Nor have I ever read the Federalist Papers. I do think that the preamble to our Constitution is a marvelous piece of writing, but I do not know if the form the form of government they established in order to effect the purposes laid out in preamble was described tightly enough to avoid the dangers posed by the anti-federalists. It is quite certain that our present Federal government has far more power over our nation that the most ardent Federalist was looking for. Whether this is due to ignoring the Constitution's limits or weaknesses inherent in the Constitution itself is beyond my understanding. I am quite certain that there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to take money from some citizens to be simply given to other citizens. I do not believe that the SS system is even partly Constitutional, despite the rulings of courts to the contrary. It would seem that much of the abuse in our present Federal Government is carried out under the "general welfare clause." As it is presently used, that has authorized the Federal Government to do anything the legislators would consider to be "in the general interest" of the nation and its citizens. But I doubt there is any way to write a Constitution granting power to a government body that powerful people cannot twst to their own ends so as to gain more power. Thanks for producing this. Enlightening.
The Anti-Federalist were correct on EVERY point they made. If only their true defense of liberty and state sovereignty had been adhered to this continent would be a much better place to live.
how would state god immunity make this a better nation. in 1890 the supreme court ruled that the states derived their authority from god and therefore where sovereign. the doctrine of god immunity states that the sovereign cannot be sued in any court on this earth without the sovereign's consent. you have no rights less the sovereign does not violate them
Brutus was the pen name of an Anti-Federalist in a series of essays designed to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. His essays are considered among the best of those written to oppose adoption of the proposed constitution. Bing search
Ever since I took Constitutional law and saw how some atrocious cases greatly expanded the power of the Federal government, then read some of the Anti Federalist papers, I found out I'd probably have been an anti Federalist. But to the credit of the Federalists, I do believe they thought they were properly limiting the power of the Federal government, they just underestimated how much power the courts would have over.
Great video... but the comparison between the anti-federalists with the Tea Party of the recent past is a little bit misleading. The Anti-federalist certainly claimed that a strong federal government would be corrupt and corrupting. But this "rot at the top" view of was articulated just as loudly and forcefully by Occupy Wall Street. Moreover the anti-federalists also opposed a standing army (Brutus #10), articulated concerns about inequality (Centinel No. 1), and championed the idea that the common good was more than the sum of waring factions and placed a premium on democratic accountable to the people (Brutus #IV)... all themes echoed more strongly by Occupy Wall Street. The Anti-Federalist also had their own positive vision of republican government and a benign society that can be discerned between their critiques of the draft Constitution that get's glossed over here.
I think all of Pennsylvania's delegates were from Philadelphia. None of the farming areas of the state were represented. And I believe that, of the delegates at the convention, 34 were lawyers. (Or had legal training.) Why were those present sworn to secrecy for 40 years? Is it because they were basically committing a bloodless coup d'état? As my good friend, Michael Gaddy, would ask; Can something legal be created from an illegal act?
Very engaging presenter. I am still pleased with the first century of the constitution ... but while Hamilton was a great student of history, he was also a big fan of federal power and would have grabbed more if he could. Clearly time has said that the anti-federalist arguments against the constitution had merit... not sure how history would have played had we stayed loosely bound.
That was pretty awesome! My fear is ...no ..my hope is you'll say something I disagree with. Or both. It would seem this is less commentary and more "a condensing of historical moments", which is tricky. I'll watch one more in order to make my choice - to Subscribe or not to Subscribe!
How was the sequential numbering of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers agreed upon? I know this is a relatively inconsequential question, but it's been bugging me since watching this video.
The concerns expressed have never been as applicable as they are today. Just as one can easily see myriad parallels in this years election with that of the election of 1828 and Andrew Jackson
I believe the constitution worked well for a while. It was when the progressives changed the motif from individual liberties to societal good ... that the gov't started to truly grow uncontrolled. The fact that the constitution did well for a century is not bad. Sadly, the states happily gave the fed much of their additional power. It was a shame.
The Articles of Association, 1774 in the First Continental Congress, 1,935 words not counting signatures. The Declaration of Independence, 1776, 1,337, not counting signatures. The US Constitution, 4,543. The Bill of Rights, 652 words. You will not find the word "democracy", or any variation of that word in any of them. The Founders, and Framers feared and loathed democracies. Ancient Greece was a democracy. The Second Achaean League was the first to come close to establishing what we call and consider federalism. Rome was a republic before is became an empire, and under a supposed god-king. They were a republic with an unwritten constitution. Meaning they had a broadly known and understood belief of government, and laws. Which in the end was perverted by the Caesars and Roman Senate. The British Empire did the same. An unwritten constitution, as Queen Elizabeth herself proclaimed before the US Congress in her speech May 16th, 1991. There are clear and defined demarcations between a republic and a democracy. While it would be easy to ascribe simple ignorance of the word that he bandies about as if its simply an accepted term I cannot. Hip Hughes is not an ignorant, nor uneducated person. Therefore, he has deliberately chosen to use the word(s). The United States is not a democracy. It was never intended to be, meant to be, nor aspired to be. The United States is a republic. A republic with a written constitution, and bill of rights. A Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individual. Something never written in such terms, purposes and intent ever before in history. We use elections at the local, state, and federal level. However, elections are not proof of being a democracy. Elections are an expected means of electing people to levels of government to represent their interests whatever they might be. Again, elections are not democracy.
The first constitution A.K.A. The articles of confederacy were hastily written during the revolutionary War. They had to have something to legitimize the US as a country. It was poorly written and full of holes as much as it was a hindrance. The anti-federalist was a faction of British crown loyalists/ sympathizers that still existed long after the revolutionary War going into the Civil War the loyalist ideology had been watered down to almost nothing and replaced with an ideology more towards politics and classism based on race. Still today it's the same with an unfocused base in wokeness, social justice causes, and an appearance of racism.
This analysis is very oversimplified. Most “anti-federalists” were not, in fact, anti-federalism. They thought the constitution needed perfecting and federalists were selling it as a “take-it-or-leave-it” deal. Only a small faction thought the best method was amending the articles of confederation.
@@wolfstar675 The founders described the form of government they established for the United States as "Republicanism"(government by representation). In Federalist Papers nine and Ten what is meant by a "Republic" in contrast to a "Democracy" is explained by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison respectively. "Democratic Republic" would be considered an oxymoron. Pun intended. We can learn together without insulting each other. The crooks in present day American government have done a great job in keeping we the American people at each other's throats while they continue to screw us over collectively.
Soooooo.... we're just gonna ignore the giant chained elephant in the room?? Huge amount of the backroom haggling going on then was southern states concern about the national abolition of slavery. Hence Jefferson's anti-federalism (are we allowed to say that?) Hamilton wanted an empowered federal gov't that could eventually defeat a rebellion of southern states. Writing was on the wall even then. Anti-feds couldn't make a pro slavery argument - of course - because it would have the opposite effect. They need other arguments against federalism.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Boy did the Anti-Feds have it right!!! It’s a damn shame where America is today.
That spaghetti as you would call it, has pretty much well happened today, 200 years and the Government is exactly how the Anti Federalists said it would be
Looks like they called it 100%. All of their concerns absolutely came true. I don't know if I completely blame the constitution for that, as i was likely just corrupt power hungry bureaucrats finding ways to cheat the constitution. That could have possibly also occurred had the constitution not been adopted.
@@aj41926 No? Better read Article 1 Section 8 look what Justice Benjamin Cardoza had to say about it in his ruling, then go over the 14th Amendment and see how Lewis Powell turned Corporations into people.
the atlasnetwork with federalist society friends aka most of scotus are on that side, everyone else on the anti side
@@ozwunder69 Close enough, Personally I wouldn't have been either, or maybe I would have been a softcore Antifederalist. I mean even the Antifederalists who signed the Constitution were still Federalists, they proved that by signing the document illegally, America was a Republic under the Articles Of Confederacy back then, they needed 100% of the States to agree to trash the Articles Of Confederation and adopt the new Constitution, they simply did not have that. This is in part the reason they made the Declaration Of Independence an illegal Document. They had to, or it could have been used against them in the many counter Revolutions that happened. Such as Shays Rebellion and the Great Whiskey Rebellion, We Fought against and won our Freedom from one Tyrant, and the wealthy that gained their Freedom from our blood, enslaved us.
Imagine that, you fight for someone to gain their Freedom from a Tyrant, and they turn around, take your land a and write a document that enslaves you to them....
But that is not the best part. the best part is, over 200 years later the people/slaves are so complacent that they wear this Document of enslavement like a badge of honor.
Yeah but what has changed are people’s viewpoints. Today’s democrat would be more of a federalist and a libertarian/republican would lean more anti-federalist. This shows with dems globalism and increasing number of federal policies and laws. Republicans lean more toward Jefferson’s style of government with individualism and states rights.
And here we are faced with the tyrannical government we all feared. Soon everyone is going to be forced to choose, to take a side. Choose wisely and confidently. Serve and change what is already mostly good; or tear down what can no longer be fixed and has become hopelessly corrupted and is bad.
The value of the anti-feds has been underestimated.
Probable because they are so on point to what has actually happened that these writings predicted.
All the warnings of the anti-feds have come true.
Wow that is so true 🤦🏻♂️
Especially now with the lockdowns.
I agree with you, but I wonder if that is due to the weakness of the Constitution or the fact that our government simply ignores the Constitution, finding some way to twist its meaning to make it appear to the masses as though it is acting Constitutionally. Add to this the vast bureaucracy of Federal Agencies that have been established and given essentially dictatorial powers. These agencies are populated by people with great power over our lives yet have no accountability to tot he people over whom they exercise such authority. I mean, in what universe would anyone think that an agency of the Federal Government has the authority to determine how many gallons of water my toilet can use to flush!
And the legal vote-buying scheme of the Federal Welfare system (both individual welfare and corporate welfare) assures the politicians that they can do pretty much whatever they want so long as they keep the checks coming.
Foremost among them being the prediction that the Federal government would become too powerful under the Constitution. Oh well. They tried.
@@RVGrace I believe the problem is a little bit of both. It would have been great if the Constitution contained a limit on the rate at which we could be taxed, as well as term limits for members of Congress.
Lincoln using the Union army against the south was exactly the type of fear expressed in paper #8
Damn
5:03
Washington did it first against the Whiskey Rebellion tax-resistors. 1776 America only lasted about a dozen years.
Low and behold the cooler and more humorous Anti-Federalists were correct.
Wow! My seventh grandfather was an anti-federalist.He was correct I believe.
He most certainly was!
@@billgreenidge6740 If the Government hadn't become more powerful, america as it stands would never have come to fruition.
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql...and that would be a good thing.
@@NotTheRealRustyShackleford Only in the American peoples' eyes. América has Not been "objectively" good....
Lots of truth in those old antifederalists papers.
I had to read the Federalist Papers in College. All of them for my Poli Sci degree. As an undergrad. All told, some pretty powerfull, well-reasoned, and poignant stuff. I legit didn't even know there were anti-Federalist papers. I kinda get intuitively that that the opposition had literary objections, but I never saw them
p.s. Did you know that the designers of Washington D.C. hated John Jay so much, that on the axis of numerical (1-whatever) vs lettered streets (A-Z), there is no "J" street. That's an infamous legacy.
Read Dr Maier’s Ratification. It's a wonderful narrative about the debates and process of ratification.
Look for Luther Martin's grave. You won't find it. Buried in an unmarked grave, and paved over.
this is an urban legend and not accurate. J street was likely omitted because it's too similar to I, and the two letters were often used interchangeably at the time
PLEASE! We are NOT a "Democracy"! We ARE a Constitutional Republic!
@Ben White true but thats like saying Gray is white but just a darker shade. Democracy is just that, pure. Electors in this republic, thats bull shit.
That's the same thing as saying "I don't have a video game console, I have a Xbox" it's just a type of Republic Democracy
jdbforYHWH
Constitutional republic is a for, of democracy nimrod. You people really want to live in a dictatorship don't you?
Actually, we're a "Confederate Republic" according to Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper number 9.
fed 1789: we need a federal government to pay the debt
fed 2020: we... pay... debt...
Great, great video!!! This was my first time on this channel and as a Political Scientist I have to say I am incredibly impressed how you have explained the Anti-Federalist papers so easily and clearly! Bravo!
Patrick Henry was the man. “I smell a rat”
"Tending toward the monarchy!"
Hamilton actually lobbied for a Monarchy...
I have to read the Anti Fed papers one of these days, sadly many of their warnings and concerns have come to pass.
Almost sounds like the arguments given by the Anti-Federalists are being mocked here when many of the fears have come to pass. I dunno perhaps it's the tone or what not lol.
Hip, I have a question for you, wouldn't all of the states had to have voted and agreed to change or replace the existing Constitution in the first place, and not just changed the entire Government to a Federalist system in secrecy, which is what they did.
Yeah that's some of the crucial history the mainstream "educators" don't mention; the book Holgram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce gives all the details.
The Anti-Federalists were the original Federalists. Federalism at the time was believed that there should be strong Independent Sovereign states with a loose, but reliable confederation of states for mutual benefit and security. The Federalists seized upon the name and branded the opposition of original federalists as anti-federalists and therefore unpatriotic. The Federalists were united in advancing the US Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were united in their opposition, but for a great many differences. Every point and issue the Anti-Federalists wrote and spoke with regard to the US Constitution was well reasoned and thought out, and the Federalists had to respond. It must also be noted that there were some of the founders that were Federalists, and Anti-Federalists at the same time. John Jay, and Edmond Randolph are two of the most notable. Only nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. Any state that refused to ratify the Constitution was not forced to join the union and would be left alone. The Anti-Federalists held enough sway in the states to prevent the ratification of the Constitution, and they were able to force the Federalists to agree to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. Even so all the concerns, and fears of the Anti-Federalists have been borne out to greater degrees than they imagined.
I'm not saying all their arguments were correct but we should have listened closer to the anti-feds. Most of their predictions have come true.
Exactly. I am glad someone like you are still awake.
Never stop making videos! I'm in my 2nd year of Univeristy and I still watch every one! Even though I'm not a history major lol. Seriously, you don't get as much credit as you deserve.
Its so stress-relieving to see your videos about our college work.
#WinningTheInternet
The writers of the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers were both correct. We needed a stronger federal goverment, but it beeded be restricted to a very narrow specific focus. The federalist papers were an eaxpression of the need to prevent the federal goverment from curtailing the liberties of the people. The anti-federalist papers expressed the belief that giving a federal goverment goverment any real power would lead to the supression of individuals liberties. They were both right, as we can see today.
Their are people today that argue that we are more advanced today and the views expressed when those papers were written no longer apply. That is far from reality. They were talking about human nature and the need to protect ourselfs from our own nature. That hasn't changed since those papers were written. We have better technology and more access to information, much of which is not accurate, but our nature hasn't changed. We are still human with all the flaws that entails and we still fall pray to those who wish to have power over us.
The ferderal goverment has grown to an extent that was never intended and has taken more power than it was ever supposed to have. The very things that the anti-federalist papers warned about.
Love your videos. Wish you were making more new ones. So much going on.
Forget sending your kids to school just have them watch his videos! I'm 35 and can say I think I've learned more of the world and history than I did all my time in school. This is more expansive than most public schools. Text books are so dated and only cover a small amount of history.
+Faith Rightout thanks for your support for the cray cray learning!
lol 😁 yeah don't do that. I say let them see both worlds(this, other like minded people vs public schools.)and let the critical thinking child to choose for themselves. mold the mind to read in between the very small fine print. 😃👍
this is quicker if i had more time to pursue my other hobbies besides loads o homework who knows where i'd be
+Faith Rightout 👍 gotta make time to have time sister. 😊 patients is key. good luck in your studies.
You're insane I'm 35 now so I know what wasted time is by now. Being in school for that long was a waste. It just is. Go start own idea about how kids should have to be school for the better part of a day like a work shift. It's daycare for working parents.
We need an anti Federalist Party
We already have one it's the Democrat party
@@Ezraknapp-qi2sr 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Big revolutionary names like George Mason and Patrick Henry wrote some of the anti federalist papers
Samuel Bryan wrote as Centinel (and possibly Montezuma). His letters were incredible.
Thanks. Nice summary. Would like to hear your thoughts on Fed 10. The Electoral College was the key to getting the Constitution ratified.
Hip! I love you!!! You have saved me on several occasions. Thank you for helping me understand U.S Gov!
Excellent video your presented the information very nicely
They were right
Anybody else catch the munster's theme song??? Or is it just me the 17 year old?
What is the transition song at 4:07? Gave me a crazy childhood flashback but I have no idea why...
I enjoyed this a lot. Actually, I knew there were anti-federalists, but I did not know that there were anti-federalist papers as well as federalist papers. But then, it is not like I actually paid attention in history class. I also liked the way you compared the anti-federalists to the modern Tea Party. I have never bothered to read any official declaration by that group to know for certain what their primary issues are, but from what I have heard of them, I am in sympathy with their general view of things.
Nor have I ever read the Federalist Papers. I do think that the preamble to our Constitution is a marvelous piece of writing, but I do not know if the form the form of government they established in order to effect the purposes laid out in preamble was described tightly enough to avoid the dangers posed by the anti-federalists. It is quite certain that our present Federal government has far more power over our nation that the most ardent Federalist was looking for. Whether this is due to ignoring the Constitution's limits or weaknesses inherent in the Constitution itself is beyond my understanding. I am quite certain that there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to take money from some citizens to be simply given to other citizens. I do not believe that the SS system is even partly Constitutional, despite the rulings of courts to the contrary.
It would seem that much of the abuse in our present Federal Government is carried out under the "general welfare clause." As it is presently used, that has authorized the Federal Government to do anything the legislators would consider to be "in the general interest" of the nation and its citizens.
But I doubt there is any way to write a Constitution granting power to a government body that powerful people cannot twst to their own ends so as to gain more power.
Thanks for producing this. Enlightening.
It's called a Confederation.
The original government was perfect for our needs.
The Anti-Federalist were correct on EVERY point they made. If only their true defense of liberty and state sovereignty had been adhered to this continent would be a much better place to live.
how would state god immunity make this a better nation. in 1890 the supreme court ruled that the states derived their authority from god and therefore where sovereign. the doctrine of god immunity states that the sovereign cannot be sued in any court on this earth without the sovereign's consent. you have no rights less the sovereign does not violate them
True but would America exist in any capacity, if it was a confederation of loose states?
Brutus was the pen name of an Anti-Federalist in a series of essays designed to encourage New Yorkers to reject the proposed Constitution. His essays are considered among the best of those written to oppose adoption of the proposed constitution. Bing search
Patrick Henry was right.
Ever since I took Constitutional law and saw how some atrocious cases greatly expanded the power of the Federal government, then read some of the Anti Federalist papers, I found out I'd probably have been an anti Federalist. But to the credit of the Federalists, I do believe they thought they were properly limiting the power of the Federal government, they just underestimated how much power the courts would have over.
Thanks! rlly helpful! I was supposed to read the papers and I did and have to take a test on it so confused about it! thx!
Great video... but the comparison between the anti-federalists with the Tea Party of the recent past is a little bit misleading. The Anti-federalist certainly claimed that a strong federal government would be corrupt and corrupting. But this "rot at the top" view of was articulated just as loudly and forcefully by Occupy Wall Street. Moreover the anti-federalists also opposed a standing army (Brutus #10), articulated concerns about inequality (Centinel No. 1), and championed the idea that the common good was more than the sum of waring factions and placed a premium on democratic accountable to the people (Brutus #IV)... all themes echoed more strongly by Occupy Wall Street. The Anti-Federalist also had their own positive vision of republican government and a benign society that can be discerned between their critiques of the draft Constitution that get's glossed over here.
The population wasn't represented by the constitution, all the things they warned of have come to pass.
I think all of Pennsylvania's delegates were from Philadelphia. None of the farming areas of the state were represented.
And I believe that, of the delegates at the convention, 34 were lawyers. (Or had legal training.)
Why were those present sworn to secrecy for 40 years? Is it because they were basically committing a bloodless coup d'état?
As my good friend, Michael Gaddy, would ask; Can something legal be created from an illegal act?
Stop voting and stop filing, the government problem solved.
Very engaging presenter. I am still pleased with the first century of the constitution ... but while Hamilton was a great student of history, he was also a big fan of federal power and would have grabbed more if he could. Clearly time has said that the anti-federalist arguments against the constitution had merit... not sure how history would have played had we stayed loosely bound.
I am very thankful for your videos!!
We should have kept the articles of confederation.
l love your videos and a nice 'throwback' for me, the bonanza theme. 😀
So helpful past few weeks , thanks!
Wow great summary ! Intense words!
What's wrong with the articles of Federation?
That was pretty awesome! My fear is ...no ..my hope is you'll say something I disagree with. Or both. It would seem this is less commentary and more "a condensing of historical moments", which is tricky. I'll watch one more in order to make my choice - to Subscribe or not to Subscribe!
How was the sequential numbering of both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers agreed upon? I know this is a relatively inconsequential question, but it's been bugging me since watching this video.
They were originally published chronologically as newspaper articles, and then collected in a single volume
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Lord Acton.
AMAZING VIDEO! Thank you so much!
Awesome vid! Helping me with some apush stuff
oh, I came b/c I thought it said the Anti-Fed Rappers.
+pyrrho314 that's my next video.
Hehe thank you, you saved my history grade 🌚👏🏽
The concerns expressed have never been as applicable as they are today.
Just as one can easily see myriad parallels in this years election with that of the election of 1828 and Andrew Jackson
This is only a cursory view of these essays. For God's sake if you're a US citizen, you should feel shame until you read them all.
Very good
I believe the constitution worked well for a while. It was when the progressives changed the motif from individual liberties to societal good ... that the gov't started to truly grow uncontrolled. The fact that the constitution did well for a century is not bad. Sadly, the states happily gave the fed much of their additional power. It was a shame.
And now in November 2024 this all becomes more personal thanks to a certain orange narcissist.
All of them are winners…….
love the vídeo !
The Articles of Association, 1774 in the First Continental Congress, 1,935 words not counting signatures. The Declaration of Independence, 1776, 1,337, not counting signatures. The US Constitution, 4,543. The Bill of Rights, 652 words. You will not find the word "democracy", or any variation of that word in any of them. The Founders, and Framers feared and loathed democracies. Ancient Greece was a democracy. The Second Achaean League was the first to come close to establishing what we call and consider federalism. Rome was a republic before is became an empire, and under a supposed god-king. They were a republic with an unwritten constitution. Meaning they had a broadly known and understood belief of government, and laws. Which in the end was perverted by the Caesars and Roman Senate. The British Empire did the same. An unwritten constitution, as Queen Elizabeth herself proclaimed before the US Congress in her speech May 16th, 1991. There are clear and defined demarcations between a republic and a democracy. While it would be easy to ascribe simple ignorance of the word that he bandies about as if its simply an accepted term I cannot. Hip Hughes is not an ignorant, nor uneducated person. Therefore, he has deliberately chosen to use the word(s). The United States is not a democracy. It was never intended to be, meant to be, nor aspired to be. The United States is a republic. A republic with a written constitution, and bill of rights. A Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individual. Something never written in such terms, purposes and intent ever before in history. We use elections at the local, state, and federal level. However, elections are not proof of being a democracy. Elections are an expected means of electing people to levels of government to represent their interests whatever they might be. Again, elections are not democracy.
Anti fed lyfe
The first constitution A.K.A. The articles of confederacy were hastily written during the revolutionary War. They had to have something to legitimize the US as a country. It was poorly written and full of holes as much as it was a hindrance.
The anti-federalist was a faction of British crown loyalists/ sympathizers that still existed long after the revolutionary War going into the Civil War the loyalist ideology had been watered down to almost nothing and replaced with an ideology more towards politics and classism based on race. Still today it's the same with an unfocused base in wokeness, social justice causes, and an appearance of racism.
#1, liberty for what? If you're born in the United States, with liberty rights?
Hi keith hughes your awesome
Publius v Brutus
This analysis is very oversimplified. Most “anti-federalists” were not, in fact, anti-federalism. They thought the constitution needed perfecting and federalists were selling it as a “take-it-or-leave-it” deal.
Only a small faction thought the best method was amending the articles of confederation.
That's a somewhat simplified view as well. See my comments as newest comments.
Maybe start over and not use Democracy to classify America
Joseph Doublin
A constitutional republican is a form of democracy you imbecile.
@@wolfstar675 hmm. Imbecile? Constitutional Republican? Maybe look at yourself first.
@@wolfstar675 The founders described the form of government they established for the United States as "Republicanism"(government by representation). In Federalist Papers nine and Ten what is meant by a "Republic" in contrast to a "Democracy" is explained by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison respectively. "Democratic Republic" would be considered an oxymoron. Pun intended. We can learn together without insulting each other. The crooks in present day American government have done a great job in keeping we the American people at each other's throats while they continue to screw us over collectively.
The 'anti feds' dont sound like the tea party at all.
Sounds like libertarians.
Soooooo.... we're just gonna ignore the giant chained elephant in the room?? Huge amount of the backroom haggling going on then was southern states concern about the national abolition of slavery. Hence Jefferson's anti-federalism (are we allowed to say that?) Hamilton wanted an empowered federal gov't that could eventually defeat a rebellion of southern states. Writing was on the wall even then. Anti-feds couldn't make a pro slavery argument - of course - because it would have the opposite effect. They need other arguments against federalism.
Hamilton wanted a government of the wealthy and wellborn. The AoC made no mention of slavery. The CONstitution codified it.
Arguing AGAINST the constitution to justify limited government? That's dripping with so much irony that it makes my fingers wet!
I don't understand, have not the basic complaints been shown to have been accurate over the last 200+ years?
+transcendentape
THIS^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think I'm edgy enough to participate in most of these conversations that are going to be happening in this video's comments
+Greg Moberg or perhaps you are too edgy.
Nah, just too lazy to defend a position