Federalists vs Anti Federalists: Size and Scope of The Government | Can a Free People Govern Themselves

➡ In this discussion, Ron Partain and Carrington McDuffie explore the historical debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists over the size and scope of the Republic. They discuss how Federalists, like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, believed a strong national government was necessary to protect liberty, while anti-Federalists feared such a structure would lead to tyranny. The anti-Federalists advocated for smaller, localized governments where citizens had direct ties to their representatives. This debate continues to influence modern discussions about federal versus state power and the limits of national authority.
➡ The text discusses American flag etiquette, the symbolism of its elements, and the pride of being from certain states. It also delves into the Federalist argument for the Constitution, highlighting the belief that a large republic can preserve liberty and prevent the dominance of a single faction. The text emphasizes the importance of representation, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the partnership between federal and state governments.
➡ The text discusses the Federalists’ belief in a strong but limited national government for security, prosperity, and liberty. It highlights how they thought the Constitution would balance power between the federal and state governments. However, over time, some people have ignored or changed parts of the Constitution for their own gain. The text also debates whether the federal and state governments were partners or rivals, with some arguing that the states handed off responsibilities they didn’t want to the federal government.
➡ The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the proposed Constitution would lead to a large, consolidated republic, which they believed would eventually result in despotism. They argued that such a large republic would be impractical and dangerous, as it would lead to a clash of opinions and potentially consolidate power in the hands of a few. They also feared that the new government would not be able to restrain itself, leading to an expansion of federal power at the expense of liberty. The Anti-Federalists believed that the only way to preserve republicanism was to limit the size and scope of government and ensure that power remained close to the people.
➡ The text discusses the influence of staff who work for congressmen, regardless of who is in office, and their role in shaping votes. It also delves into the investigation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by the Reese Committee, revealing their objective to merge the US and Soviet Union. The conversation then shifts to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate over the Constitution, highlighting the compromise that led to the Bill of Rights. The text concludes with a discussion on the impact of centralization on finance and the importance of decentralization, as exemplified by cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
➡ The Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, were created to convince New York to accept the Constitution. Despite their efforts, the Constitution barely passed in New York. The Anti-Federalists, who believed the federal government would grow out of control, were largely proven right over time. The discussion also touched on the contrasting cultures of New England and the southern states, and how power and wealth have shifted over the years.
➡ The conversation revolves around a series of discussions about secret societies, particularly focusing on Yale University and Skull and Bones. The discussion also touches on the influence of these societies on various sectors like commerce, presidency, Supreme Court, and foreign policy. The speaker mentions an upcoming session about late 1960s Bonesmen and plans to discuss Blackstone and Blackrock, aiming to clear some misconceptions. The conversation ends with the speaker announcing his return with another discussion with Mike.

We are live. Welcome everybody, to the Untold History Channel. My name is Ron Partain and I am joined on this Tuesday, the 27th of May, by my good friend, Carrington McDuffie. How are you, Carrington? I’m good. Ready for delving into this today. How are you? I am well and I don’t know if this is our last day because I’m not sure exactly where Doug is. He has not, he has not contacted me, so I don’t know what his status is. So we may get another week of this. We don’t 100% know, but I mean, if we don’t do this, then what we’re going to do is we’re going to dig into the Federalist and anti Federalist papers big time.

So this is not just a, this is really just kind of more of a, of a general summary based on the, on, on, on a couple, excuse me, a couple of the arguments that they had amongst each other about, you know, about just issues that they were in disagreement over. And, and so the first, first week we covered what the. I think we. The first week we covered here, I haven’t actually. Right here. Because we’ve done three. Yeah, let me see here. Last one was the parts of government. I know that the three, you know, the balance.

So the first thing that we covered was the Bill of Rights. Right. Then we did the central government powers. Yeah. Okay. And then we did the three branches of government with. Which is, which was the checks and balances. And today we’re going to do the size and scope of the Republic. And essentially the question is, is can a free people govern themselves? Yeah. Right. What does it even mean to be free? That’s a. Mm. Absolutely. So, and this, and this week is going to be a lot. Last week with the Bill of Rights, really what we should have probably done.

Or with the, with the. I’m sorry, with the three branches of government that. Sorry, I woke up at like 3 o’ clock this morning. Don’t make me start. Yeah, I know. I, I’m, I may, I may like pause it and go get a cup of coffee or something. Be like, like, I’ll let you read while I go get a cup of coffee. Oh. Hmm. Let’s see here. Okay, but this is. Yeah. The we had last week. It was last week didn’t go as well as I wanted to. That’s just probably me being kind of a perfectionist, I suppose.

But this week I think is going to be a lot better. It’s probably going to be a lot more elaborate. A lot more in depth. Right. It was more of an outline last week, but still, really. Key points, though. Yes, agreed, 100%. So. Well, with that said, let’s jump in and get the party started here. Okay. So, Federalists versus the anti Federalists and the debate on the size and scope of the Republic. So here is the introduction. Key differences between the Federalists and anti Federalists, at least in terms of their argument. Okay. Want me to take over here? Oh, yeah, this is.

Okay. Well, this is awesome. You’re gonna go get coffee. Yeah, I may. I may. But you. You have the. You have the document, do you not? I do. Although I don’t have control over the scrolling of it, so. No, no, no, I think I sent you. I sent you. You did. I just have it on my phone. I don’t. You know. Yeah, it’s not printed out or anything. All right. If I have to, I can read it off my phone, but. Yeah, no, I’ll. I’ll make it be a little hard to read it off my phone.

I could do it. Well, let’s do this. Let’s just start and let’s see how you. Maybe it’s going to perk you right up. Yeah. The debate between the Federalists and anti Federalists over the ratification of the US Constitution was not just a disagreement over structure, but a clash of foundational worldviews about government, liberty, and human nature. At the heart of the dispute was a fundamental question. Could a vast and diverse republic preserve the freedoms of its citizens, or would it inevitably slide into centralized tyranny? The Federalists, including figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, believed that the new Constitution offered a framework to safeguard liberty through a strong but constrained national government.

They viewed the existing Articles of Confederation as dangerously weak, incapable of maintaining unity, defending the country, or promoting economic stability. In their view, a large republic would protect against tyranny by diluting factionalism and promoting a broad, inclusive political system. Conversely, the anti Federalists feared that the proposed Constitution created a centralized structure too distant from the people. They believed true liberty could only survive in small, localized governments where citizens had close direct ties to their representatives. Leaders like Brutus, Cato, and the Federal Farmer argued that the Constitution lacked explicit protections for individual rights and would lead to an elite political class detached from the concerns of ordinary Americans.

While Federalists championed mechanisms like checks and balances, a bicameral legislature, and a system of federalism to maintain balance and accountability, the anti Federalists questioned whether these tools could truly limit power in such an expansive system. They warned that ambition and corruption would grow unchecked, and that the states and the people would ultimately be dominated by a distant, powerful central authority. This foundational disagreement over the size and scope of the Republic remains one of the most enduring questions in American political thought. The arguments of both sides continue to echo in modern debates over federal versus state power, representative government, and the appropriate limits of national authority.

Yep. Yeah, absolutely. We’re still on that. You know, the. I mean, well, okay, so first thing, we. If we did have. If we actually had bicameral legislature, I think we would be in a lot better situation. We don’t have a bicameral legislature, even though we sort of do. We sort of do. We sort of do. But see, the bicameral legislature was supposed to be where the. It was supposed to have two sets of constituents. Okay. The House of Representatives. The constituency of the House of Representatives was the people. Yes. The constituency of the Senate was the state governments.

And the state governments were considered to be. Prior to the 14th amendment and to. And prior to the War of Northern Aggression, the states themselves were actually considered individual countries. Right. Not. Not, you know, a unified United States. Yeah. Not an amalgamation quite so much as. Correct. Yes. Which. And having them as individualized countries leans more toward a local focus on governance. If we. If you. If you look at it what. What it is today, the states to the federal government are very similar to what the counties are to the. To the. To the state government.

And that was not. What was it? That’s not what it was supposed to be. I mean, the states are more independent. Yes. Than the counties are. But I’m speaking in terms of relativity. You know, if you compare the states to their relationship to the Federal Government in 2025 compared to 1825, it is a significant difference. Yeah. Because people didn’t talk about. When they asked, where are you from? You know, I mean, like, for example, Robert E. Lee. Robert E. Lee was given by Abraham Lincoln. He was given the option or he was. He was. He was offered the.

The. The full. Like the. The. He was to be the top commander to the top general of Union forces. He was offered that position before the war for what I call the War of Northern Aggression. He was offered that position and he declined because he said that he could not raise his hand against his home state of Virginia, which was his home. He called it his home. Yeah. And that’s. I mean, that’s how they viewed it. That’s. That’s how the people of the, you know, of yesteryear. That’s how they viewed their state, their State was that their state was their country.

And interestingly enough, do you remember, do you remember in the mo. In the John Adams documentary or the docudrama when it was, when John John Adams and Jefferson had. It was like their first. Was one of their first two meetings and they were right outside of Independence hall and he said, he. Adams said something to Jefferson and he said, I’d rather be home in my country. And he looks at him and he says, would you not, would you not rather be home in your country? And he says, yes, Mr. Jefferson, I think I would. And he says, yeah, yeah, because they viewed their states as the country, as their countries, as their country.

Yeah. And I think some states have a stronger identity that way today than others and have a lot of pride about that. And you know, I mean, in Texas you’ll see as many Texas flags. And this is unusual. I’ve never seen it in any other state. There are as many Texas flags flown in, in Texas as there are American flags. It’s on an equal footing with the American flag. Texas is the only. Texas is the only flag that is on equal footing to the American flag. Yeah, all others, all others have to be. I mean they have to have a position of where they’re put.

Like the American flag is to the left. Always to the left. And little flag etiquette for you, right? You’re the flag guy. Oh, yeah. Oh, that’s right. You know that. I do know that. Yeah, that’s right. So I thought you might be interested. Flag etiquette. Flag etiquette. The blue field leads or if the flag or, or the blue field is always in the upper left hand corner. If the blue field is static, it is always in the upper left hand corner or it is always against the, against the. It is. It is always touching the, the pole.

So. Right, right. So yeah, and, and so, and do, do you just hear. Just because I’m, I’m a little nerd about this. Do you know what the, do you know what the elements of the, of the flag mean? Well, we have the stripes for the colonies and we have the stars for the states and which were originally the colonies, but that changed. Right. As we added. As we became one nation and as, as states were added to the Union. Well, so little fun fact. As states were added to the Union, they also added stripes. But you told me that.

Yeah, but they, once they got to a certain point, I was like, okay, now we can’t keep adding stripes. We’re just going to leave the original 13 getting a little stripy and Then we’ll just stars. Okay, but, okay, so, but, but. So you got. The stars represent the states or represent how many states are in the union at this point. Yeah, you, you’ve got the 13 stripes that represent the 13 original colonies. Yeah, you have. But then you also have three other elements. Oh, you know, you’ve told me this and for some reason it escapes me.

It has to do with how the. In the inset of the. Nope, nope. The field. Is it the field? All right, I’m not going to guess. You tell me. It’s red, white and blue. Right. Blue represents courage, white represents purity, and red represents the bloodshed for the country. Right. So anyway, fun little fact. Yes. Feel the blue field as a field is really important too. And I don’t know that it has any specific meaning, but when I look at the flag and I see that it’s blue because it’s, it’s, it represents courage. Courage. But I also see.

Well, you also have a night sky with stars, you know, and that’s in the, the. Our, you know, our Star Spangled Banner also. But anyway, we could go on. Yes, we could. But as far as, like some states having more of a sense of identity that way, I, I wouldn’t know. Like, when I think of Washington state, I don’t think of them as going, we are the country of Washington. You know, there isn’t that same. No, I would say you have maybe. I’d say you probably have four or five states that really are like, you know, they have a lot of pride about who they are.

One would. I think number one would be Texas. Yeah, I think number two would probably be Arizona, because I lived in Arizona. And I’ll tell you that in Arizona, the mindset of people who live in Arizona is very similar to the mindset of people in Texas. It just is. You don’t get a lot of. It doesn’t get a lot of fanfare. I would also actually throw California into that. Yeah, I agree. There’s a lot of people who still are very proud they’re from California and I’m one of them. You know, listen, I have a love hate relationship with California, but, but I mean, I mean, if, you know, if I’m being completely honest, I love California.

It’s home. It’s home. And I, you know, I don’t want, I want it to be fixed. I’d say Florida. I think Florida has become a place where people are really proud to be from. Yeah. And I think. And I think Hawaii. People that are from Hawaii are very proud. Yeah. That’s a good point about. That’s a good point about Hawaii. I think Texas has the most warrior. Isn’t quite the right. Oh, yeah, no. Oh, no. You know what I mean? I would say that the. I would say that the pride that the other four that I mentioned, I would say the pride the other four have combined probably don’t equal what the pride of Texas is.

Right. Because it was the Republic of Texas and the wars with, you know, all the war with Mexico. And when people come to Texas for the first time, it’s always startling to see how the Texas flag flies. Anyway. Okay. We really went down there. That’s okay. That’s. That’s a lot of fun. That is fun. Yeah. All right, so now we’re going. So. So. So this is going to be the Federalist argument for the Constitution and for the size and scope of government. Okay. The Federalists believed the proposed Constitution created a structure capable of preserving liberty while governing a large and diverse republic.

James Madison, in federalist number 10, argued that a large republic was actually a powerful defense against the tyranny of factions. Extend the sphere, he wrote, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests, you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. The broader the nation, the more difficult it would be for any single faction to dominate. Madison saw the problem of faction as a root threat to freedom. The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.

Since faction cannot be eliminated without destroying liberty, it must be controlled. A large republic with many competing interests would prevent any single interest from prevailing. Sorry. That’s okay. In federalist number 51, Madison further explained that the Constitution was designed to control the abuses of power through structural mechanisms. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. A complex republic with separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism would maintain stability and ensure no one part of government could tyrannize the rest. Alexander Hamilton echoed these views in Federalist no. 9, arguing that improvements in political science had rendered Montesquieu’s fears of large republics obsolete.

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement, Hamilton wrote, referring to the innovations of separation of powers and checks and balances. These would allow for a larger republic to function without descending into despotism. Hamilton also emphasized in federalist number 23 that national defense and civil order required a robust federal government. The principal purposes to be answered by union are the common defense of the members, the preservation of the public peace, and the Regulation of commerce, which with foreign nations and between the states. See his point. The Federalists rejected the idea that a large republic would dilute liberty.

Madison argued in federalist number 10 that representation was the solution. The effect of representation is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens. These representatives would act as a filter, balancing local interests with national needs. In Federalist 14, Madison tackled the geographic argument head on. The great objection drawn from the extent of the country is obviated by the moderation of the government. The powers delegated are but few. The federal government would only have authority in certain areas. State governments would handle the rest.

Madison also noted in federalist number 46 that federal and state governments were not rivals, but partners. The federal and state governments are in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers and designated for different purposes. Can I. I want to jump in on this. Yeah. Because this. Okay, so in 14, when he says that the geographic. Tackling the geographic argument head on, that the great object drawn from the extent of the country is obviated by the modern modernization of government. The powers dealt, the powers delegated are but few. That is true because again, what was the Constitution? The Constitution was not a document that said what the federal government could do.

The document was a limitation on what the federal government could not do. And that. And so that’s why, you know, when I look back at a lot of these guys that are Federalists, I genuinely believe that they had the best interests of the country in mind. I would agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. And another thing that it’s hard for us to see maybe from our perspective, but at the time this happened, it wasn’t just a war that was revolutionary was this whole concept of a government by the people. And we’re so used to that that we don’t really, maybe most of us don’t really think about that much.

But to have a government that does not consist of the aristocracy is. Is so huge in itself that they’re looking at this truly revolutionary idea and thinking, look, it’s us, the people. You know, how bad can it be? Right? There’s that too. Well, and see, when they talk about the. How there was. How there would be checks and balances and there would be things that they would be. That would protect from the. The fears that the anti Federalists had, I believe that they absolutely put those in place for that purpose. And the problem is that as time went on, you had corrupt People who wanted to have more power.

And what they did was they eroded certain elements of the Constitution or change or obfuscated or just outright ignored certain elements of it to, to circumvent what the checks and balances that were put in place by the founders, you know, were intended to be. So. Yeah, so. So I, So I don’t blame the Federalists for our problems. No. And not at all. I, I blame the men and women who completely ignored their oath to. That they swore to uphold the Constitution. And when in this next one where it said the federal and state governments were not rivals but partners, I’m not sure I am on board with that.

You mean you don’t believe that’s. I think that truly was their ideal. But what are you thinking? That it wasn’t? No, I don’t think so, because the. Okay, so when the, because, see, the state governments handed off parts of the Constitution that they did not want to have to deal with. All right. Like the, the, the country of Virginia did not want to have to defend its borders from the country of Maryland or the country of North Carolina. They wanted to have, you know, they wanted to know that that little place down there wasn’t going to be, you know, it wasn’t going to be Hatfields and McCoys.

Right. Yeah. So they didn’t want that. So what they did was they gave the national defense to the, to the federal government and said, okay, you are now in charge of protecting our borders. And that’s why you had, that’s why you had the, the. That’s why you had the Navy was to protect the sea going, you know, this, the navigation on the seas to protect commerce. See, commerce on the seas. That’s why, you know, the first real true war that we fought was, you know, outside of the, after the Revolution, the first war that we fought was the, was the Barbary pirates war.

So, you know, if you, I’m sure you’ve heard the, the Marine hymn from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli. Okay, so the shores of Tripoli was the, you know, that was when they went to the Barbary coast in Tripoli and, and they took care of the, of the, of the pirates over there. So anyway, I’m just not, I, I don’t, I don’t necessarily agree that they are partners. I understand what he’s trying to say, but I think, I think they each have their own roles. But I don’t, I don’t necessarily think they were partners.

I just think they were. Well, I think. Well, I think he wants it. He’s pointing to that, saying, let’s be partners, not rivals. And that will make this balance work if we make. If we do it as. As a partnership. So it’s the best of everything for everyone. And I get, I get that point. I get that point. I’m just saying, I don’t know if I agree with the notion that the, that they entered into. Into it, into. Into as a partnership, because again, the states were supposed to be with this. The states were supposed to supersede the.

Govern the federal government. The federal government was created by the states, therefore, you know, it was supposed to serve the states, you know. Yes, exactly. So maybe that’s where you’re parting ways with the idea partnership, because what we have now is we have the federal government that’s in control of the states. Right. And we also have the judicial system way out of control, making law instead of interpreting it. And. Yeah, yeah. Anyway, moving forward, trying to enforce law. Okay. The idea that only small republics could work was based on outdated historical models. The Federalists argued. Madison asked In Federalist number 14, have not the people of America, in their collective capacity, been accustomed to contemplate and to be accustomed to a confederated republic? The Constitution merely refined the system Americans already used.

Hamilton addressed fears of national dominance in federalist number 17, observing that local governments would always command greater loyalty. The people of the respective states would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union. That hasn’t proven to be true, but I can see why he would say that, because as we’ve been discussing, the states thought of themselves as their own country. In Federalist number 45, Madison reassured readers that the new government would not consume state authority. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

Most governance would remain with the states. The Federalists believed that a strong but limited national government was essential for security, prosperity and liberty. As Hamilton stated In federalist number 70, energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. Without effective leadership and centralized coordination, the nation would be weak and fragmented. Hamilton elaborated in federalist number 27 that the federal government under the Constitution would gain legitimacy through its efficiency. It merits particular attention in this place that the laws of the Confederacy as to the objects to which they extend, will become the laws of each state.

National laws would apply uniformly, solving the chaos of competing state rules. In federalist number 39, Madison clarified that the Constitution created a hybrid of federal and national government. The proposed Constitution is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution, but a composition of both. This flexibility would allow the government to adapt and remain responsive. The idea that republicanism could only survive in small communities was to the Federalists a fatalistic misreading of modern governance. Madison insisted in federalist number 10, the smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it. This made smaller republics more, not less, vulnerable to domination by a majority.

In federalist number 55, Madison reassured that that the proposed House of Representatives, though small at first, would grow with the population and maintain proper representation. The number of representatives in the first instance is a mere initial number and may be increased by the legislature. Hamilton, in federalist number 28, argued that federal power would not inherently lead to tyranny, power being almost always the rival of power. The general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. In federalist number 22, Hamilton warned that disunity would make the states vulnerable.

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. A strong union was necessary for survival. Ultimately, the Federalists believed that their plan was both bold and pragmatic. As Madison concluded in Federalist 14, is it not the glory of the people of America that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity? The Constitution was not a rejection of liberty, but a blueprint for preserving it under modern conditions. The large republic was not a threat, it was the solution.

Yeah, and that is, that’s. Well, I, I again, I believe their hearts and belief system was in the right place. Absolutely. I mean it’s amazing what they put together. And of course they had some foundation to work from. They didn’t thoroughly invent it, you know, from the ground up, but still. Yeah, okay, so he’s Hamilton, I think it is, is saying, look, Americans are forward looking too. They’re not going to just hang on to the past. Okay, let’s what the. See what these guys have to say because we’re not hearing. Do you remember which we see we have Cato Bruno and Federal Farmer.

Do you remember Jefferson wasn’t any one of those, was he? I don’t believe he was. We had Patrick Henry and two others and I forget who the third was. Dickinson. Let’s see here, let me look it up here. Who I thought he was Cato or Brutus, but maybe I’m just making that up. I think Patrick Henry was federal farmer. Let’s see. Okay. The famous anti Federalists were Robert Yates, who went by the name of Brutus. George Clinton likely went by Cato. Richard. Richard Henry Lee, possibly, who was a federal farmer. And I think Richard Henry Lee was the grandfather of Robert E.

Lee. Yes, I think. I think that’s right. And maybe Patrick Henry went by his own name. And that’s one reason Samuel Bryan went bicentennial and then James Winthrop went by Agrippa. But I think that. See here. Oh. While many anti Federalists wrote anonymously, some openly opposed ratification. And that were. Those were Patrick Henry. Yeah. George Mason, Elbridge Gary. Samuel Adams. Now that’s odd. That’s odd. Sam Adams is odd. No, that Samuel Adams was an anti Federalist while John Adams was a Federalist and Luther Martin, one of the most vocal opponents during the Constitutional Convention. So, but, but now let’s see here.

Who were the Federalists? Madison, J. Hamilton are our main ones. So Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, John Adams, John Marshall and Benjamin Franklin. Right, Franklin. Yeah. But the most. But the people that contributed the most in terms of authorship were Hamilton, Madison and Jay for sure. A lot. They wrote a lot, those guys. Well, and that was. And, and writing back then was an art. Yes, much more so. And also it wasn’t. There wasn’t radio, there wasn’t television, so there wasn’t Internet. So there weren’t. It was reading. And yes. Pamphlets. Newspapers. It was reading by candlelight.

Yeah, that. And there were no pictures. And there were no pictures, right? Nope. You have to actually read the words and you had to picture it in your mind. Yeah. Well, let’s see what we picture in our minds from the anti Federalist argument. The anti Federalists were united in their concern that a large and consolidated republic, as proposed by the Constitution, would eventually lead to despotism. Writing in Brutus Number one, the author opened his case with an unequivocal warning. History furnishes no example of a free republic anything like the extent of the United States. To Brutus, no historical precedent could justify such a grand experiment.

He elaborated that a large republic would not only be impractical, but fundamentally dangerous. In a republic, he warned, the manners, sentiments and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions. In such a setting, consensus would be impossible and government would either break down or consolidate power in a few hands. Representation was a key concern. In Brutus Number three, the writer argued that under the proposed system, the number of representatives will be too small to possess a proper knowledge of the interests of the people.

A handful of elites removed from the daily concerns of their constituents would rule over millions. Yeah, he could see how quickly it was going to grow. Cato, another prominent anti Federalist, echoed this sentiment in Cato number three, writing, the people of America are too dispersed to be connected in one government. They will not be able to exercise their rights nor to watch those appointed to represent them. The great distances involved would naturally produce detachment and neglect. And we know that even though we overcome that distance with communication, there’s still detachment and neglect. The anti Federalists believed that government must remain close to the people to be accountable.

Federal Farmer, in his second letter, wrote, it is natural for men to be attached to their local governments. These are the governments which are nearest and best known to them. Power should remain where citizens could see and influence it directly. In Brutus number four, the author further warned that over time, representatives would become the masters and not the servants of the people. The separation of constituents from their rulers would erode the very foundation of a free republic. The Antifederalists also questioned whether the new government could restrain itself. Brutus number one expressed concern that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause would allow Congress to exercise every power which they may conceive to be for the general welfare.

Such vague language invited abuse. Wow, wow, wow. Talk about Nostradamus, boy. Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause. That is exactly what has happened. They have. This is. I mean, he just. He nailed it. Yeah. I think it’s just an understanding of human nature. He nailed it anyway. Proceed. Yeah, yeah. Brutus warned again, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring voice of experience, that every man and every body of men invested with power are ever apt to increase it. Without strict boundaries, the federal government would expand at the expense of liberty. Ain’t that the truth? In Federal Farmer letter number six, the writer criticized the limited number of representatives and their potential aristocratic bias.

It is not possible that one man can represent 100,000 if he attends to his duty. It will be to aristocratical and monarchical views. The anti Federalists also raised alarms about the judiciary. In Brutus number 15, the writer called attention to the danger of lifetime appointments. There is no power above them to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. Such unchecked judicial power could become tyrannical. Wow. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Boy, Brutus is just freaking knocking it out of the park. Yeah.

And tyrannical not just because they have the power, but because of all the political relationships with other branches of government. In Brutus number two, the writer argued that without a bill of rights, nothing would prevent the federal government from infringing on core liberties. They still do it with the Bill of Rights. Yeah. There. Yeah. Did you see Colorado? Oh my goodness. There is no declaration of rights and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states. The declarations of rights in the separate states are no security. The anti Federalists feared that as the federal government grew, state governments would be rendered obsolete.

Federal Farmer asked, what is to become of the state governments? Are they to be annihilated? This concern reflected a broader fear that local governance would be subordinated entirely. Economic inequality was another concern. In Brutus number one, the author warned, the wealthy and ambitious will combine and by this combination the poor and weak will be sacrificed. A distant government influenced by powerful interests would serve the elite. The military was also seen as a danger. Brutus number eight cautioned against standing armies. A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens.

Standing armies, he argued, had always been tools of oppression. In cato. In Cato no. 5, the author emphasized that centralized military power was incompatible with liberty. A large standing army in time of peace has ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a people. In their view, only small homogenous republics could preserve civic virtue. As Cato number three wrote, a republic must be confined, must be confined to a narrow compass or it will be torn to pieces by its own weight. Large republics would become corrupt and eventually imperial. Brutus number one emphasized that over time distant representatives would grow corrupt.

They will use the power when they have acquired it to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition. This theme of inevitable elite domination recurred frequently. Federal Farmer Letter No. 1 warned that the idea of one entire republic governed by one legislature is impracticable and contrary to all experience. He saw the consolidation of power as a fantasy that would destroy true self government. Anti Federalists insisted that liberty could only be preserved through decentralization. That’s where we. Where we’ve landed, right? Brutus number one wrote. It is impossible for the people of such an extensive country as the United States to keep up a national sentiment and to suppress the.

Suppress the ambition of individuals. Yeah, I’m sorry. I’m apologize. I’m chatting with the. With the. They did not reject union, but they favored a confederation. In Federal Farmer Letter no. 11, he wrote, a confederation appears to me to be the most natural and the safest system. It provides for the defense of the states without destroying their internal sovereignty. The anti Federalists saw virtue and freedom as rooted in locality. Cato number seven warned, when the federal head shall acquire considerable power, it will be impossible for the people to resist oppression. Only through proximity could accountability be maintained.

In conclusion, the Antifederalists believed the proposed Constitution threatened to destroy the very liberty it promised to protect. The only hope for preserving republicanism was to limit the size and scope of government and ensure that power remained close to the people. Yeah, that size and scope thing. Yeah, I’m, I, you know, I look at the. I look at what the anti Federalist said and the Antifederalists were. They were like 200 years before their time. Yeah, well, they were reading Human Nature really well and the Federalists were more about the structure and the theory and the. It seems to me the anti Federalists were more on the ground and more relating to human n.

And it’s a great combination. I mean, because the anti Federalists weren’t putting together a constitution, you know. Right. Well, I, I don’t know what they could have done different. Hey, I’m just a songwriter. I mean, I, you know, I don’t know, man. I mean that sincerely. I mean. Yes, I agree. What could they do? Well, I mean, what could they have done differently that would have been better? I mean, I personally, I think the Constitution is a fantastic document. Term limits. No, because he. It’s the term limits aren’t the problem. You know, the. I don’t know if they could have done anything.

I mean, because you have to have watchdogs, but the watch. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse house. And how do you get around that? That’s what we’re doing now. Right. I see what people talk about when they say term limits, but see the problem is that the staffers that man, the offices of the congressional representatives, they are there regardless of who is in office. For the most part they keep their jobs there. That’s like civil service. Yeah, yeah. They just work for whoever is the congressman of the time, but they have their political views and you know, they do blocking and they do enhancing and all kinds of gameplay.

They. And they are the ones who have a tremendous amount of influence over how, how somebody’s going to vote. Because they tell them how to vote. Yeah, they tell them what they want them to know. I think that’s right. I guess preventing NGOs somehow, you know, preventing lobbying. I don’t know. Yeah. And see, the NGO is a big thing that gets, you start to get into some really, really nasty stuff with the NGOs. Do you remember the Reese Committee? No. Remind me. So the Reese Committee was. Reese, I think was. I can’t remember if he was a congressional representative or a senator from Tennessee.

Okay. What he did was he, he hired Norman Dodd to head this, this committee and go investigate like all the foundations, which at that time were the non governmental organizations who were essentially like, what today is usaid, you know, if, if you will. I mean, that’s, that’s not exact, but it’s a parallel. And he went out to them and he literally asked them, you know, what was their, you know, you know, what are you, what are you, what are you guys trying to do here? And they were very open and honest about their objectives and they stated their stated objectives were to in a cohesive way, successfully merge the Soviet Union with the United States.

And I’m not, I’m not. That’s not a joke. I know, I know. It’s just such an absurd idea. Yeah, yeah. Well, and look, and all the agencies too, you know. Is this the guy that. Is this guy Tennessee, he’s a representative. Yeah, let me see here. I’m gonna. 21 to 61. Let me see if I can. Known for his staunch anti communist stance and conservative views. So, yeah, that, that would be him because he was the one undercovering, covering this idea of a communist, basically probably a takeover is what they were. I want to see if this has.

And they wound up all working for China or ccp, you know, so what that turned into. Okay, here we go. So, yeah, here, let me, let me play this real quick because this is, this, this is actually kind of a big deal. Let’s see here. Okay, let me share this and I’ll hit play. Change the audio to this. Here we go. I did. And on arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves.

And before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and stated he said, Mr. Dodd, all of us that have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war. We’ve had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from The White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of. And at this time, the White House was? I believe when he was doing this, the White House was Eisenhower.

These directives is. I said, yes, Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know. Whereupon he made this statement to me, namely, Mr. Dodd, we are here operate on similar. In response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet union. Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair, of course didn’t. But my response to Mr. Gaither then was, well, Mr. Gaither, I can now answer your first question. You force the Congress of the United states to spend $150,000 to find out what you just told me.

Why don’t you. I said, of course, legally you’re entitled to make grants for this purpose, but I don’t think you’re entitled to withhold that information from the people of the country to whom you’re indebted for your tax exemption. So why don’t you tell the people of the country? That’s what you told me. And his answer was, we would not think of doing any such thing. So then I said, well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you force the Congress to spend this money in order to find out what you’ve just told me, Dodd, you have. So, yeah, so, I mean, the, that was the goal.

That was the objective of what of all these, all these foundations, the, you know, the Rockefeller foundation and the Carnegie foundation and all these endowments and I mean, that they, they were working on doing that going back into the freaking 30s. Yeah. I mean, look at it. What. What was one of the first acts that FDR did when he came to power? I don’t know. I mean, I always. He, he recognized the Soviet Union. Oh, yeah. Well, and look, the New Deal. Well, yeah, and the New Deal. But prior to, prior to fdr, no administration had recognized the Soviet Union.

I mean, Russia had been recognized as a country, but the Soviet Union had not been recognized as a country. Right, yeah. Little interesting topic there. Yes, very. And how it ties in. Here’s the summary and the end result. Okay. Well, we’re looking at the end result, but I know they’re talking about the design of the government, right? Yeah. All right. Yeah. The end result was what ultimately was hatched. Yes. The federalist and anti federalist debate over the Constitution was a foundational clash about how best to preserve liberty in a newly independent nation. Federalists believed that a strong but limited central government, structured with checks and balances was essential to prevent disorder and safeguard individual rights across a vast and diverse republic.

Anti Federalists, on the other hand, feared that such a government would be too distant, too powerful and prone to elite domination, ultimately undermining the freedoms it claimed to protect. Federalists argued for an extended republic with mechanisms to manage faction and ambition, while anti Federalists emphasized the need for local control, civic virtue and a written guarantee of personal freedoms. The end result was a compromise. The Constitution was ratified in 1788, but only after the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights, which was ratified in 1791. This addressed many of the Antifederalists concerns and helped secure broader public support.

Support. Although the Federalists quote one in terms of ratification, the anti Federalists shaped the long term trajectory of American constitutional development. Their skepticism of centralized power remains a critical part of American political discourse to this day. And I really feel, you know, this is this point of decentralization that they, that they hammered and that term does. Only came up once in that summary that you put together. But when you look at what’s going on with finance and cryptocurrencies in particular, that whole push, what Bitcoin was all about is decentralization. And that. Because that’s what’s happened, Right.

The centralization of finance, which has left a lot, most of us not in a great position financially. So that’s like a key. Absolutely. I just feel like the NF Federalists, everything that they set forth as problems, there isn’t a single one that hasn’t been lived out by us or experienced by us, wouldn’t you say? I would say that’s probably accurate. That’s. Yeah. And that’s not a criticism of, of the Federalists or the Constitution. It’s just when you think about if that hadn’t happened, what would it look like today if we didn’t have that Bill of Rights.

Right, exactly. Which gets trampled on anyway. And that’s why I was referring to Colorado, because they’ve just passed a law in Colorado that, that you have to use in public preferred pronouns or they’re going to arrest you or find you or something. Did you see that? No, I did not see that. First Amendment. Yeah, I know. Right. So this is my good buddy Warhamshire, AKA Brady, and he is a, he’s an expert in all this stuff. I mean, he’s even more, more, he’s more well read than I am on on the, a lot of the pre or you know, the, the revolutionary period literature and in fact, I’ll let you tell if you want to tell her what you know, what you have access to.

And this is my good friend Carrington. She is a, she’s a singer, songwriter and a voice actor. Howdy. Good. Hey, nice to meet you. And very and very passionate about things like this. Well then I like her already. No, I did. Carrington, I did see you on an earlier show with Ron, so I’m a little bit familiar with you. This is one of my all time favorite topics. Yes. Federalist versus Anti Federalist Papers. And stop me if I’m repeating something you’ve already said in interest of time, but Doug Gibbs and Alan Myers and I about two years ago started going through the Federalist and Anti Federalist papers and we got through about 14 or Federalist 14 or 15.

And then I couldn’t continue on the show regularly. But one of the, one of the things I’d like to really point out is the whole point of the Federalist Papers, of course was to sell the Constitution to New York State. Oh, specifically to New York. Right. Okay. It was Hamilton and John Jay, both New Yorkers. Jay got ill and Madison came in and helped him out a little bit and actually wrote more in the Federalist Papers than they ever intended to. What I find fascinating is they spent all this time and effort writing the Federalist Papers and the final ratification vote in New York State was 30 to 27.

So the Constitution that they promised us and ratified and then changed their mind about one day before the ink got dry barely even got through New York after all the efforts. And I 100 agree with your statement that the anti Federalist ended up being right about just about everything. I don’t see anything that they said that hasn’t come true one way or another. And then sometimes in some cases just exceedingly, obviously so. And that we’re dealing with right now very much. It’s interesting how New York. Well, it’s been, I mean it’s been some, it’s been some decades.

Right. So. So a lot of changes and flips have taken place. But looking at New York State now compared to where it stood when this, when this debate was going on, that’s a. Interesting contrast. Yeah. You know, and let me address your first statement about did they get everything wrong? Everything right? The anti Federalists, I think we could probably nitpick and say, probably find a few things that they predicted. But at the end of the day, what they were saying was you’re creating a federal government that does not have enough brakes on it, and it’s going to grow out of control because they understood the nature of concentrated power.

Right now, as far as New York goes, has it changed much? Brian McClanahan uses the term Yankees, and he’s not just referring to New York. He’s talking about basically New England, and he’s contrasting it with the agrarian culture of the south, of the southern states. And Yankees don’t actually have to be from the north. They’re people who want to impose their values upon you no matter what it takes. To me, I’ll. I’ll find that video and send it to her. You. You’ll. You’ll. That’s. That’s actually a must watch. It really is. And it’s. The name comes from.

And the name comes from the Iroquois. Which tribe? One of the Indian tribes. Who. That was the name for the white man of that region. Anyway, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, I think you’re right because it was Yang Zi in the Last of the Mohicans. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. That’s where that comes from. Yeah. I wasn’t. I think you’re probably right about that. I can’t confirm or deny, you know, speaking less Mohicans than just. Not that, just because I’m being silly, but they kept talking about Kentucky and I was like, what the heck is Kentucky? Kentucky. It’s Kentucky Northwest.

Yeah. Anyway, anyway, by the way, that’s my all time favorite movie and best soundtrack. I love that. Yeah. But you’re saying New York State, in contrast. How much? There was a lot of money for one thing, you know, early on and. Well, there was money every, There was money in every state. You had to have money to make it over here. When, you know, in those that first hundred years, no one came over here with, with, without money. It wasn’t until there was the waves of immigration later. But I’m. What, were you going to finish your thought because.

Yeah, yeah, let me drive it home. You’re on the right track. We’re thinking along parallel lines. The, the people who came over here in the 1700s or even the 1600s, they came over here because the mercantilist system of England favored those closest to the crown. And the rest of the merchants couldn’t compete. So they came over here to, you know, basically start their own mer. Merchant fortunes on all of New England, including New York. You know, you. These were people were traders, they were into shipping, and, you know, a lot of times they were pirates and smugglers and the Only difference between a pirate, a privateer is a piece of paper.

Right. So I’m in New Hampshire, I’m in Portsmouth and I’ve read a lot over the last two years. I’ve been here about the local history and it’s really phenomenal. But, but that’s a different mentality because the traders on the open seas going back to all of the maritime empires, you take what you want. Whereas the southern states were all settled by agrarians from farmers. They wanted to build a community and they didn’t like cities. And we’re going through the Constitutional Convention right now, going through Madison’s notes, Doug and I are. And one of the things you really find at the Constitutional Convention is between the Virginia plan, the New Jersey plan and what we ended up with, they were always trying to protect the big states from the small on the small states from the big Virginia being the most populous at the time with almost 800,000.

But that was always a big contrast. How do you find that balance now in Philadelphia? They thought they did and of course we blew that up with a 17. One of the things that I think that Carrington. I agree on and you may agree on it as well, is that I don’t think that the Federalists were mal intent. I don’t think they had malicious intent to the, the Antifederalists were proven right over time. But I think that the, that what was put in place, had it actually functioned the way that it was supposed to, it would have actually, it would have done what it was supposed to do, but either got ignored, circumvented or just, you know, they worked around it somehow.

So but, but, but to the point of the anti Federalists, they, I mean it was like they saw, you know, what was going to happen, you know, 100, 200 years in the future. Yeah, they just understood human nature is how it seems to me. That’s exactly right. You know, that’s exactly how I would say it. Yeah, they just understood that. And, and the, I was saying this earlier to Ron that the, the Federalists were more tacticians and theorists and you know, they were talking about the structure of government and the theory of government and the anti Federalists were talking about what people do, you know, and both are necessary.

And back to New York State for a moment. You know, New York it is, that is the Empire State. Right. There was a lot of. But back then, I don’t. Was back then New York didn’t carry the same weight that it does now. I think the, back then the, the, the state that Carried the most weight was Virginia. Was Virginia. But there was a lot of. So I have, I have ancestors who were over here in the 1600s and started in Philadelphia, but wound up in Manhattan. You know, a lot of, A lot of power moved into New York before that.

The Constitution was actually ratified and there were, I have, on my other side of my family, Dutch people who were. Lived next to John Jay actually in, in New York State. And they’re just a lot of money. Okay. So, I mean, yeah, a lot of that’s very accurate. The reason that happened was the richest man in the colony. But if you’re going to rank the states of importance, it would have gone Virginia, one, Pennsylvania, two Massachusetts, three, New York, four. Right. South Carolina would have come in at five. Yeah. The wealthiest man in the colonies was Robert Morris.

He died penniless. He lent a lot of money to the, to the Continental Army. But Rowan Hamilton became a Secretary of the Treasury. The bank of the United States. All centered around New York, Right? Exactly, exactly. All the insurance money, the banking money, you know, that all really right there in Manhattan, that little island, you know, and then you have other, other kinds of riches that came and went. I mean, when you look at New England, the, you know, there were, there were all the wailing that was coming through, coming, you know, off of those coasts.

Yeah. And that hammers my point home. The difference between the Yankees in the south, and this is the point I really want to make, is the same people that were the nationalists who call themselves the Federalist Party. The Hamiltonians. Yeah. They are the same people that became, founded the Republican Party, which put Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party caused the quote unquote Civil War. Right. And these are the same people. They have four decades of single party rule created. The robber barons. Same people from the same places going to the same boarding schools, going to the same Ivy League colleges that have controlled the government for over 200 years.

And on that note, Ron, thank you for inviting me in, but my wife just got home and. No, you’re good. So I’ve got to be. We’re, we’re, we’re. I mean, well, we, we were just about ready to, to wind it up anyway. Well, nice to meet you. Absolute pleasure. I’d love to continue the conversation. Yeah, come back. Yeah, Ron, let me know. I went to those schools that you’re talking about, so this is an interesting conversation to me. So come back, Ron, real quick. You know, Colonel Tanner Watkins and I have been doing a very long series on secret societies and we kind of got started with Yale University and Skull and Bones, but that’s devolved into these five to eight private boarding schools include.

I might hear a new answer. So I can drive to all of these things. Yes. I used to live in Portsmouth. Yeah, well, I’m in Portsmouth. Yeah. Yeah. You look at this. It is a who’s who of everyone’s controlled commerce, the presidency, Supreme Court, especially our foreign policy. And it’s the same people, and it’s. It is mercantilism in the 21st century, and it has been almost since the founding. We live in an aristocracy. Yes, well, despite the financial aristocracy that. Yeah, it’s. It’s really interesting. I’ve watched several of their shows on almost all of them, and they.

It’s. It’s, you know, I. I do a lot of stuff with. With the Colonel, and, you know, she’s very, very rarely is she just like, you know, where you have. Where she’s constantly having to pick her job off the desk and. And Brady has the ability to do that to her just about every week. Right on. We’ll. We’ll be. We’ll be hitting up a couple of late 1960s Bonesmen this week, and I think I’m going to get into Blackstone and Blackrock and really rip the COVID off some misperceptions about both. So that’ll be really, really interesting.

All right, well. Well, stick around one quick second. All right, guys, that’s going to be it for us tonight. I’ll be back in about 15 minutes with Tuesday with Mike, and I will look forward to seeing you guys then. So take care, everybody.
[tr:tra].