The Federalist/Anti Federalist Debate Central Government | LIVESTREAM BEGINS at 6:30 PM EST

➡ On May 6th, 2025, the Intel History Channel hosted a discussion about the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The hosts, including guest Carrington McDuffie, decided to focus on key arguments instead of reading the entire documents. They discussed the powers of the central government, the size and scope of the Republic, and state sovereignty. The hosts also mentioned plans to discuss the Bill of Rights and the branches of government in future sessions.
➡ The text discusses the history of central banking in the United States, starting with the first national bank chartered for 20 years. It mentions the opposition from figures like Andrew Jackson and the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The text also touches on the interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of morality in society and the mechanisms in place to prevent the abuse of power, such as regular elections, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
➡ The text discusses how the Federal Reserve and Wall Street manipulated the economy in the 1920s and 1930s to create dependence on the government. It suggests that this led to the creation of different types of socialism worldwide and a centralized government in the U.S. The text also discusses the Constitution’s intent for a balanced federal structure, with states retaining primary responsibility for matters like civil justice and domestic policy. However, it argues that over time, power has been consolidated at the federal level, leading to issues.
➡ Brutus and Montezuma, two critics of the proposed Constitution, feared it would centralize power, eroding state authority and leading to a distant, unaccountable government. They believed a true republic should govern a small territory with shared interests and values. On the other hand, Hamilton and Madison, supporters of the Constitution, argued that a large republic, with checks and balances, could ensure liberty and effective governance. They believed the country’s size, combined with representative institutions, would help preserve liberty and reduce the influence of any one faction.
➡ The text discusses differing views on the proposed Constitution. Sentinel argues it centralizes power, lacks checks on power, and doesn’t guarantee annual elections or true accountability, leading to despotism. However, Madison counters that the Constitution balances national and federal principles, protecting popular sovereignty and state autonomy. He believes fears of federal overreach are unfounded, as the people themselves are the ultimate check on federal power. Patrick Henry, however, opposes the Constitution, fearing it threatens state sovereignty and individual liberties.
➡ The text discusses the concerns of anti-federalists about the Constitution, arguing it was drafted by elites in secrecy and could lead to a powerful, distant government that threatens liberty. They believe the Constitution needs amendments to better protect individual rights and state independence. The text also highlights Brutus’ argument that the Constitution gives the federal government too much power, especially through its ability to tax, which could lead to the decline of states. The anti-federalists warn that without clear safeguards, the Constitution could pave the way for federal dominance and erode the freedoms fought for in the revolution.
➡ The speaker discusses the impact of the 18th Amendment, suggesting it may have unintentionally promoted organized crime in the U.S. and led to the creation of major government agencies. They also mention that the National Firearms Act, which regulates certain types of weapons, originated from this era. The conversation ends with plans for future discussions and thanks for the current dialogue.

Now we’re live just as you stood up. Welcome everybody. Sorry everybody, we’re having a little bit some technical difficulties today. Welcome to the Intel History Channel. It is the 6th May 2025. Doug is still out. We’ll be out for the basically the duration of May and as such I have had the opportunity to have Carrington McDuffie with us and we are going to be doing for the next three weeks we’re going to be doing basically kind of we. What we really wanted to do was read the Federalist Papers and the anti Federalist Papers in totality. But that’s like a monumental undertaking.

Yeah, that’s like half of it only right there. So. Right, right. So, so what we decided to do was basically take several of the key arguments that were like hotly debated between the antifederalists and the Federalists and do summaries of them. And today we are going to be doing summaries of the. With that doggone document go, we’re going to be doing summaries of the powers of the central government, the size and scope of the Republic and the, and state sovereignty because they all kind of those. I essentially what I did was I sought out what the top 10 were and it was the top 10 were, let me see here.

I’ll tell you what they were just, just because it kind of bears onto, on the, on, on the conversation. It was just not going to want to show up anyway. It was, it was basically the re. You know, how big of, how big was the Republic going to be? The Bill of Rights, State sovereignty, representation, the judicial branch, the Executive branch. Let’s see what was some of this. Anyway, long story short is the Bill of Rights was going to be one all, all of its own. So what I, what we decided to do is we were going to do the three that we’re doing today and then next week we’re going to do the Bill of Rights and then the following week we’re going to do essentially the judicial, the legislative and the executive or the Republic.

They, they call it representative but it’s basically, it’s how they debated the, the, the representation or the legislative branch. So with that said, let me pull up the, pull this up on stage. And this is going to be the powers of the central government. Now do you, you have, you have all these. I don’t have this printed out. I’m just looking at the screen myself. I mean I have all the, I have the collection of the papers but depends how you want to do this. I mean you’ve got this laid out so that we can work through what.

First of all, the issues were around the powers of the central government, and you’ve selected the. The relevant papers to represent that. And we don’t have the hours and hours and hours that would be. Right. Required to actually read them. So you’ve pulled out quotes that are essential to each side’s argument. And I guess we’re just gonna go over that. Right and. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Correct. Yeah. So, I mean, now, you know, people tune in because they love your voice. You have such a soothing, soft, natural, just voice that puts people to sleep. I say that as a compliment because I’ve.

I have received from multiple friends compliments on your voice. So now keep in mind that Carrington is a vocal. She does vocal work. She does read audiobooks, and she also is a musician, so she does have. I’m a recording artist. I’m a vocalist and a voice actor, so I’m a professional narrator, and I’m also a singer and I have, like six records out. So my voice is a lot. What my, you know, my world is about, but I’m not doing anything with it in particular to try to, you know, make it fit what we’re doing here today, except just discussing it with you.

And, you know, when there’s something to read, helping enunciate it because it’s. These guys wrote. They packed a lot of information into every single sentence that they wrote. You know, there was so much in, so much intent and so much content that I. I don’t know, I. I like to have something read to me because sometimes I absorb it better that way. So maybe it’s helpful, you know, to. To read it to you guys. Yeah, 100%, I agree. That’s why, you know, I mean, I have. I have. When I show my. My audible. My Audible library to people, they’re like, oh, my God.

Because I’ve been getting like two credits a month since 2012. Yes. You’ve got a big library. And actually, I think I probably got over 400 books or something. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Well, it’s a great way to take it in. I think I’ve probably about 250 books on that I’ve narrated that are on Audible. I. I think it’s somewhere around there, really. But. Well, it’s my profession, so I’ve never come across you. Well, you probably. It depends what I get cast for and this kind of stuff. I read what I get cast for. Right. When I’m getting paid to read an audiobook and mostly material like this, a male voice gets cast for it.

But I think it works just as well to be read to by a female voice. So the stuff that you’re looking for, unfortunately they wouldn’t cast me to read much as I would prefer to read it. Right. You know, that makes sense. That makes a lot of sense. It’s all about casting. It’s the patriarchy. Yeah, I got. Yeah. You know, yeah, I’m. Whatever. I couldn’t resist. Yeah, that was kind of an easy one. I couldn’t resist. But it is true. The male voice is the voice of authority in our culture. But that doesn’t mean. But, oh, here’s an interesting point and your audience might appreciate this though.

The male voice is the voice considered the voice of authority. In most cases, it’s been shown that people absorb material better and comprehend it better when they hear it from a female voice. So, yeah, I don’t. Maybe because it’s never heard that. Maybe because it’s more. You can receive it better. I really don’t know what’s behind that. But yeah, I know a little about it since it’s been my profession. So I’ve had to figure out what is going on here. That’s, that’s, that’s a. That’s a point that you put on your resume. Yeah, I guess so.

So where should we start? Why don’t you tell us where you. Well, let’s start with. Let’s start. I mean, I’ve got it right up in the front, the screen. Let’s start with the powers of the central government. Because this was. And the first paper is going to be. The first Federalist paper is going to be Alexander Hamilton’s number 23. And how many did he write? We probably. I don’t remember, but there are. I’m looking at my. How many are there all together? There are 85 Federalist papers and he probably wrote at least a third of them.

Okay. Should we just read through this then? Yeah, let’s do it. Okay. Hamilton lays out a forceful argument for granting broad powers to the federal government, especially concerning national defense. He begins by identifying security as the foremost purpose of political society and warns that a union too weak to protect its citizens would ultimately fail. Hamilton insists that the Articles of Confederation are fatally flawed because they withhold essential powers from the central government, especially in matters of military preparedness and fiscal support. To him, the ability to raise armies, maintain navies and manage national emergencies cannot be encumbered by inflexible limits.

And the quotes that we have illustrating his position. Okay, These are key quotes from Federalist paper number 23. The authorities essential to the common defense are these. To raise armies, to build and equip fleets, to prescribe rules for the government of both to direct their operations, to provide for their support. So. Yeah, I won’t comment. Come in if you. Yeah, I will. 100% will. Okay. 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.

God, I wish it was still that way. I know this, this is another version of checks and balances. We’re going to get to that in another discussion. The circumstances that endanger the safeties of nations are infinite. And for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. So you see where Hamilton stands. Right. Hamilton concludes by arguing that any government responsible for preserving the nation must unrestricted access to the means necessary for doing so. To bind the hands of the federal government in advance, especially in defense, would be both illogical and dangerous.

He contends that the Constitution strikes the right balance by granting essential powers to the Union while still preserving mechanisms to prevent tyranny. Well, he was most, he might have been accurate in certain cases, but with the central bank, I would completely disagree because, you know, as, as Rothschild so aptly said, I don’t care about, you know, who makes the laws, give me control of the nation’s money supply. And I, it didn’t really matter. Yeah, right. And as Kissinger, I think it was, says, control the, the currency, control the money and you control the world. So, But I.

Were they discussing the central banking system at this point? I, I just know Andrew Jackson was very much against. No, no, but they, they. Well, no, they, but see, they, they did charter a bank right at the out, right at the get go. That was the first American. It was the first national bank in the United States and the charter went for 20 years and then I think they renewed the charter and that was when. Or, or they, they, they didn’t renew the charter or they renewed a new charter and it was the second bank of the, of the United States.

That. And again, this is, if memory serves, if I’m wrong, guys, let me know. But I think it was the second bank that, that, that, that Jackson went after and I could be wrong. Yeah, yeah, but, but I think that. Okay, sorry, go ahead. No, I, you know what, I’m, I’m gonna look this up real quick because Now I’m you, you know, I want to, I want to make sure that I get it 100% right. How many central banks? So this was a question and that I believe Hamilton was in favor of centralized and Jackson was the seventh president.

So that’s pretty far along. Okay, yeah. So. So the first, the first bank of the United States was 1791 to 1811. Okay. The charter was for 20 years. That’s right. And it was not renewed due to opposition from Jeffersonian. Right, My man, my man. And concerns about centralized power. Right, which is exactly what you said. The second central bank was created after financial instability following the War of 1812. Imagine that they, we had this. And, and that lends a lot of credence to the notion that it was Britain that really kind of got us into the war because they were, you know, we didn’t want to play by their rules and didn’t want their bank anymore.

So I said, you know, take a hike. And then, and then Andrew Jackson said, nope, we’re not going to do that anymore. He paid off all the debt and did not renew the charter, which again was for 20 years. And then of course the Federal Reserve was instituted in 1913 and that charter was for 100 years. But I believe even though the Federal Reserve act was created in 1913, it didn’t actually get take effect until 1920. So. But I remember them, I remember there being a big hullabaloo around the re. The rechartering of the bank and I don’t remember.

Let’s see here. Well, we also in the, in the interim there was the Civil War and there was different money from, you know, there was Confederate money and Union money. And so there were a lot of changes in the interim. But as far as the argument here, Hamilton I think was in favor of centralizing the source of currency. Right. Yeah. Okay. I have, I have a, I have a visitor. Let’s see, I’m trying to get. So it. Okay, so I just looked this up, said what because it was supposed to be for 100 years. And I said, when was the 100 year charter renew for the Federal Reserve? It wasn’t.

Contrary to common myth, the Federal Reserve does not have a 100 year charter that required renewal. The Federal Reserve act was signed into law on December 23 of 2313. It created a permanent central banking system. Not one with 100 year expiration. Interesting. I did not know that. And so yeah, that is interesting. And this all ties to the bankruptcy of the corporation which was formed as we know, after the Civil War. But this is a whole. You and I will probably disagree on that, but that’s okay. Okay, well, we’re not covering that today, so we don’t have to worry about it.

No. Okay. Should we see what Madison has to say? Yeah, let’s see what Madison has to say. All right. All right. From Federalist paper number 41, Madison addresses concerns that the Constitution grants too much power to the federal government, particularly regarding its ability to tax and maintain armed forces. Critics feared these broad powers would lead to tyranny. But Madison argues that such authority is not only necessary, but inevitable if the government is to fulfill its duties effectively. He emphasizes that the true test is not whether the government holds certain powers, but whether it is structured in a way that prevents their abuse.

Madison asserts that objections to these powers often confuse necessary authority with potential misuse. That’s an interesting point. Okay, so. And what do we hear from Madison himself? Quote, it is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to. To the impulse of self preservation. That’s a philosophical statement, you think? And what else does he say? Quote, security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American union. Can’t disagree with that. Right. End quote. If it be asked, what is to be the consequence if the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning? The answer is obvious, that in such a case, the people who are the authors of this blessing must also be its guardians.

I agree with that as well. And see, I think that’s the crucial component of where we have gone wrong. And when Adam said, our Constitution is designed for basically a. Only immoral people. Exactly. And if you. So if you do away with morality, because, you know, if, if you have free people and basically anything goes, then what is, what is restraint? What is curtailing out of control behavior? Yeah. Nothing. No, no. The law doesn’t curtail it. Morality does. Your own sense of morality? Well, if there is one, I think is the point that you’re pointing to.

Right, right. It is designed for a moral people. And if there’s no more. And if those, if there’s no morality in society, then anything goes. And we, I think what we are witnessing right now is, you know, a lack of morality is, you know, where anything goes is what is essentially disintegrating or has. That’s. That’s the disintegration of our country that we are fighting. Is that, is that lack of morality. Right. And you know, this is where the Law comes in, I do think. But if the, if the law has also been, and as we know, the judicial system has been also kind of infected, if you want to say, call it that, with that lack of morality, then, mm, so glad that Trump got elected.

Okay, let’s see what else. Madison. Okay. Madison concludes by insisting that granting the federal government sufficient power to provide for national defense, public order and general welfare is not a threat in itself. The real safeguard lies in the Constitution’s structure and in the vigilance of the people. There you go. He encourages citizens to focus less on hypothetical abuses and more on the mechanisms in place, like regular elections, separation of powers and checks and balances that make the abuse of power unlikely. Or I would say more difficult. Correct, Right. And these are all things. Well, yeah, elections, by the way, you asked.

Just, just to answer your question from earlier, the Federalist papers, there were 85 in total written between October of 87 and August of 88. So almost a, almost about a 10 month period. Hamilton wrote 51 of them. Madison 29 and John Jay 5. Right, right. I figured Hamilton had written most of them. I have the same birthday as Hamilton. I was born in 1700. Okay. Don’t look it. Self preservation, remember. Very well. Very well done. Touche. Okay, let’s see now we’re moving to 45, Federalist number 45. Let me just see. I just want to see what the, the title of 45 is because it’s kind of helpful to see that the alleged.

And while you’re doing that, I just want to make a comment here. The real special ed says that the abuse of the definition of the general welfare is the main. Is one of the main. Well, he says it’s the main problem with the government today. I would say it’s not the main, but certainly it is a main, main problem. Talking about the difference between the meaning of the word welfare as opposed to well being. Because this is one of the issues with the language of the times is you have to look into what the language of the times actually meant.

And welfare did not mean supporting poor people. Correct. It meant well being. So there’s a pretty big difference. That’s a really good point. I agree that that’s kind of leads to the nanny state, which I think is what you’re talking about. Well, and this. And what that gets into is that gets, you know, in, in scripture they call it hermeneutics, which is the interpretation of the document. Okay, yeah. Well, what we’re doing is, is that. So you have people from modern day doing Interpretation of a document that was written to people 150 to 200 years ago.

And what they’re doing is they are interpreting it the way they want to. Yeah. Based on how they understand language. Yeah. And general, general welfare back then did not mean, as you say, cradle to grave government subsidy for, you know, for, for everyday living and. Absolutely not or any of it. All they just made clear their job is to protect it with an army that, with a military. Well, and, and see the, and you know what I mean, I’m not, I don’t want to get conspiratorial, but let’s just, I mean, and a very, very, very rapid, you know, quick fire thing we can show you.

Okay, so the Federal Reserve was created. They created, they artificially created all this wealth in, in the 1920s which were referred to as the roaring twenties. Then they did all these margin calls and collapsed the entire economy in 1929 and prolonged it. Deliberately prolonged the Great Depression on purpose in order to get people to be dependent upon the government. That was, I mean, if you look, during the 1930s, Wall street was responsible for creating three types of welfare in the world. They created the, or three, three types of socialism in the world. They created the, the Bolshevik socialism in Russia.

They created the fascistic socialism, you know, in places like in Germany and Italy. And then they created this cradle to grave socialism in the United States, but more with a capitalistic twinge. So, or at least at the appearance of. Right. But they, but they pro, but they prolonged the, the Great Depression deliberately so that they could get more people and proo. And, and he could push his New Deal policies which ultimately led to this, this monstrous, you know, central government, which is exactly what we have today. So anyway, are we there? You there? Did I lose you? Oh, okay, I think you, you froze for a second, but I think you’re back talking about prolonging that.

Yeah, I’m not sure what happened there. If there was a, if there was a glitch in the Matrix, buddy, what do you want to do? I don’t know what he wants, but anyway, can you hear me okay, or are you still freezing? Is it just me, guys, or. Because I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m. I feel like I’m doing okay, but I feel like Carrington is freezing. All right, well, I tell you what I’m going to do. Okay? So what I’m going to do is I’m going to go ahead and I’m going to read Federalist 45 while she’s trying to While she’s coming back.

I know my voice doesn’t sound as good as hers, but for the sake of brevity, and I’m gonna, I’m gonna push forward. All right, so, yeah, she just, she kicked, she kicked out. She’s coming back in, so. All right, so. Federalist45, another one by Madison. Madison aims to reassure skeptics that the proposed Constitution does not endanger the authority of the individual states. Responding to antifederalist fears that the national government would overwhelm state governments, Madison argues that powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined, while those remaining with the states are numerous and indefinite. He frames the Constitution as necessary adjustments to preserve the Union, not to consolidate power.

The new federal government would focus primarily on national defense, foreign affairs, and regulating interstate commerce, leaving most aspects of daily governance to the states. And the key quotes that he used to illustrate this at least pulled out here was the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain with the states are numerous and indefinite. The state governments may be, may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government. That’s true if you consider the, if you consider that that was true until the 17th amendment.

In a confederacy, the people ought not surely to be regarded as inhabitants of a single government, but as composing the different states in which they reside. Madison concludes that far from threatening the states, the Constitution actually reinforces their role by recognizing them as fundamental components of the federal system. He emphasizes that state governments will retain the primary responsibility for matters closest to the public, such as civil justice and domestic policy, because they are more directly accountable to local populations. Ultimately, Madison insists the new federal structure is one of balance and cooperation, not domination. You kicked out there for a minute there, character.

And so I went ahead and read 40, read, read number 45. I, I did not sound as good as you, but, but, you know, I, again, I just wanted to, to press forward. Yeah, yeah. You know, a few thoughts on this. You know, I, I, if you, if you go back and you listen to what he’s saying here, I’m okay with this. Like, I mean, I, I, I, I think, I think what they’re talking about here is actually a good, a healthy balance. Yeah. But I, what I see here, though is over the course of the last 250 years is what they’ve done is, is, is that you’ve got men who want to have a centralized power, and they have interpreted certain aspects of the Constitution deliberately to, for, for their, for their ends, which is Consolidating power.

Because if you’re listening, listening here, I mean, this. He, he emphasizes that state governments will retain the primary responsibility for matters closest to the people, such as civil justice and domestic policy. What he’s just saying here is that the federal government is not supposed to be involved in domestic policy, nor is the federal government supposed to be involved in civil justice, for sure. I mean, the bureaucracy that’s been built up since then is insane. So that accounts for a lot of, I think, the problems. You know, you just build a bureaucracy and you have a bureaucratic technocracy or a technocratic bureaucracy running things.

And the people who, you know, were. For states rights tended to be more individualistic people. Right. Wouldn’t you say? Well, yeah, and he’s not a states rights person. No, but he’s not a states rights person. But he’s still. But he is acknowledging that the states are the ones that are responsible for, for things such as civil justice, of domestic policy. And, and he says it right here because they are more directly accountable to the local populations. Yeah. And again, that gets back to what, you know, it gets back to what we talked about, being local, being involved at the local level.

Ultimately, Madison insists that the new federal structure is one of balance and cooperation, not domination. And I agree that that was the intent of the founding Fathers. They did not want a centralized government and. But what? They didn’t want a dominant centralized government, but they did want a central government. They did want it centralized. Right. Okay. Sort of. Yeah. Yes, but you have to understand that the Articles of Confederation were. That was the form of government that they created. Yes. And it was scattered and there was a lot not accounted for. Well, there was, but. There was no but, but, but the, the federal or, you know, the central government didn’t have much authority, so it couldn’t, it couldn’t bring things into it.

Couldn’t it not make it coherent? They were looking for coherence and security too. Right. Well, I mean, and, and if you, if you look at the, if you look at the War of Northern Aggression, what you’ll see is, is that the Confederacy ultimately lost because the federal government at the, at the Confederate level did not have the same powers. And in fact, Jefferson was it the president. The president of the. Jefferson Davis actually stated on multiple occasions, he says, I need the types of powers that Lincoln has in order to prosecute this war. I need to be able to do certain things and bring states in line to prosecute the war.

Not because he wanted to be a dictator, but because the states were rebuffing him. And so I understand, you know, what they’re doing is they’re realizing all of the failures of the Articles of Confederation because they’re, just. Because they’re coming on. It’s on the heels of winning the Revolutionary War, but they saw the pitfalls of the weakened central government of the Articles of Confederation and how, how that potentially damaged the cause of winning the revolution. So, and I, so, so I, I, I understand the. Where they’re coming. These guys are smart. I mean, these guys are not.

These guys are no joke, you know, and they saw where the, as you said, where the weaknesses. But also they’re, they’re talking about a lot of it. Military coherence. That’s the key, you know, for security, as you point out for Jefferson Davis. Yeah. So I’ll let you read here. Let’s, let’s. Because we’re, because we’re. I mean, we’re 40 minutes in or half hour in, and we’re not even halfway through. Okay, here we go. Okay, we’re gonna hear from the anti federalists now. Yes. Brutus number one, who is actually Robert Yates, with a pseudonym of Brutus, the author, presents a powerful critique of the proposed US Constitution, warning that it would create a consolidated national government destined to erode individual liberty and state authority.

Brutus expresses particular concern over the, quote, necessary and proper and supremacy clauses, arguing that they grant Congress boundless power. He questions whether such an extensive republic can truly represent the people or maintain a stable government. Brutus also fears that the new federal judiciary and taxing authority will slowly devour the powers of the states and make them mere administrative arms of the central government. These guys are really smart. Wow. Okay. And Brutus says this government is to possess absolute. Brutus or Brutus or Nostradamus? Sorry. Yes. Yeah. Really? Right. I’m sorry. Sorry. I was joking. Nostradamus said this government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative and executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends.

Well, you can’t argue with that. Nope. In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance. There is nothing left to the state governments. Okay. Brutus ultimately concludes that the Constitution’s structure would lead to an irreversible shift in power from the states to an unaccountable national elite. He believes that a true republic can only succeed when it governs a small territory with citizens who share Common interests and values. A government as vast and powerful.

Powerful as the one proposed, he warns, would inevitably become distant, despotic and incompatible with the preservation of liberty. His essay sets the tone for the anti Federalist papers and lays out the core fears that shaped opposition to ratification and well founded. I, I was just gonna say my jaws, like, I mean, excuse me as I pick my jaw up because I was absolutely 100%. I mean, I. Like I said no. Is this guy. Is it Brutus or Nostradamus? Yes. You can’t argue with any of this stuff. It’s all true. No, you know, okay, let’s see. And I will, I will say it.

I’m sorry. I will say that I. While I agree that the Federalists were trying to craft a government that ultimately would. Would be a good balance of power, I believe that they did not foresee the pitfalls of the system that they were creating and that they were creating a monster. And that the anti Federalists had the foresight to see the monster that they were creating and, and, and try to warn them, but to no avail. Yeah, well, I guess the Bill of Rights was to some avail, but yeah, okay, they’re still traveling on that. Oh, yes.

I mean we’re going to talk about that I think next week. So I won’t get off on that much as I want to. Okay. Montezuma Anti Federalist number nine. Montezuma, the author offers scathing and satirical critique of the proposed Constitution and the Federalists promoting it. He argues that the new government would centralize power in the hands of an elite ruling class far removed from the everyday American citizen. Montezuma mocks the grand promises of the Constitution, warning that it masks a plan to replace republican liberty with aristocratic control. He portrays the Framers as self serving men who designed a system to elevate themselves into positions of unchecked power, while ordinary citizens would be stripped of real influence.

And what did he have to say? Quote, the government they have formed is aristocratic. The people are to have no hand in it. The rich and well born, as they are called, are to have the rule, and the poor are to be their subjects. The name of liberty may be used, but the substance is gone. Montezuma concludes that the proposed Constitution would result in a government that speaks of liberty, but delivers control. He believes that the structure invites corruption and turns public office into a tool for personal gain. The essay is a biting reminder that many anti Federalists saw the new Constitution not as a safeguard of freedom, but as a betrayal of the egalitarian spirit of the revolution.

A mechanism for cementing power among a privileged few. Wow, that’s. Yeah, yeah. When you again, look at what we have now, hard, hard to argue. Harder, hard to argue with some of that stuff. And guys, just, just FYI, I just want to show you guys kind of the power of, of, of, of what I mean, I put this together basically using chat GPT. So if you guys are wondering how it got to be so concise and whatnot, I mean this is all true. Everything that they’re saying is 100% accurate. But I just, I put in like a, a template and I said do it for this, this, you know, do it for all of these different, you know, papers.

And that’s what you’re saying you’re seeing, you know, that’s, that’s why it’s so kind of in a, you know, paragraph three, three key arguments and then like a summation. And I, I personally, because I’ve read some of these and I know quite a bit about some of these and I think it, man, I talk about doing a fantastic job. This is the, I think it did a very good job on this anyway, just. Yeah, for sure. You know, it saves a lot of time and I have only read a few of the Federalist papers because there are a lot of them and I would love to read them all through.

But for now. Okay, regarding size and scope of the Republic, this is a big subject and what are the Federalists? Before you jump in here, this is what I want you to do is I want you to just go through all. I want you to go through all of number two. I’m not, I’m not going to interrupt you. We’re just going to go through it all and then we’ll chat about at the end because I really want to get through all three. Okay. Okay. So this is a Federalist number nine. The Union is a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection.

This is Hamilton’s idea. Hamilton addresses a central anti federalist fear that a large republic would inevitably collapse into tyranny or chaos, as had happened in ancient confederacies. Hamilton counters this by arguing that the science of politics has progressed and that the proposed Constitution incorporates new principles such as separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism that make a large stable Republic not only possible, but preferable. He insists that the American Union, structured properly, can combine the benefits of both large and small governments, preserving liberty while ensuring effective governance. And here’s what he has to say. Quote, it is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust.

Okay. He also says the science of politics has received great improvement. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments by means of checks and balances has been refined and perfected. And he says a firm union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. Okay. Well, okay. Hamilton concludes that historical examples of republics failing do not apply to the proposed U.S. constitution because it introduces innovations that correct the weaknesses of the past. Rather than being a danger to liberty, a well constructed union would be its chief protector.

The combination of federal and state governments would offer a unique balance of power, allowing for both broad stability and local responsiveness. Far from threatening freedom, Hamilton sees the new Constitution as the best safeguard against the dangers of factionalism and governmental collapse. And then Madison. I do want to see what the. I like seeing what the title number 14 objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory. Answer. Okay, I see. Madison responds to the anti federalist claim that the United States is too geographically large to sustain a functional and free republic. He refutes this concern by distinguishing between a pure democracy where all citizens gather to legislate, and a representative republic in which elected officials govern on behalf of the people.

Madison argues that a representative system is not only suited to a large territory, but actually benefits from it by reducing the risk of factionalism and allowing for a broader base of talent and opinion. He stresses that the proposed government would handle only national matters while local affairs would remain under state control. And he says, quote, the error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. Okay. In a republic, the representatives must be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of their constituents. Of course, course, the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws.

All right. Madison concludes that fears over distance and scale are exaggerated, especially given improvements in communication and travel. He assures readers that the Constitution creates a layered system in which state governments remain essential and active, while the national government addresses only issues that affect the union as a whole. Far from being a weakness, the country’s size combined with representative institutions would help preserve liberty and reduce the influence of any one faction. Okay, well, we heard from Brutus already about that, and we couldn’t argue with him because what we know now. No Sentinel. Sentinel number one. Samuel Bryan, this pseudonym of Sentinel, this author, criticizes the proposed Constitution as a blueprint for centralized tyranny rather than representative government.

He argues that the new system is designed to consolidate power in the hands of the few, creating a ruling class far removed from the people. Sentinel contends that the plan lacks adequate checks on power, particularly because it omits a bill of rights and does not guarantee annual elections or true accountability. He warns that without genuine popular control, the Constitution would replicate the very abuses of monarchy that the revolution sought to overthrow. And he says the plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated to produce despotism, thralldom and confusion, and the people are not the electors of the federal government.

A consolidated government is a great evil. It ought therefore to be clearly proved to be a necessary one before we can be justified in accepting it. Sentinel concludes that a truly free republic requires a simple, transparent government that is directly accountable to the people. He argues that the proposed Constitution creates a complex structure that deliberately distances power from the citizens it claims to serve. For Sentinel, liberty can only be preserved through frequent elections, decentralized authority, and a clear articulation of rights, none of which he believes are adequately provided for in the new federal system. His essay stands as a powerful warning against adopting a Constitution that he views as structurally inclined toward aristocracy and oppression.

So I, I agree with a lot of what he said, but I think he’s being a little bit, maybe, I think sentinels being a little bit more rebellious, hyperbolic in some of this stuff because I, I, I do, because I disagree with that. He says the people are not the electors of the federal government. And that’s. Well, well, the p. The people are the electors of their representatives, which was, which was supposed to be like 70%. Yes. Of the legislative power was supposed to reside with the, with the House of representatives and only 30% and the power to tax you.

So the Senate does not have the power to write a bill that taxes the people because the Senate is the body of the states. Right. It is the voice of the states. Right. So, so the Senate cannot write a bill that will ultimately be, you know, impose a tax on the people. And see, that was where the big hullabaloo with Obamacare came in. Because Obamacare, the bill that was passed, that ultimately passed in terms of what Obamacare was, was the bill that was originated in the Senate. And when they went to the Supreme Court, they argued that it was a tax.

And, and you couldn’t have a tax. You couldn’t, the, the Senate couldn’t propose a bill that imposed the tax on the people. So that, that was a very valid concern. But yet they still passed it anyway. But I found it very interesting up here where Madison talked about, he refutes this concern by distinguishing between a pure democracy where all citizens gather to legislate, and a representative Republican, which elective officials govern on behalf of the people. Right. It’s like this is the first time that I’ve seen where he talks about where this is. Oh, this is one of the very few places where the term democracy actually comes into playing.

It comes into being in, in terms of. With these notes, anyway. Yeah, well, and this is the issue is the whole point they’re trying to avoid is the giant election of a huge country, you know, all the people coming together to vote, whereas they have separate goals and desires and needs and so on. Right. So. Right. It wouldn’t work. Is the point the Federalists are making, that a representative republic should work. Whereas. So what you’re saying is that Sentinel, we’re on right. Is kind of proposing a democratic election, which wouldn’t work. Right. Well, I, we’re, I’m kind of, I’m bouncing, but I haven’t read it.

All of them. Right. I haven’t read Sentinel. So we’re just looking at notes on what Sentinel said. Well, I’m looking back here. I just, I just found it interesting that they talk about progressed because, you know, we call them progressives. Yes. And it’s like. Oh, yeah, no, no, no, we’ve progressed and perfected. He said. Yeah, progressed. And he said perfected. Yeah. Which I don’t think is a word you should ever use hardly in almost any application, you know. Absolutely not government. Absolutely. All right, well, let’s, let’s move on. Just because of time constraints. Let’s move on here.

I have about. We got about 15, about 18 minutes before I, before I have a hard cut off, so. All right, let’s plow through this. Yeah. Federalist number 39, James Madison on state sovereignty. Madison addresses a fundamental question raised by anti Federalists. Is the proposed Constitution Republican in nature and does it preserve the federal character of the union? Madison affirms that the Constitution is both republican and federal. He defines a republic as a government deriving its power from the people and administered by representatives elected for limited terms. He also argues that the new system strikes a balance between national and federal principles.

National and how the people are represented in the House and federal in. And how the states are represented in the Senate and involved in the ratification process. Madison seeks to calm fears that the Constitution creates a consolidated national government by showing it blends both forms. Quote, we may define a republic to be a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people. And quote, the proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal constitution, but a composition of both. Quote, each of the principal branches of the federal government will derive its authority either directly or indirectly, from the people.

Okay. Well. Madison concludes that the Constitution carefully balances the interests of both individuals and states, offering a hybrid system that protects popular sovereignty while respecting state autonomy. By combining federal and national features, it avoids the dangers of both extreme consolidation and fragmentation. He argues that this structure ensures the preservation of liberty and effective governance by allowing both levels of government to operate within their appropriate spheres. Sorry. Okay, so there you have that argument. It’s kind of general feeling a little general to me because. Both directly and indirectly. Yeah, okay. Because that’s representative. Let’s see what Madison has to say about that.

In Federalist paper numbers 46, he argues that the fears of federal overreach into state authority are exaggerated and unfounded. He contends that the proposed Constitution creates a system where the federal and state governments are distinct yet complementary, each deriving its power from the same source, the people. Madison is confident that the states will retain significant influence due to their close relationship with citizens and their control over key aspects of governance. He believes the loyalty of the people will remain with their state governments, making it unlikely that the federal government could ever dominate or suppress the states.

That there’s so what many wily ways to do that, though. But like funding, for instance, quote, the federal and state governments are in fact different, are in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people instituted with different powers. The powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those resolved to the individual states as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union. And should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. Minor correction.

The powers that propose to be lodged in the federal government are. Are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual states as they are indispensably necessary. I think you said resolved. Okay. And. And I just wanted to make sure that if. If somebody’s not reading along, I just wanted to make sure that they know that that was the. Those. The. The intent here was that they were reserved to the individual states. Right, right. And I think because this is so beautifully written, you’d understand that. Anyway, these guys are amazing. Right. Madison concludes that the people themselves are the ultimate check on federal power.

If the national government were ever to overstep its bounds, the states, with the support of their citizens and Militias would resist such usurpation. Texas BORDER in his view, the division of power in the Constitution not only guards liberty, but empowers the people to defend it from both centralized tyranny and local abuses. The relationship between state and federal governments, as he envisions it, is one of dynamic balance secured by public vigilance and constitutional design. Yeah, public vigilance. That’s really important. Huge. That is that. That is something that has been. Yeah, exactly. Kicked to the curb and people have gotten complacent.

Let’s see what the anter federalists have to say about that. Oh, Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788 in his speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry passionately opposes the ratification of the US Constitution, warning that it threatens the sovereignty of the states and the liberty of the people. Henry argues that the Constitution creates a consolidated national government that will ultimately overpower the states and destroy the freedoms won during the American Revolution. He criticizes the lack of a Bill of Rights and asserts that the document was drafted in secrecy by elites who sought to shift power away from the people.

His central message is that liberty cannot survive under a government so distant, powerful and unrestrained. The Constitution is said to have beautiful features, but when I come to examine those features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing. The expression we the people instead of we the states. Very interesting. And quote, guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. I love this guy. Henry concludes by urging the delegates to reject the Constitution unless it is amended to better protect individual rights and the independence of the states.

He believes that power will inevitably concentrate in the national government and without clear safeguards, it will erode the freedoms the revolution was fought to secure. His speech remains one of the most eloquent and forceful expressions of anti federalist resistance, emphasizing the need for a government rooted in local control, transparency and clearly defined limits. And that’s one reason he’s so famous. Okay, Brutus. Number 17. Brutus argues that the proposed Constitution grants the federal government too much authority, particularly through its power to tax. He warns that while the document appears to allow for concurrent state and federal powers, in practice the federal government’s supremacy and ability to collect taxes directly from the people will inevitably lead to the state’s decline.

Brutus is especially alarmed by the combination he must have seen dreamed of the irs. Brutus is especially alarmed by the combination of the quote, Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which he believes will allow Congress to expand its authority at the expense of state governments and the people’s liberties. This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive, and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends. Quote, it is not enough that the people are to elect the rulers once in a while. The real security of liberty is to be found in the structure of the government itself.

The power to raise taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted. It connects with all others and will, in its operation, draw after it almost all other powers. Brutus concludes that the federal government’s taxing power will ultimately drain the financial resources and authority of the states, making them subservient or irrelevant. Once the central government has the power to tax independently and use that revenue to expand its operations, he argues, the states will no longer be able to function effectively or protect the rights of their citizens. For Brutus, anti Federalist number 17 is a stark warning that the Constitution as written paves the way for federal dominance and the slow, silent destruction of the federalist balance.

Yeah, taxing. Yeah, well, yeah, he was, he was right about that. I mean, a couple of things, you know, about the states. When I look at what happened in Texas where Texas couldn’t just send their own militia to the borders, there was an argument with the feds about that and that that’s complicated because I think the governor of Texas has his feet in both camps. And, you know, it could be argued, and I guess Tucker Carlson claims that at a party, went right up to the government. What’s wrong with you? And, and what’s his name? Governor of Texas said, oh, Governor Hot Wheels.

Yeah, Hot Wheels said, oh, you know, I know Jasmine Crockett got a lot of. For that. And, but, you know, I know, I know several people that live in Texas and they all refer to him as Governor. Yes, we call him Hot Wheels. So it’s like, you know, I, I, and, and they, they, they crucified her for her for that. And you know, I’m no fan of Jasmine Crawford, no crucifier for other reasons. But, but, but that is that, I mean, that, that did not deserve, that was that, that did not deserve the crucifixion that she was, she regarded.

Yeah, we’re calling him Governor Hot Wheels. I kind of, I have to agree with that. And the thing is, and Tucker Carlson said he approached him at a party and said, why haven’t you just sent troops to the border? And Hot Wheels said, well, it’s complicated. And Tucker was like, it is not, you know, and kind of Shouted down, was pissed at him right through that whole time. And that’s a whole other subject, the border security. I mean it is the job of the feds. That’s the whole thing. The Constitution was promising, the Federalists were promising.

Right. Was to be that we need a coherent military to protect our, to protect us for security. And they have not done that. And then they would not allow the states. I mean there was a big power struggle about allowing Texas militia to go down there and do it. Thank God we’re past that phase. That was really distressing. Sorry. It’s interesting I wanted to bring this up because in the, in the, and I forget which one it talked about, but he talked about we the people instead of we the states. Yes. Well, okay. So it initially the, the, the first preamble of the Constitution said we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island and Providence Plantations.

This version listed each state by name and implied a continuation of state sovereignty. The final version, which, which came about about six weeks later, it was drafted by Governor Morris and says we the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union. This version replaced the state list with a national identity. A major symbolic and political shift. Yeah, so true. And that shifted the power, the perception of power away from the states. Right. You know, and as I, as I examine the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and things like that, you know, it, it gives me pause on some of the things that actually were inject, were inserted into the Constitution.

But again, at the end of the day, I, I don’t believe that the, the Federalists, I don’t believe that they sought to have an all powerful government. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe that that was, that was what their intention was. The elitist thing they were accused of. Yeah, right, but, yeah, but, but that’s there, but yeah. That said, I do believe that they were wise enough to see that in the future an elite would arise that would exploit the very things that were put in to the ends that they were warning about. And I think that that is one of the reasons why when we read these anti Federalists and we call them Nostradamus, I think they are, it’s that, that’s the reason that they’re calling us, we’re calling them Nostradamus because they were 100% accurate in what ultimately transpired.

Well, and they saw it happen in a monarchy over and over where the tax, you know, the king could tax the people to his heart’s content and that’s what happened over and over and over. So he saw it tending, they saw it tending to the same outcome. And you know, it’s really the IRS that brought that about. I don’t know if it was the irs. I think it was the, the, I, the, the irs, you know, the, the first people that had to pay taxes were only people who made like $150,000 a year or something like that.

And it was, I mean that was in, that was in like the year two, 1920 and $150,000 a year in 1920 would be like somebody making a million dollars if not more a year now. But this is still part of that system of those. I get. Banking system. I get, I get what you’re saying. I get. I’m. But what, what I’m saying is, is that it was again, it’s one of those things like the boiling frog that was started out incrementally. They did deliberately. Deliberately, right? No, no, that was the whole thing these anti Federalists were talking about.

And it was, I mean the IRS wasn’t, I don’t know when it got the name of the irs, but it was always the enforcement arm of the central bank. Always has been. So in 1920 it was already that, you know, because that, well, it was the collection arm. It was the collection arm for the money that was being loaned out by a, sent by a private central bank to the federal government. I mean, and that’s why when I go back and I look at the, at the problems in our country, the first thing that I look at, the very first place that I look at is and what everybody calls the, you know, the corporate government.

I do believe that we do operate under kind of like a corporate structure. But I believe that a lot of that is as a result of how the, how the government was changed post Civil War and during the Reconstruction and primarily as a result of how the 14th Amendment is interpreted, not as a result of 1871 legislation. So and then ultimately when, with the ushering in of the Progressive Era with the Federal Reserve act, the, the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment. And then I’m kind of on the fence whether or not I, I believe that the 18th Amendment was something that was crafted as a mechanism to ensure and cultivate a organized crime, basically organized crime in the United States and have and, and ultimately create like a, you know, I mean, back, back in the late 1800s, what was it? It was the, it was, you know, cowboys and Indians.

Right, but there was already organized crime. I mean, well, I, there, there was, but it Wasn’t on it, but it, but it, but it had not gotten to a level of, you know, kind of like a, like an industrialized mechanism. And that is what, but, but that, that’s what Prohibition did. Prohibition actually for sure crafted. Yeah. Organized crime and, and made it almost like a, an industrialized, I’ll put it on an industrialized scale. Yeah. So. And then. Right. You know, what came out of the fort. What came out of the, of that, you know, Prohibition. And then you had all these major big government stuff that started to come out.

So. And then it got repealed. But by the time that it got repealed, they had already laid the foundation for all, for all of these big government agencies that had been put in place. Yeah. So see, the 18th Amendment did two things. It helped the black market and incite rebellion. Yeah. 100%. Yeah. And that’s where, and for, for all of those of you who are, who are, who understand the second Amendment and tax stamps and NFA items, the National Firearms act came out of, came out of, of that and that’s what governs fully automatics, short barrels, shotguns, white rifles and whatnot.

Yeah. All that came out of the, of the Prohibition era. Yeah. So. But anyway, I digress. All right, well, we are at the, we are at my hard cut off here, so I’ve, I need to go so that I have a little bit of time to do some things I need to do. But before, before we jump into World War II with Great Mike King Carrington, thank you for this. I think I, I really liked this format. What did you think real quick? Yeah, for this, for this amount of material, this is probably the best way to approach it.

Yeah. It’s not like what we were doing with Tom Payne where you actually can read the thing. This is just, it would take hours, many hours. So. Yeah, so I thought, yeah, I thought. I, I thought the, I thought the AI did a very good job of. Yeah. Kind of general. But it was, but, but it, General. General enough that you still got the point of what was, you know, what. Exactly. Yeah. And maybe, maybe people having heard this will want to dig a little further and read some of these papers that were referenced individually. Well, I still, you know, you and I have, have discussed about going back and doing that.

That’s still something that we intend on doing. The whole purpose of doing this is just as a bridge until Doug gets back. So you’re just, you’re kind of filling in for Doug, which is fine. It’s. I, I, you know, as I, I’ve been told multiple times. You’re better to. You’re better. You’re. They. They. Like. They’d rather listen to you and look at you. Well, happy to be here. Happy to be here. And it’s just. I said. And I say. And I say that with all respect. And you. You. I think you know. You know me well enough to know that I’m.

I’m not. I’m saying that with. Well, I’ve been around the block a few times. It’s not the first time I. Whatever. So happy to be here. And, you know, I’m always. Always interested in going over this kind of material. So thanks, everybody, for being with us. Absolutely. All right, guys. Well, I will see you back here in about. About 15 minutes with the great Mike King. We’ll be going into the part five of World War II. So with that said, thank you, Carrington. Have a wonderful evening, and I’m sure you and I will be talking again very soon.

Have a good night, everybody. Bye, now.
[tr:tra].