The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1341: The Road to Civil War Pt. 1 - AntiFederalist Concerns - w/ George Bagby

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

78 MinutesSafe for WorkGeorge Bagby is a content creator and publisher of long-forgotten books. George joins Pete to start a series detailing the long lead up to America's Civil War.George's Twitter AccountGeorge's Pinned Tweet w/ Links George's YouTube ChannelPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the piquinones show.com. There, you can choose from where you wish to support me. Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me about this, even though I think on the last ad, I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed, you're going to have to subscribe through substack or through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there, gumro. and what's the other one?

Subscribe star. And if you do that, you will get access to the audio file. So head on over to the Pekignano Show.com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can put out the amount of material that I do. I can do what I'm doing with Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else.

The things that Thomas and I are doing together on Continental Philoilofiloh. It's all because of you. And, yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you. The Pekignana Show.com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekineana show. George Bagby returns to the show.

How are you doing today, Mr. Bagby? I'm doing wonderful. I've had a very scholarly time. I've been hitting the books lately, and I've been enjoying it very much. Awesome. Awesome. All right. So this was a request from a listener. They wanted a, they asked for a detailed lead up to the war between the states. And there was nobody else that I was going to reach out to other than you. And yeah, can you, why don't you tell us, you have an outline for several. episodes. So you want to just like hit hit an outline of a couple episodes and then jump into what

you are prepared for today? Absolutely. So the idea for the series is the origins of the American Civil War. I haven't come up with a finite number of just how many we mean to have to lead up to this auspicious subject. I've got several. I've got several several episodes sketched out in advance. Today we're going to be talking about the convention debates about the Constitution and the anti-federalist concerns, which figure largely in the coming sectional conflict. The second episode, I mean to zero in on Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution in the Washington administration. So we'll go into his reports on the public credit and his

key interpretation about the clauses of the Constitution, the necessary and proper clause and the general welfare clause, and the rise of our first two political parties based on the interpretation of that issue. On the third episode, I'm I mean to go into Jefferson and John Taylor and their agrarian vision for the United States, which figures very largely in the sectional conflict, being that the north was more industrial, the south was more agrarian and farm-based. And the fourth episode, just as a sample, we're going to go into the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams administration. and the remarkable response of Jefferson's faction in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions,

which also figure very strongly in the coming sectional conflict. So I've got a few more episodes sketched out beyond then, but just as a taste of future attractions, that's a brief for us. That sounds great. That sounds great. So today you had, you know, some of the notes that you sent me started with anti-federalist concerns, but why don't you start wherever you want? Indeed. I actually just started a series with the Old Glory Club. I'm going to be appearing on the American Spirits Stream, and we're doing a series on the Bank of the United States over there. But

We're going to be focused on other issues over here, though the material can overlap in many ways. We just had a conversation a couple nights ago about the convention debates and the problems, especially the financial problems under the Articles of Confederation. So let me give a introduction to the issue. The Articles of Confederation were our first constitution. they ambitiously stated that it would be the perpetual union for the states. And ironically, most Americans aren't aware of this document at all. It has been completely forgotten, basically, in the public mind anyway. No one refers to it in our politics anymore.

But it set itself this very ambitious goal. that it was going to permanently unify the states in a confederacy. The Confederacy element is very important. A Confederation is a union of sovereign powers. And the articles of Confederation were a way to unite 13 distinct political organizations, the original 13 states. They were organized a year after our independence. That was when the states finished ratifying the articles.

And under the articles, all the states were entirely equal. It created a single body for the union government, and that was the Continental Congress. Now the states were free to send as many representatives as they liked to that conference that Congress. But no matter how many people they sent to represent their state's interests, the state only had one vote. So the panel of delegates from a given state in the Continental Congress would argue among themselves and then democratically determine, you know, whoever had the majority in the committee from that state would cast the vote in the name of that state. The states also had veto powers, which is a sovereign right. I used to tell my

students that sovereignty is the right to say no to something and to resist it. And this was an element of sovereignty that was given to the states as sovereign actors in the Continental Congress. So if one state really disagreed with what was going on with something that the majority of the states wanted to do as legislation, they could use their veto power and make the whole thing null and void. Now, one of the effects of this was because the Articles of Confederation had no tax power, the Continental Congress had no power to tax. They were given, kind of short-sightedly, a power to borrow money and a power to print money. So they did both of those. They got some alliances abroad, especially with France and Holland, who were the first to recognize our independence during our War for Independence. And they printed the continental dollar, which was our first paper currency.

The result was runaway inflation, hyperinflation, and the inability of the Continental Congress to pay the debts they owed abroad, and even to pay their own soldiers. So this results in major financial catastrophe. You have the patriot benefactors of our independence. like Robert Morris, who is a very famous financier of that generation, he is ruined because the Continental Congress cannot pay its own debts, even after independence. They are still incapable of passing any reasonable measure to pay their bills. And so Robert Morris ends up in debtors prison before this whole thing gets rectified. And that is a, that is a travesty.

These are the patriots. These are the people that actually won. And in victory, they find themselves ruined. And that's a gross injustice. The veterans are unpaid. And the veterans are increasingly restive, very upset about this. In Newburgh, in New York State, they plot a mutiny. Horatio Gates, the hero of Saratoga, is plotting this mutiny. And it gets diffused at the last moment through the timely intercession of George Washington, who kind of shows up unexpected in Newburgh and appeals to the soldiers to not march on Congress in Philadelphia to seize the treasury as they had planned to do. Shea's Rebellion is also an instance of this where veterans in Western Massachusetts, they riot and they prevent a, court from holding session, the court had on its docket a number of foreclosures for a non-payment of taxes for farms of veterans of the Continental Army. And so these veterans, they organized and they prevented the court from auctioning off or initiating what would end up with the auctioning off of the farms of veterans. So in response to all of this, in response to the articles creating a system where needful business could not be accomplished in the Continental Congress, the states had all of the political power that mattered.

And the result was that the union was imperiled. And this is the basic theme of our whole series, really. The twin values that Americans hold dear in the period that we're addressing in particular, and those are liberty and union. So we want an accountable representative government. We want one that has reasonable safety. safeguards against centralization, unaccountable power, tyranny, but we also want union. We have collectively acted in the Declaration of Independence.

The Continental Congress speaks with a unanimous voice. In spite of some minority opinions in the body that were still reticent about declaring their independence, the majority had it. And so all of the states voted with their single vote. unanimously in favor of the declaration. Even though this predates the articles, this is how the Continental Congress was operating at the time. And we pool our resources. We fight for the same cause for independence.

We win. The Continental Congress successfully prosecutes this war. So we win collectively in union together. And then we want to stay in union together for all number of advantages that come with a large state. We become a continental power. We become eventually one of the great powers of the world. We have an incredible economic opportunity here to develop our internal economy that would be stymied by the state's breaking up or forming smaller confederations among themselves, regional powers and such.

There was a lot of worry among these people that if union failed, we would reenact the history of the warring states on the continent of Europe, that we would have all sorts of jealousies and petty grievances against one another, and we would fight it out among one another, and that would be very bad for us collectively. So we want to maintain union to preserve our independence. We see a risk that an independent state, say Virginia or Georgia down on the periphery, they would fall under the control. They would fall into a protectorate status or an alliance with some hostile European power, which probably would have happened. If Georgia had spun out on their own, or if the New England states had organized together, they would have fallen under some foreign

control or interest. They would have done that more easily in that smaller unit than they would have done collectively, where we have a common interest to pursue national interest or or collective interests in the federal government. So all that said, we see a party form behind the scenes. So while the articles of Confederation are kind of stumbling along, the Continental Congress really isn't getting any of these needful things done. The federalists organize. George Washington starts writing his friends,

people like Alexander Hamilton, people like James Madison. and he starts organizing behind the scenes for the replacement of the Articles of Confederation. Now, that's not what they actually pitch. Alexander Hamilton goes to a meeting of the Continental Congress in Annapolis, in Maryland. They're meeting at the Maryland State House because they don't have any permanent seat of government. They go around. They move around and meet in different places at various times. Hamilton is lucky enough to find a quorum of the Continental Congress

because frequently there weren't enough representatives from the various states to conduct official business. This is the point at which the Continental Congress had declined, that there may be elected representatives to the Continental Congress, but they wouldn't even bother to come because nothing of consequence would take place there. All the action was at the state level. That's where all the authority was. And the states had really pressing problems.

They had crushing war debts because all the states had finance their own war efforts, independent of one another, and then they collectively finance a consolidated effort with the Continental Congress, but that's only one part of what's going on. So all the states have these incredible bills. from the war and they're all pursuing various measures to try to rectify those problems. But Hamilton finds a quorum of the Continental Congress in Annapolis and he proposes a convention to amend the articles.

And this receives a mostly positive response. So 12 of the 13 states then send delegates to the proposed convention that meets in Philadelphia in 1789. At the convention, Hamilton is one of the first there, and he is one of these really dynamic federalist actors. He's, we call this group the Federalists. These are the men that are contending for a new constitution and a new organization of the American Union. And they say that it will preserve both the liberty that had been won from King George. We're going to have an independent government here, and it's going to guarantee American liberties,

the concerns that were widespread among the patriots back in 1776 when independence is declared. But it will also preserve union. So they're talking about a functional union. and they are emphasizing the unity of the American states. But there is a big problem that comes with that. If they are states, if they are sovereign powers that have won their sovereignty in the War of Independence, how can they collectively act without imperiling the liberties they've won? What powers do they seed to a general government to act in their name?

And this is what the Constitution portends to do. The Constitution is not a list of the abstract philosophy of man and his happiness, but the list of things delegated to the federal government in its three branches. the things those branches can and cannot do, and also a list of things the states can and cannot do. And the powers that create this general government, that is all vested in the states themselves. It's ultimately up to the states whether or not they will join this union. So the Philadelphia Convention is a very fascinating episode. It is not publicized.

There are no journalists allowed to participate, take notes, or to publicize the proceedings of the convention. It's a closed meeting. And this was done so that everyone could freely speak their mind and freely propose anything that might solve American problems. without fear of retribution or public backlash. And with that in mind, Hamilton is one of the first to arrive. And once he has an audience there, the delegates start to arrive.

He proposes something very controversial. He proposes a president that is elected for life, that the president has the power to veto state legislation, and that the president appoints the governors of the various states. Now, this is a model, an inspiration from the British Empire itself. And for this, for this kind of reputation that the federalists have, Hamilton's proposal in this instance, it is not publicized until decades later when the notes of his speeches finally are published.

So no one at the time knows in the reading public what Hamilton had proposed at the convention when it sits. But this comes back much later when Hamilton's goals, Hamilton's ambitions, are a more contentious matter after the ratification of the Constitution many years later. But the Federalists come to Philadelphia with a plan for a new government, a new union government for the states. What they come up with is the Philadelphia Constitution that we are nominally using today. the real fight isn't at the convention where the federalists have organized beforehand. They put Washington as the chair of the convention. So the federalists are running this convention. They don't get unanimous approval even at the convention.

There are a lot of dissatisfied delegates that were sent by their states to the convention. that they go home. They become anti-federalists. They vote against the Philadelphia Constitution in its ratification debates in the state conventions. But the convention has been organized by the federalists. The federalists are the ones proposing the big ideas there. But that isn't where the Constitution is decided as a political question.

The convention only creates. the Constitution. It's up to the states to decide whether or not they will be part of that union. So it goes back to state conventions. Now, I mentioned before, only 12 states showed up at the Philadelphia Convention. Rhode Island decided to sit it out entirely. Rhode Island was of a very libertarian mindset. Rhode Island was known before this time to be, the veto vote in every sensible financial measure proposed in the Continental Congress. When it came time to raise revenue to pay the troops or anything, Rhode Island would always veto the legislation. So they didn't want a general government doing anything financially responsible

in that instance. They were particularly jealous of the taxing power, we might say. But The result was financial irresponsibility to the point where we're looking at the mutiny of the Continental Army. Well, Rhode Island is also the very first state to vote on the Constitution. They're the only state to put the Constitution up to a popular vote, a plebiscite, and it is overwhelmingly voted down in Rhode Island. Two other conventions that are worth noting are the New York Convention, where the Constitution is passed by a single vote in the majority. I think it's 51 to 49. And the Virginia

Convention, which is maybe the most artful of the debates held about the Constitution, the leader of the anti-federalists in Virginia was none other than Patrick Henry, who was perhaps the greatest orator of his generation. So the opponents of the Constitution, institution, the anti-federalists so-called, they did not choose that name for themselves. They like the term federalist. Everyone likes the term because it means a Liberty Union government, a government that safeguards the prerogatives of the states. And when we use the term federalism in a modern context, like if we were to describe a federal constitution in Brazil or Mexico, we would be describing a constitution that has two levels of authority. It has a state level authority where the institutions are more.

responsive to representation, more responsive to local concerns and such. Just because of the ratio of representation, it's always going to be a far more responsive sort of organization at a local level or regional level. A federal government means that you have two levels of government. You have a general government that is over the states that conducts foreign policy, a common economic policy, a common defense policy, perhaps a monetary system, and the rest. And then you have a local level government, a state level government, if you will, and that these things exist side by side, and they serve one another in some way. So the anti-federalists, they like the term federalism. They want that as a union government. What they say is that the Philadelphia Constitution

is not a good plan for this. The federalists led by Washington, Hamilton, Madison, John Jay of New York, and other great minds of that generation. These are all brilliant statesmen. They are contending that the Philadelphia Constitution is a good solution to the questions that beset the American states in their union at this time. So now we turn to the anti-federalists themselves. The anti-federalists are not anything to be sniffed at. My students are always surprised by this when I address the issue that there were people that found themselves a raid against George Washington.

that they didn't like the Philadelphia Constitution. What is better for America than our Constitution? We all venerate the Constitution. These are just high schoolers. They don't know so much about modern arguments about how the government's working. But I always remind them, no, these were men of the best reputations of their day. They have their bona fides from the War for Independence. These are people like John Hancock of Massachusetts. These are people

like Sam Adams and Patrick Henry and George Mason. These are really remarkable men of their generation. And we should certainly take their ideas about the Constitution seriously. In retrospect, at our point today, the anti-federalist concerns about the Constitution look like visionary prophecy of what the federal government is going to do to the states. And this was the major concern of the anti-federalists. They said, yes, this will accomplish union, but this will be a national government and not a federation. This will be a consolidation of political power in the national government, and it will strip the powers from the states. It may even do this by force of arms.

So we see a lot of concern among the anti-federalists that the Constitution is going to create a permanent standing army that will eventually be. used to collect taxes, which is precisely the way that the war for independence began. So the anti-federalists are thinking back to the circumstances in which Americans declare their independence from the kingdom of Britain, and they say, we do not want to recreate here in America the same form of government that we just won independence from. We don't want to copy the British model. We don't want to imperil our liberties that we had so recently and dearly won. So these are the talking points of the anti-federalists. Incidentally, if you want a brief, the most concise list of anti-federalist concerns, you can do no better than to read

the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the articles of major concern that you hear from anti-federalist writers that was amended to the Constitution right after its ratification. It was one of the first things Congress does when they assemble in New York City, our first capital city, under Washington's administration. They ratify the Bill of Rights and send it to the states, and it's added to the Constitution. So it's an amendment, it's an addition to the Constitution to satisfy the anti-federalist concerns. So it's actually a wonderful example of politicians keeping their promises and a real compromise in American politics. So the Bill of Rights is a brief of the anti-federalist concerns, but we're going to be talking about other particular concerns of the anti-federalists today. We're going to start with Brutus number five.

Brutus was a pseudonym for an anti-federalist writer in the state of New York. And Brutus was, he takes his name from the classics, of course. He's the enemy of tyranny, the assassin of Julius Caesar, the ambitious king. and in Brutus number five, which was published in 1787, December of 1787, he titles his essay on the necessary and proper and the general welfare clauses and on Congress's power to tax, the states will be destroyed. This is the title of his essay. So opposed to these essays that we're going to sample from today are, of course, the famous

Federalist essays, the so-called Federalist Papers, which were written by John J. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, some of the great leaders of the Federalist faction. So Brutus, he says about the clauses, he says, in the In the first article 8th section, it is declared that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. In the preamble, the intent of the Constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

In this clause, the power is in express words given to Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. And in the last paragraph of the same section, there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident that the legislature under this Constitution may pass any law which they may think proper. It is true, the ninth section restrains their power with respect to certain objects, but these restrictions are very limited, some of them improper, some unimportant, and others

not easily understood, as I shall hereafter show. It has been urged that the meaning I give to this part of the Constitution is not the true one, that the intent of it is to confer on the legislature the power to lay and collect taxes, et cetera, in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare. To this, I would reply that the meaning and intent of the Constitution is to be collected from the words of it, and I submit to the public whether the construction I've given it is not the most natural and easy. But admitting the contrary opinion to prevail, I shall nevertheless be able to show the same powers are substantially vested in the general government by several other

articles in the Constitution. It invests the legislature with the authority to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and to pass all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying this power into effect. He says, what limitation, if any, is to set the exercise of this power by the Constitution. And he predicts that the supremacy of the general government will overrule the states on any contentious point. Now, in retrospect, we see this is, in fact, how the Constitution has worked at any point in our history where the states have found themselves in conflict with the general government, particularly after the Civil War,

Brutus's prediction is entirely correct. Brutus goes on to say later in his essay, I remark that the power given to the federal legislature directly annihilates all the powers of the state legislatures. There cannot be a greater solacism in politics than to talk of power in government without the command of any revenue. It is as absurd as to talk of an animal without blood or the subsistence of one without food. Now the general government having in their control every possible source of revenue and authority to pass any law they may deem necessary to draw them forth or to facilitate their collection. No source of revenue is therefore left in the hands of any state. So he predicts in so many words that the conflicts which will inevitably arise between the powers of the states in the powers of this new central government, not adequately protected in the sphere of the states, the general government will always prevail.

Now I turn to another essay of Brutus, Brutus 11, which was published in January of 1788, again in New York. So in this essay, it's a particular argument as his essays were organized, rather like the Federalist Papers concerned particular concerns about the Constitution. He says that the proposed Supreme Court is a great danger to the states. And this is the bet noah of the anti-federalists. They're very concerned about the new proposed institutions of the general government. He says, I'm not competent to give a perfect explanation of the powers granted to this department. that is the judiciary. I shall attempt to trace some of the leading features of it, from which I presume it will appear. They will operate to a total subversion of the state

judiciaries, if not to the legislature of the states. In Article 3rd, Section 2, it is said, the judicial power shall extend in all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority, etc. The first article to which the power extends is all cases and law and equity arising under this Constitution. What latitude of constitution this clause should receive it is not easy to say, or what latitude of construction under this clause? It's not easy to say. At first view, one would suppose that it is meant no more than this that the courts under the general government should exercise not only the powers of courts of law, but also that of courts of equity, in the manner in which these powers are usually exercised in the different states. But this cannot be the meaning, because the next clause authorizes the courts to take cognizance of all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States.

This last article I conceive conveys as much power to the general judicial as any of the state courts possesses. The cases arising under the Constitution must be different from those arising under the laws, or else the two clauses mean exactly the same thing. A case arising under the Constitution must include such as bring into question its meaning, and will require an explanation of the nature and extent of the powers of the different departments under it. He goes on to say that the Constitution, in setting up the Supreme Court, it is going to overpower all state judiciaries. It is going to overrule them. The anti-federalists are adamant about this, though they are not organized. This is one of the remarkable things about the anti-federalists as a faction. they were not organized for this fight.

They were not corresponding with one another beforehand as the federalists did. The anti-federalists had no alternative to the Philadelphia Constitution. They did not have their own convention in which they draft their own articles of union. And so what they have is fears of prognostications about the political future of the country. they don't have a good alternative. Let's see here. Isn't that something that you see with proper right-wingers historically? They can diagnose the problem, but when it comes to initiating the solution, that's where they tend to falter?

Yes, I think so. They are a conservative force in that they are opposing a new innovation. They are conservative in the sense that they are advocating for the political rights they just so recently won in independence. They are disorganized. They don't have a clearly considered alternative. and that is one of the key reasons that they fail. Not to say that they were not an elite of their day, not to say that they were not very capable,

but they were not coordinated. They're coming from various points of view, and they fail to carry public opinion. Though we do have a couple, we have several examples where they came very close. New York, where it came down to a single vote, the outstanding states that reject the Constitution initially, North Carolina and Rhode Island. North Carolina rejects it in convention. But they do ratify it later on after the union is organized. So, Brutus, to summarize this piece, he's saying that the Supreme Court is going to strike down states.

laws and even state constitutions, that the supremacy of the courts in this construction, it will lead to that result. And certainly it did. And it did much earlier than the other fears manifested. So now I turn to Sentinel. Sentinel was the pseudonym of one Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania, who also wrote a series of essays against the Philadelphia Constitution. And he outlines general concerns here. He says, the late convention have submitted to your consideration a plan of a new federal government. The subject is highly interesting to your future welfare, whether it be calculated to promote the great ends of civil society, vis-a-vis the happiness and prosperity that

community, it behooves you well to consider uninfluenced by the authority of names. Instead of that frenzy of enthusiasm that has actuated the citizens of Philadelphia in their approbation of the proposed plan, before it was possible that it could be the result of rational investigation into its principles. It ought to be dispassionately and deliberately examined in its own intrinsic merit, the criterion of your patronage. If ever free an unbiased discussion was proper or necessary, it is on such an occasion. All the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of freemen are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct.

Those who are competent to the task of developing the principles of government ought to be encouraged to come forward and thereby to better enable the people to make a proper judgment for the science of government is so obtruse that few are able to judge for themselves without such assistance. The people are too apt to yield an implicit assent to their opinions of those characters whose abilities are held in the highest esteem. Here he's mentioning Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Hamilton, and the rest, the leaders of the federalists. He says, the pure intention may be made instruments of despotism in the hands of the artful and designing. He goes on to say, the wealthy and ambitious who in every community think that they have the right

to lord it over their fellow creatures have availed themselves very successfully of this favorable disposition for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government. All the distresses and difficulties they experience, proceeding from various causes, have been ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation. Now, we've talked about the ways in which the articles were not operating. Nevertheless, the anti-federalists are very interested in saying, well, we need to amend the existing constitution. We don't need to replace it. And they point to the successes of the articles. They did win their war of independence under the articles. They did organize the Northwest Territory under the articles. There were

several major accomplishments in our early history done under the articles. But here we see the worry of the anti-federalists that the articles will be used by an interested elite to subvert the liberties of Americans. He says, I'm fearful the principles of government inculcated in Mr. Adams's treatise and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the newspapers have misled some well-designing members of the late convention. But it will appear in the sequel, that the construction of the proposed plan of government is infinitely more extravagant. He worries that the government proposed in Philadelphia is going to be a consolidationist regime. It's going to consolidate all political power under one general government.

and it's going to render the more responsive authorities of the individual states null and void, basically make them impotent in political matters. This is the regular concern of the anti-federalists. They're very worried about the implied powers in the Constitution for the general government. and as we immediately see in Washington's administration, those worries were well-founded. Sentinel continues. He says, Congress will have the power to lay and collect taxes. Once again, we see the taxing power is a major concern of the anti-federalists.

These are people that are very concerned to keep the power of taxation, the power of of getting money, getting government revenue, and spending that revenue, they want to keep that power as close to home as possible because the further away that power is, the less accountable it becomes. And as you remember, this is precisely the kind of argument that we had in 1776 when independence was declared, that parliament in far away Westminster in England was passing taxes and regulations over the American colonies and that they were unaccountable to the Americans. The Americans had no representation there and also

did not want representation there. They had their own legislatures in their own capitals. And this was all charges against King George that he allowed this to happen. He gave the assent of his authority for Parliament to regulate the American colonies and to tax them. So he says, again, the general welfare clause granted to Congress for these taxing powers is a particular danger. He actually highlights general welfare and says this is a dangerous, expansive clause. It can be interpreted in any possible way.

It's not limited. And this is going to be a point of contention. He says, now what can be more comprehensive than these words, not content by other sections of this plan to grant all the great executive powers of a confederation and a standing army in time of peace, that great engine of oppression, and moreover, the absolute control over the commerce of the United States and all external objects of revenue, such as unlimited imposts upon imports, etc. They are to be vested with every species of internal taxation, whatever taxes, duties, and excises that they may deem requisite for the general welfare by any imposed on the citizens of these, or may be imposed by on the citizens of these states, levied by the officers of Congress. He also warns of the judicial power that it will overrule the state governments and state constitutions, even declaring constitutions null. Now we turn to a piece of oratory June 4, 1788, the Virginia ratifying convention, where the anti-federalists are led by the great Patrick Henry. Henry gives the opening speech at the convention, which is a sign of the anti-federalist strength in Virginia.

Now, the eyes of all concerned are very focused on Virginia for this. Madison is the Federalist delegate in the Virginia Convention. Of course, an author of the famous Federalist essays in New York. is a small and quiet sort of man and Henry is this great force of nature. So the anti-federalists really have their best chance to stop this Philadelphia Constitution there in Virginia. In spite of many other states ratifying it, famously Delaware is the very first to ratify the Constitution and convention. If Virginia opted out, Virginia is such a vital state in the union, you could not imagine an American union working without Virginia's assent because it would geographically divide the union.

And Virginia was of the most populous states up there with Pennsylvania and New York as one of the most populated states. It was in some ways the largest state territorially. It's a very interesting question. So Patrick Henry, he says, the public mind as well as my own is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of a number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness.

I represent their feelings when I say, they are exceedingly uneasy, being brought from that state of full security which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late Federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquility prevailed in this country, but since that period they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted.

When I wished for an appointment to this convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation in public affairs, I conceive the Republic to be an extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, Wince has arisen this fearful jeopardy. It arises from this fatal system. It arises from a proposal to change our government. A proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states. A proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy to the eventual exclusion of four states,

Now, in this, he mentions the Constitution's means of establishing the new union. It required only the assent of nine states to form the new federal government. Four states, up to four states, could remain out, and the federal government would become a functioning authority. So he goes on to say, now I'm looking for the quote, he mentions the, preamble of the Constitution as the focus. He says, sir, give me leave to demand. What right had they to say, we the people? He is referring to the preamble. We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and so on. He says, what right do they have to say, we the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of

my anxious solicitude for the public welfare leads me to ask, who authorized them to speak in the language of we the people instead of we the states. States are the characteristic and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the convention, and were some of them not there, I would express some testimonial of my esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them, a confidence which

was well placed, and I am sure, sir, I would give up anything for them. I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives, but, sir, sir. on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct, even from the illustrious man who saved us by his valor. He's mentioning George Washington there. I would have a reason for his conduct, that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason. And I, and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason.

But there are other gentlemen here who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me. I wish I could hear the real actual existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps so dangerous in my conception. So he says they are claiming democratic mandate that the people of the United States form the union. Now, we can be technical about this and we can say the only people who actually voted on this constitution were the plebiscite in Rhode Island. That was the only place where it was put up to a popular vote.

vote. Now, this is not to disavow conventions as a means of deciding of deciding political questions. But Henry's point is very important. The Constitution does not start out with the authority of the states, that the states form the federal government as their agent. And it should have said that. And Henry himself, he was invited to go to the Philadelphia Convention as a delegate for Virginia. He refused. He said he smelt a rat in Philadelphia. He sensed that there was an interested party that was organizing the affair and he suspected their motives even then.

And here he is giving us some reasons why. And this becomes very important, as we will see, in the many arguments about federalism in American history, the agent that grants the federal government, its authority, is a key element in these debates. And Henry realized it even before the Constitution comes into effect. He says, this phrase, we the people, is going to be used as the democratic authority to overrule the states. That the federal government has a greater mandate of power

in that it has this democratic phrase that undergirds its authority. And it's not the states that are said in the document itself to set it up. That is no mere rhetoric. That becomes a very powerful, argument, as we will see. Now, finally, in my survey of anti-federalist literature here, I turn to George Mason.

Now, he is a very interesting fellow anti-federalist leader from Virginia, representative, governor, a founding father. He's called the father of the Bill of Rights. and this is because Mason makes a very consequential decision in the Virginia Convention. He goes to the convention as one of the key anti-federalist delegates. While he is there, James Madison, the Federalist, brokers with Mason and several other federalist delegates, anti-federalist delegates. He brings them into the federalist camp. So Mason actually changes his position in the course of the convention and its debates. This happens

because Madison pledges the Bill of Rights as his first order of business to satisfy anti-federalist concerns. And that is very important. And this is obviously going to develop in in other episodes when we address these concerns and how the interpretations develop based on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the Jeffersonian concern as opposed to the Hamiltonians and their scheme to develop the powers of the federal government through inference. So at this point, George Mason, when he gives this speech, the very same day Patrick Henry gave his opening remarks.

June 4th, 1788. He is an anti-federalist in this. He says, Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government and no longer a confederation. I mean the clause which gives the first hint

of the general government laying direct taxes. Again, the tax power of focus of anti-federalist concern. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does of itself entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. The power being at discretion, unconfined and without any kind of control, must carry everything before it.

The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. The power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together, the one will destroy the other, the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former.

Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? Is it ascertained by history that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people? History also, supported by the opinion of the best writers, show us that monarchy may suit a large territory and despotic government ever so extensive a country. But that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example on the face of the earth to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule?

Was there ever an instance of a great national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, etc., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than am, but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? So, we see with Mason here, he again identifies the main theme of the series. How might we rectify the vast expanse of the American? American states, how can we organize them in a union government and retain the liberties that had

been sought with our independence? An interesting note here, just to put a cherry on top, if you will, the Treaty of Paris, which resolves our independence after war is one. one, especially with the climactic battle of Yorktown. King George did not treat with the Continental Congress. Instead, King George declared the 13 individual American states as independent. He lists them out. He writes them all by name.

And he says, I recognize them as independent. states, that they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, and do all those other things which independent states may have right due. That's what the Treaty of Paris says. And the question here is, to what degree do the states surrender certain powers or surrender all of their powers to some other agent. This is what the anti-federalists are very concerned about, and they are saying explicitly. This is not being done, frankly, openly, clearly. It will be done by inference of clauses in the Constitution. Lawyers and future generations are going to read the Constitution, and they're going to use the implied powers of the Constitution.

to abrogate the prerogatives of the state governments. And they will do that to consolidate power, especially the taxing power. That will be the reason why the institutions founded under the Philadelphia Constitution start abrogating the prerogatives of the states. And we look over these anti-federalist writings these days. there happens to be an excellent collection of anti-federalist literature edited by Joseph Sobrin, which I recommend to you all. My copy is packed up in my storage unit because I'm in the middle of the move right now.

But it's this beautiful cloth-bound edition with a forward by Sobrin himself. when we review these documents, we see in prognostication the debates that later take place in American history and indeed have not left us even now. The tension between local authorities and the states and the federal government remain a very important part of our political life and concerns. today. So that is my brief on the anti-federalists. It all comes down to things that, you know, Sam Francis wrote about extensively, mass and scale. Absolutely. And people are still arguing, oh, if we don't keep the union together, the leftist win, China comes in. It's like, okay.

So keep doing something that doesn't work. Trying to keep 350 million people now of what, 75, 100, 100 different cultures, multiple races. You're trying to hold that together. Good luck with that. It's really interesting that George Mason touches on that exact question. He says he wants union for the American states. He says he's always advocated it. I'm genuinely curious to what the anti-federalists would have come up with if they had assembled together in a convention.

But contrary to John Jay, and I know in our circles we frequent, talk about Federalists too. John Jay is emphasizing the things that Americans have in common. He says we have the same ancestors, we have the same religion, we have the same manners. It's one united people. And the Federalists are always playing to those optimistic takes on the collective country. Mason recognizes the things that are going to set us at odds with one another. He says, we have many different climates. We have different manners in different regions. He does not say that we have a diversity of national origins, which indeed at that time, we didn't. It was overwhelmingly British in origin. We don't have a variety of languages. He doesn't say that we do.

we have a small number of German speakers in Pennsylvania somewhere. We are overwhelmingly Protestant at this point in our history. But obviously we have to have some things in common. Now, in our American reckoning, we look at the Constitution as the thing that we all have in common, the Supreme Law of the Land. But unwisely, we did not codify other things other than this document that can be read in such widely divergent ways. We needed other things, more organic things to unite us. And other empires had things like this.

In the Roman Empire, they required everyone to have Latin to be a citizen. And for the very simple reason, you can't participate in citizenship without being able to read the law and interpret it. They required a standard of religion. Everyone had to be a Greco-Roman polytheist. And this is the start of various persecutions against Christians and others. the human sacrificing druids of Gaul were prescribed. The human sacrificing Carthaginians in North Africa were banned. They were not allowed to practice their religion.

And the Romans felt strongly about that. They had an official religion. And this was supposed to unite them under a common government. And that was an empire. was made of various nations. But the Romans had a more official policy on that than we ever did. And our optimistic liberalism that people of any number of backgrounds, languages, religions, and laws could all live under the same government somehow is obviously untenable. We talk about this frequently in other contexts.

there has to be more in common. Citizens must have some things in common, as Aristotle wisely observed in his politics. And yet Mason says we have these different regions, we have different economies in the different regions, we have different manners in different regions because different parts of the British colonial effort, they concentrated in certain regions in the Americas. and he identifies that as a problem for the union. And yet he still wants a union. And yet he also comes over to the federalists when they finally call a vote at the convention. So he turns more optimistic as the convention goes on about the Constitution.

He gets his Bill of Rights, a liberal construction, obviously. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and so on. But he still recognizes those differences, and I think that's really fascinating. There is a lot to be mined out of the anti-federalist literature as far as political observation and wisdom about the American situation goes. And they foresee the political problems in our future at this early stage. Awesome. Awesome. Thank you, Professor. I would encourage you now, please tell people where they can find you and shill anything you wish. Do the shillings. Absolutely. I am running a small publishing house. It is called Tall Men Books. You can find it at www. Tallmanbooks.com.

and today, incidentally, my catalog has almost doubled in size on the website. I have a lot of books that I've been working on that I've been piling up for my website admin to add to the site. And so I've got like 20 books that I added onto the site today, including a new series, well, a couple new series. histories of the Mississippi Valley, which are called River Books, and also a new series on Outlaws and Lawmen of the Old West, a new offering a biography of Billy the Kid by Pat Garrett, the man who killed Billy the Kid, and his friend. That is newly posted on the website.

You can find it there right now. Awesome. I'll make sure to link to it. And I look forward to part two. Thank you very much. It's going to be fine. Yes, it is. Thank you so much.

Take care about it.