- [Instructor] When we first
learn about American history
it sometimes seems like it might have been
a very easy or somewhat obvious transition
from the Articles of Confederation
to the Constitution but it was not.
It was a very vigorous debate.
As we've talked about in previous videos
the Articles of Confederation
proves to be too weak
in terms of a central government.
You have events like Shays' Rebellion
which really highlights this
and then as we go into 1787
you have a Constitutional Convention,
at first to maybe revise the
Articles of Confederation
but eventually they draft a
completely new constitution,
the constitution that we have today
and after it was drafted,
after that convention,
we get into his period of late 1787
and 1788 where you have
this very vigorous debate
between those who want to
ratify the constitution
often known as the Federalists
led by folks like Alexander Hamilton,
James Madison, John Jay,
famous for writing the Federalist Papers
which they published in this timeframe
and you also have the anti-Federalists
or who will eventually be known
as the anti-Federalists who
are against the ratification
and the adoption of the constitution
and their writings
which are also published
in this same time period
are known as now the
anti-Federalist Papers
and what I have here is an excerpt
from what is perhaps the most famous
of the anti-Federalist Papers,
this is from Brutus I,
published on the 18th of October 1787,
so right in this time
period right over here,
right after the Constitutional
Convention had ended
and the states were deciding
whether to ratify it.
And Brutus is the pen name of the author.
It's believed to be either Robert Yates,
Melancton Smith or John
Williams from New York
but the reason why they
picked the name Brutus
is from history.
Brutus is the Roman senator
who was involved in
assassinating Julius Caesar
keeping him from
overthrowing the Republic,
so in some ways they view themselves
as people who are protecting
the Republic from tyranny.
Now, as I read this,
keep in mind some of the
ideas that we've looked at
in other videos,
the different types of democracy,
a participatory democracy
where the citizens are
close to the governance,
to the decision making.
You have a pluralist democracy
where you have a vigorous debate
between many, many different views.
And you have an idea of an elite democracy
where the people are still sovereign
but they're being represented
by a smaller, limited group
of I guess you could say elite,
maybe more wealthy, more educated folks
who are trying or should be acting
in the interests of the citizens.
So, keep those in mind
and think about what type of democracy
the author here favors
and what they might be afraid of.
And so, Brutus wrote,
to the Citizens of the State of New York.
The first question that
presents itself on the subject
is whether the 13 United States
should be reduced to one great republic,
governed by one legislature
and under the direction of
one executive and judicial
or whether they should continue
13 confederated republics
under the direction and control
of a supreme federal head
for certain defined
national purposes only?
So, they're starting with this argument
that his new constitution
is really creating just
one supreme government
instead of a confederation
of sovereign republics
that coordinate for certain,
defined national purposes.
It goes on to write,
this government is to possess absolute
and uncontrollable power,
legislative, executive and judicial
with respect to every
object to which it extends.
The powers of the general legislature,
so they're talking about
what will eventually be
the US Congress as proposed
by the constitution
extend to every case that
is of the least importance,
there is nothing valuable to human nature,
nothing dear to freemen,
but what is within its power.
It has the authority to make laws
which will affect the lives, the liberty,
and property of every
man in the United States,
nor can the constitution
or laws of any state
in any way prevent or impede
the full and complete
execution of every power given.
So, once again, saying
hey, this is a takeover,
these 13 states are
really becoming one state
under the constitution.
This central government has so much power
that it kind of makes the states
a little bit irrelevant
because they can't do something outside
of what the central government
thinks they should so,
so then having established this argument
and once again, this is just an excerpt,
I encourage you to read all of Brutus I,
it's quite fascinating,
the author then argues
why this is a bad idea
to have this takeover
and have 13 sovereign states
turned into essentially one.
Let us now proceed to inquire
as I at first proposed whether it be best
the 13 United States should be reduced
to one great republic or not.
History furnishes no
example of a free republic,
anything like the extent
of the United States.
The Grecian republics
were of small extent,
so also was that of the Romans.
Both of these, it is true,
in process of time
extended their conquests
over large territories of country
and the consequence was
that their governments
were changed from that of free governments
to those of the most tyrannical
that ever existed in the world.
So, he's saying hey, look,
there's really no precedent for this.
When you just had the
Athenians governing themselves
in a participatory model, yes,
a republic seemed to work
but then, once it started to extend
its influence over surrounding
cities, surrounding regions,
it became more tyrannical
and the Romans even more so.
The territory of the United States
is a vast extent.
It now contains near
three millions of souls
and is capable of containing
much more than 10 times that number.
These might not seem like big numbers now,
the United States is today
over 100 times bigger
but this was already quite a bit larger
than say just ancient Athens.
Is it practicable for a country,
so large and so numerous
as they will soon become
to elect a representation that will speak
their sentiments without their becoming
so numerous as to be incapable
of transacting public business?
It certainly is not.
So, this is really interesting.
So, to the founding fathers,
the idea of a republic
was really a representative democracy
and Brutus here is questioning, look,
if you're governing over
such a vast territory,
can you have a representation
that will truly speak the
sentiments of the people
and if you do have true
representation of the people,
well, are you going to have
so many representatives
and so many interests
that they're not going
to be able to govern?
So, he's saying hey,
this is gonna pluralist
and he does not view
pluralism as a good thing.
He's saying hey, there's
going to be so many views.
This is going to be ungovernable.
In a republic, the manners, sentiments
and interests of the
people should be similar.
So, this is worth underlining again
'cause this is a statement
directly against the notion of pluralism.
He says that in order
for a republic to work,
you have to have people of
similar sentiments and interests,
not different views.
If this be not the cases,
there will be a constant
clashing of opinions
and the representatives of one part
will be continually striving
against those of the other.
So, clearly did not think
much of a pluralist democracy.
This will retard the
operations of government
and prevent such conclusions
as will promote the public good.
So, he sees pluralism as
a recipe for indecision
and not being able to pass good laws
or do things in the public interest.
He goes on to say,
in so extensive a republic,
the great officers of government
would soon become above
the control of the people
and abuse their power to the purpose
of aggrandizing themselves
and oppressing them.
So, here it looks like like the author
is afraid of, you could kind of say,
an elite democracy,
that it really wouldn't
even be a republic,
that these people are
going to start acting
in their own interests.
If you have to have representatives
that represent such a large territory,
they're going to be
detached from the people
that they're representing
and then are just going to think
about their own aggrandization
and they will actually oppress the people
that they're supposed to represent.
These are some of the
reasons by which it appears
that a free republic cannot long subsist
over a country of the great
extent of these states.
If then this new constitution
is calculated to consolidate
the 13 states into one,
as it evidently is, it
ought not to be adopted.
So, Brutus is making this argument
that look, you can't have a republic
over such a vast territory,
arguably the states are a
little bit more attractable
although even at this point
some of the large states are quite large
but they would have a better chance
of being a free republic than merging
all of the 13 states
into what would effectively
be one republic.
