When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result. In this situation, I trust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people to a wise and prudent determination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dispassionate part of the community. Encouraged by this consideration, I have been induced to offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs. Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns.
Ratification of the US Constitution Video transcript - [Instructor] When we Brutus essays anti-federalist learn about American history it sometimes seems like it might have been a very easy or somewhat obvious transition Brutus essays anti-federalist 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.
And Brutus is the pen name of the author. 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. 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.On this day in , an author writing under the pseudonym “Brutus” writes his first contribution to the anti-Federalist Papers.
These papers argued against the new Constitution, then being considered for ratification by the states. Anti-Federalist Papers is the collective name given to works written by the Founding Fathers who were opposed to or concerned with the merits of the United States Constitution of 19 rows · The essays were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states.
The author is thought by most scholars to have been Robert Yates, a New York judge, delegate to the Federal Convention, and political ally of anti-federalist New York Governor George Clinton.
Some Thoughts on anti-Federalist No. 1 by Martin and Marcia Along with our study of the Federalist Papers, we’ve been reading through the anti-Federalist papers too.
Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Essay Sample. The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist had very conflicting views on several things; however, they did have some similar views on topics such as on human nature and how it affected government.
Brutus’ powerful arguments prompted Federalists to articulate a more thorough explanation of what the Constitution meant and why it should be ratified. Taken together, the Federalist and Antifederalist debates over the Constitution provide Americans with a deeply insightful conversation about politics, human nature, and the difficulties of establishing good government.