Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution

Unfortunately, I have received none of the material. . . as of yet. I hope the material will make it to me some time soon.

[This course was a much appreciated birthday gift!] The course Scope introduces the opponents in the Philadelphia 1787-8 Great Debate: Federalists (Hamilton and Madison) who wanted a representative rather than a participatory government and Anti-Federalists who wanted to know what would “substitute for state…power against oppression by a strong central government"…a topic becoming increasingly relevant today. Lecture 3 (=L3) gave the source for Anti-Federalism: "Without…God, too many people are tempted to neglect...civic duties for the sake of ...material interests". Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pleaded this position. Local power (example: from small farmers) would produce representatives less tempted by ambition and self-sufficiency. Thus anti-Federalists sought (L5) equilibrium between state and national power. Madison the Federalist, however, was darker. He (L7) esoterically sought to use factionalism to control the “self-love" that drives human reason. Madison adopted modern political positioning to sell his POV. For example (L6), the central government would “probably” be financed by only import and export duties…while he promoted a national military and created the open-ended “incalculability of future national needs". State governments would have more positions to fill and provide for the people’s domestic needs and ONLY BY EFFICIENCY COULD THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ECLIPSE THE PURVIEW OF THE STATES. His idea of the future did not foresee that such "efficiency" would lead to a $32 trillion national debt. The only check on the Feds would be state governments rallying popular disobedience. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalist could not provide a clear central government plan nor could they avoid the possibility of the states splitting up (L6) A point of agreement between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (L8) was that “the law-making body (must be) directly dependent on, and sympathetic with, the people." Unfortunately, the modern welfare state (see Great Course: European History by Steinberg L36) has reversed the “sympathy and dependence direction”. No longer is the lawmaker dependent on the people, now the people have become dependent on the politician. Hamilton continued Madison’s representative (not democratic) view that virtue could be found only "in a tiny minority" (L8). His elite would consist of lawyers "sympathetic to commerce". Both feared the masses and Madison wanted “representatives who do not resemble their constituents but are…distinguished by their virtues”. He did provide an excellent argument for blending duties (instead of strictly separating them between the House, Senate, and President): “...as to give each a constitutional control over the others." State legislature election of Senators was a nice idea of Hamilton’s but was lost in the 1913 17th Amendment as the “virtuous” Senators begat a “millionaire’s club atmosphere" AND locked state legislatures left positions open. The Anti-Federalists (L10) wanted the main checks and balances to be between states and the Feds. They unsuccessfully sought to find a substitute for the class-based competition found in the British government but by L11 they have lost to the Federalists. RELEVANCE TODAY: Anti-Federalists saw the Presidency (L10) as “posing the threat of monarchic despotism". George Washington gave 8 executive orders in 8 years. In the last 3 years, the Supreme Court has had to reverse/informally reject multiple major Presidential mandates as executive over-reach: Federal Eviction Moratorium (2021), Business Vaccine/testing (2022); and Student Debt Retirement (2/2023). In 3/2023 a Federal Court rejected the “Border Parole Policy" mandate. Additionally, modern Federalists briefly called for “court packing” thereby bolstering Anti-Federalist leeriness. Hamilton would have rebuffed court packing because the judiciary was (L11) "designed...to keep the (legislators/mandates) within the limits assigned to their authority”. This nod to the need for Anti-Federalist protections brings us to L12’s final Anti-Federalist warning: “fostering civic virtue...must be more vigorously cultivated in the populace.” It is held by some that our schools are losing this battle.

This is an excellent series that discusses what the Federalist Papers really are: a work of advocacy, and not a guide to interpret the Constitution. The speaker does a great job of examining the predictions of the opponents of the Constitution (most of which came true, albeit not for about 200 years). The lectures go back and forth between the two sides, making it easy to understand the competing arguments. I highly recommend it.

Prof. Pangle is a superb lecturer – he possesses a strong ability to explain abstract concepts clearly; his lectures are well organized; and he is masterful in the cadence and diction. The course is also very helpful with respect to civics – he genuinely helps us understand the debate that led to the creation of our nation.

Dr. Pangle does a fantastic job in showing the real and deep intentions of the creation of America. He brings in arguments from the Federalists and anti-Federalists to show the mixture of "small" and "big" government in order to create an ideal democratic republic. Using original documents and intentions, he shows that America was created not by "white racists" but men of their times who were trying to put together a balance of central and local governments. Essential listening

This colurse is really outrstandong in its presentation of this fundamental part of our history.Very well done and the teaching methpodology is superb. Clearly the professor an outstandoing academic and teacher.

This is an excellent course not only for the civic eduction that it conveys but also by the mastery of its delivery. Professor Pangle really does a marvelous job at presenting a potentially arid subject into an interesting, eloquent and attention grabbing historical story.

This course is a must-see for anyone interested in American history, politics, or law. Although I’ve seen a lot about the Federalist Papers, this is by far the most thorough treatment of the debate between the advocates of the proposed Constitution (as documented in the Federalist Papers) and the opponents (whose arguments are rarely articulated). Dr.. Pangle provides a fair back-and-forth assessment of the arguments from topic to topic. Topics include division of power between states and the proposed national government, how members of Congress are to be selected, powers of taxation, the nebulous unchecked nature of the Supreme Court, and the advisability of a Bill of Rights. In general, the Federalists were afraid of the weakness, perhaps mild anarchy, of the Articles of Confederation while the Anti-Federalists were afraid of a return to aristocracy and elitism the Revolutionary War was fought to escape. Interestingly, many of the concerns and predictions of the Anti-Federalists have come true, although it has taken much longer to happen than they may have anticipated. Dr. Pangle is fair, open-minded, and not preachy. He notes strengths and weaknesses of all arguments without being judgmental. I used the audio version. I don’t think that the video version would have added anything significant.