The Anti-Federalists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- www.tomrichey.net
The Anti-federalists were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution because they believed that the stronger central government that it would create would undermine principles of republicanism, states' rights, and limited government. It was the Federalists vs. the Anti-federalists in a fierce struggle over ratification. Although the Constitution was ratified, the Anti-federalists helped to shape the document by insisting on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.
Please subscribe to my channel for more lecture on US History and Government!
clearly the Anti-federalists were more than correct. It seems those on the other side should have had no issues supporting the Bill of Rights if their intentions truly were pure. Great video Tom. Thanks
is debateable
It is lovely for this video to teach us and break us from the trance that schools have imprinted on us that we need a strong central government
@@britishpeopleyellowteeth6071 spoken like the true leftist democrat you clearly are, See you on the battlefield
The Federalists advocated for checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers, etc, to prevent tyranny. Both sides wanted to ensure no tyrannical government emerges.
@John Weber I think Amendment 9 absolved that.
I learned more in this short video then my hour long history class, thanks you really helped me with my homework
Yeah, same here, this was extremely helpful for me ^^
pal I learned more than my 90 minute us history class
If you stay awake and stop texting during class, you'd probably learn a lot more.
Solid presentation Tom. I find myself more ascribing to the Anti-Feds line of reasoning as I witness the federal abuse of power and taxation and spending binges along with reading Federalist and Anti-Federalist source material. This was a solid summation and proof that idolizing Federalists as gods is a fool’s errand.
Constitution or not those rights are still god given
God giving, but for those who aren’t god-fearing they are natural rights.
Every prediction that the Anti-Federalist made about the tyrannical aspects of the federal constitution have sadly come true. If only they'd been more influential and been taken seriously by more people, maybe we wouldn't live in a republic where the sovereign states are treated as nothing more than colonies, with the federal government having the final say on everything. As he said, the federal constitution was adopted illegally as per the instructions of how to amend the Articles of Confederation.
Anti Federalist They could have just not compromised and the Articles would have remained. America would be a lot freer if it had remained under that system.
Yes the Anti-Federalists were right on virtually every point and even with the BOR tyranny came relatively quickly.
The Federalists influenced much of the media of the day. The newspapers often wouldn't run the articles and letters written by the Antifederalists.
TheFederalists even interfered with their letters that were mailed out, having the post office deliver them by the slowest means possible, if they delivered them at all.
This last part was so much of an issue that George Washington (even though he wasn't much more than a puppet for the Federalists) stepped in.
Precursor to Operation Mockingbird. Even earlier than the Hearst "yellow press" influencing (inciting?) the Spanish American War.
I definitely agree with the Anti-Federalists that a Bill of Rights was necessary. Especially during their time when they were just getting away from the King who sometimes denied them of their rights. Who knows where we would be today if they hadn't pushed the idea. I can also see where Patrick Henry was coming from about concurrent taxation but I don't think that alone was a good enough reason to oppose the entire constitution.
From this video, the main point I gathered was that the antifederalist seem threatened by the idea of a strong central government that challenges the power of the people. Especially ones who lived inland from the coast and cities, such as farmers. So, with this fear, they favored a strong state government rather than federal.
European anti federalists voted Brexit .
Anti federalism seems like a good movement
You are so much more accurate and honest about the nature of government and the differences between the Founding Fathers' philosophies than most teachers in public schools
That was very clear and concise. I love informative videos that doesn’t drone on. Keep up the good work!
With all due respect, Matt Damon looks like you-of course not including your knowledge.
JustKidding91 HA! I get that now and then! I appreciate you watching these videos. You still haven't told me what CC is.
Portland Community College (Oregon).
Matt Damon is actually a smart guy. Watch this video on how he schooled (pun intended) an interviewer, when he defended teachers from accusations of simply wanting more money /watch?v=gGlf8J2PGhI
Matt Damon’s pretty smart, he went to Harvard
Well done. Well-organized and presented, and succinct. The constitution fits on one page and you said all this in under 8 minutes. I wish there could have been a few more direct quotes from both Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
The Anti-federalists had every right to be scared of the Federalist Constitution (excluding the Bill of Rights). Not only did it make central government bigger and stronger, but it also gave no clear boundaries that the bigger and stronger central government couldn't cross. As Anti-federalists, the advocates for the agrarians and the states (the little guys), a plan for government that just increased the central power looked less appealing than The Articles which held (little "r") republican values in its foundation. But, The Articles were weak and the Constitution was strong. So, adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution kind of eased the Anti-federalists worries while still giving the Federalists what they wanted. This compromise was a good way to give each side their own little victory without upsetting either side
I agree
The anti-feds have been way underestimated.
Phenomenal video buddy. Concisely articulated in terminology the average person can understand. 🤙
Compromise was definitely the best option when ratifying the Constitution. Without a stronger central government the states would have continued to function more as individual nations and the US would not have been able to become the world power it is today. However, without the Bill of Rights Americans may have been denied rights which we enjoy today (even if Hamilton didn't seem to think so). So adding a few "thou shalt nots" was an appropriate addition to allow the government to grow stronger but grow within reason.
Another big factor was the United States having recently dealt with Britain. With the notion that other outside powers could and will attempt to seize control.
Wrong. Right now the D.C. ELITES have become a oligarchy that no longer represent the American people. They represent the corperations and the RICH. Combine that with the empire the federal government has created that it cannot afford to sustain. Our nation WILL collapse like the Roman Empire if this continues. We need more states rights. Abolish allot of these federal agency. Cut federal government spending by at least 80%.
You helped me out a lot on my history project. Thank you!
You're welcome!
Thank you for the great video! Very informative.
There you go again! Yet another well conceived video. If I keep watching your stuff, I may just end up learning something.
I imagine you're a busy guy but you may find this of interest. 1. Introduction: Freeman's Top Five Tips for Studying the Revolution
PS The more I learn about Alexander Hamilton, the less I like him.
The Hip Hughes crossover UA-cam video sent me here.
Man you Rocked this... Good Job!
Thank you for the information video!
You're a legend Tom
Need more men like Tom!!
Thanks man, any books on anti-federalism or Jacksonian democracy you would recommend?
@Antifederalist Great share, thanks!
Thanks I needed this for a schools project
+Elia Subacchi Glad I could help!
Nice job!
Awesome! Subscribed.
I teach undergrads the US Constitution and various history courses. I can tell you that your work is fantastic and I have recommended you to my students.
Thanks
The anti argument reviewed side by side with the sales-job the Federalists were offering via editorial rebuttal is compelling. The basic held civil belief is that the Constitution restrains the Government, meanwhile Government ignores the Constitution. Lysander Spooner was right, whatever the Constitution is, it either gave us the Government we have or was powerless to prevent it, in either case it is unfit to exist, as you point out, Hamilton was lying when he wrote in defense of it, argued in Philly for a Monarchy (with Washington and he ruling of course), and once ratified, introduced the Alien and Sedition Act. It was inevitable that he would gather conscripts from New York and march with Washington to teach those defiant farmers in Pittsburgh that they would indeed pay taxes on that whiskey. That was Federal might and the Antis were proven to be wise once again. Great video, we need more truth
Hamilton argued for a monarchy.
great video, and very interesting! I'm now a little less reluctant to write my paper! haha!
Ty you a lot man im doing a project u just made it more easy
There are some greats points that the Anifederalists had such as the addition of the Bill of Rights into the constitution because I don't know how America would be today without these laws in effect. And I also didn't appreciate the fact that there were no term limits to the presidency. But I do remember that the CSA's constitution implemented a single, 6 year term as the president; and I think that you, Mr. Richey, agreed with that idea.
Wouldn't be much different, since every amendment it included has been violated.
We need to create an anti federalist party.
thank you
Cool video!
Thanks! This is one of those topics that doesn't have many videos available to people who want to learn about it. Thanks for watching and commenting so quickly. It always feels great to get positive feedback so soon after posting!
No problem, thanks for posting. I just finished a history course with a very knowledgeable history professor but even he did not go that much into the antifederalist.
Thanks 'teach"!
Federal and Union are polar terms, often applied to entities somewhere in between the two extremes. So the anti-federalists were more federal than the unionist who are also called federalists because they wished to preserve the federation by unification. No wonder it is all such a confusion.
i agree with both sides...u do need strong central government to have a united country and not be all divided and always warring with each other just like europe did for millenia . however, we definately needed that bill of rights. cuz an oppressed society, although not warring with eachother is not free.
The first draft of the Constitution was okay, but who can blame the Anti-Federalists for not wanting to ratify it initially, especially right after the Revolution? Imagine what it would be like today if we didn't have the Bill of Rights! Compromise was definitely the best choice here.
For some reason I always thought Federalists were Anti central government. Rand Paul Called himself a federalist once I recall. Federalism is the opposite of Centralism in Latin America no?
The thing is that it was a propaganda victory for the "Federalists" as they actually tended to be more for centralization and the "Antifederalists" and their successors, the Jeffersonian Republicans, supported states' rights. Rand Paul believes in the principle of federalism as opposed to being a member of the now defunct Federalist Party.
ï pryiqyehq ii bebv
Great video, now I can pass my exam .
Good luck dude
@@adamkumar0I wonder what he’s up to now
They were so right about a large, far away government becoming subject to special interests, but they didn't predict the mode CAMPAIGN FINANCE (or did they? correct me if I'm wrong) we have a diseased system that needs reform and thats the first thing that should be eliminated
Deo Vindice
The further you are from large cities the more anti federalism increases sounds a bit odd
If we consider federalism a way of independence for areas far from central government
Since you said fed was meant to strengthen a central gov then i can see how a pseudo understanding of fed came to be
Unless am mixing wrongly federalism centralism self governance and autocracy
Someone please draw clear lines on a concept that promotes self rule but without anarchism and without excessive oligarchy
And beeauracrcy sorry for miss spelling
Gonna have to disagree with you. When the Constitutional Convention convened, the delegates were sent there specifically to amend the Articles of Confederation, the Supreme Law of the Land at that time.
Under those articles, UNANIMOUS consent was required to make an amendment.
We know that Rhode Island did not even send delegates.
So the convention illegally amended the articles to allow them to amend without the unanimous consent.
My friend and mentor, Michael Gaddy, often asks, Can a legal document be created by an illegal act?
The Constitution was the result of a bloodless coup d'état.
A crucial historical fact, purposely buried by State education of course.
Article 4, every state shall have Republican form of government.
Excellent vid -
What was not openly mentioned, but also at stake for the anti federalists was their control over the institution of slavery. Patrick Henry was concerned that the slave militia's would be eliminated by federal control over military management- he was worried the Philly crowd would basically leash their ability to oppress the slaves as they were seriously outnumbered by 4:1. Henry, and his supporters knew that the world was moving away from slavery, and they were making bank off it, and the agricultural business that sustained them relied on slavery.
...the more things change the more they stay the same, eh?
Until next time- shiny side up, Oh Capt. my Capt. ...
Was it really 4 to 1 in the Tidewater? I've never looked at regional numbers for VA. It was about 2 to 1 in the South Carolina lowcountry. You always bring in some great points! Sometimes, I wonder if I should send you my scripts before I produce! Haha
Tom Richey
I am no history mentor... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night ;)
I'll leave the teaching to the pros.
You should choose your words better. "...the Anti-federalists and THEIR control over the inscription of slavery"? I see, so you claim that every anti-fed had control over slavery and only anti-feds had control over slavery? Lol!
Ah yes my teacher was giving me some boring youtubers finally the intellectual join the APUSH battle
Why did the anti feds oppose a standing army?
The declaration of independence said if the government were to become too powerful, or corrupt or tyrannical then the people have the right to overthrow & destroy the government & start a new one that they thought was best. The constitution grants the president the power to use the military to squash insurrections. So I'd say they were afraid of it being used against them, & prevent them from being able to fight for their freedom again if they ever had to.
anti federalists were anti oligarchy
That book behind you should be titled, "Jefferson Davis, Traitor".
Confederate Nationalist traitor to the Union, you deluded psychotic.
Confederate Nationalist so then what the hell are you doing commenting here? Do you even know whom Jefferson Davis was? I'm not a fan of what our Union has become either but I'm going to honor those that sacrificed their lives believing in the ideals articulated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and I know too well just what type of man Davis was. To honor the Venerated dead I will do my part to correct the dark legacy that vile man left behind and the damage he caused to my nation that still lingers to this day. Of course, not caused by only him but he continued the evil sins of my nation and fought a war to maintain those sins as status quo. And all because some South Carolinian bumpkins thought their rights to subjugate human beings as property trumped the rights of the non-slave states to deny rendition of said property that would not turn over slaves or cooperate with slave patrols because they would rather be beholden to their morals as human beings, instead of serving their dark desires and fueling their evil nature which led those eventually failed traitors to form terrorist groups like the KKK, enact racism as an institution allover again with Jim Crow laws and thousands of murders over race from 1619 through the Civil Rights Movement and until now...
Confederate Nationalist I forgot to mention that there are plenty of differences between USA and CCP, there are some similarities as well but there are innumerable minor and many significant differences. Your knowledge of both nations must be extremely limited or extremely myopic.
Confederate Nationalist did you miss my other comment?
Confederate Nationalist yeah... You need help, bud. Someone needs to section you.
The Anti federalist were correct....
I still learned nothing. Waste of time
Maybe you did want to? The video was excellent.
Watch it again. Maybe your comprehension has improved since this note.