November 3, 2023 • 30 mins
On this episode of Our American Stories, the Constitution didn't just become the law of the land overnight—it took some convincing. Here to tell the story of the work that most influenced the Founders - The Federalist Papers - is Bill McClay, author of Land of Hope.
Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And we returned to our American stories. Up next another
installment of our series about Us, the Story of America series,
with Hillsdale College professor Bill McLay, author of the fantastic
book Land of Hope. When the Constitution was finished, it
took a massive effort on the part of the framers
to make it the law of the land. Let's get
(00:32):
into the story. Here's Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Okay, So the Constitution had been drafted, had been approved,
but it didn't automatically take effect. Now it had to
be ratified, ratified by the respective states, and this was
(00:55):
not going to be easy. There was a real fear
of any expanse of power, of centralized power, of national power,
and not without reason. They founders had understood this was
going to be a difficult thing. But they also understood
there needed to be that kind of popular approbation, that
(01:16):
popular approval of the Constitution for it to be legitimate,
for it to be accepted by the people as their
ruling document. They crafted Article seven of the Constitution with
this end in view, that the Constitution would become law
(01:38):
by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states. By conventions,
they could have done it. The obvious easy way to
do it would be to use the state legislatures of
the thirteen states.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Well, this was a very very.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Smart move on the part of the proponents of the Constitution.
Conventions were different from the state legislatures. You might have
to some of the same people, because you would probably
want to elect among the most eminent people in your
state to both the legislature and the state gratification convention.
(02:17):
But the conventions had to be large enough to encompass
lots of interest groups, lots of members, and even with
some of the same people, they would act differently. They
would be freer to participate in a deliberation and discussion.
There would be a greater willingness to consider change if
(02:40):
it wasn't coming from the body that was being changed.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Very very smart.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
The debate that proceeded state by state split into two
roughly two camps, the Federalists, a very tightly organized group
led by Madison and Hamilton and a few others seeking
the ratification of the Constitution, and the anti Federalists, a
term that is much more used by us than was
(03:10):
at the time. It's a kind of grab bag of
all the people who supported the existing framework over the Constitution.
They had a different view of the country. The federalists
really looked towards the new United States as a nation
state able to stand proudly among the nations of the world,
(03:34):
a magnet for foreign investment, that would be able to
conduct foreign policy foreign trade. Alexandra Hamilton said that America
was a hercules in the cradle.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
We could be big, big, big stuff on.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
The world stage if we had the right kind of
institutions and governance, including a strong executive. The anti federalists,
they really preferred the notion that the Constitution should authorize
as the articles had a loose confederation of mostly independent
(04:12):
states that would govern themselves as local as possible, that
would not sacrifice the interests of the state for the
sake of some larger national interests that often would be
defined by an elite group made up of people like
Hamilton and Madison and others. They were decentralists. They were
(04:34):
also disturbed that the Constitution makes no mention does not
begin with an invocation of God, a request for God's
providence to watch over the nation, as so many of
the state constitutions did, and the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
The preamble of the Constitution, which is very beautiful. It's
probably the only part of the Constitution that's beautiful does
not mention the deity. The anti federalists were puzzled by this.
They feared the concentration of power. They feared the loss
of republicanism, the loss of self rule, of the values
(05:18):
associated with self rule. They feared America turning into an empire.
No less a figure than Patrick Henry, one of the
great patriots of the Revolution, who gave the famous speech,
give me liberty or give me death. No less a
figure than Patrick Henry opposed strongly opposed the Constitution because
(05:40):
he said, it begins not with we the states, but
we the people.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Why not we the states.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What he feared was that America, a stronger, more unified America,
would become an empire. And an empire is the antithesis
of a republic. An empire is a nation state in
which individuals are ruled over by an all powerful central
government that agrondizes all of the power unto itself and
(06:14):
leaves the individual states and localities without the ability to
govern themselves.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That had been their right.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Way of life, that had been the essence of the
rights of Englishmen.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
For which they rebelled.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Maybe this was giving up everything that had been important
about the revolution. These are different groups culturally to the
federalists and the anti federalists. The Federalists were professionals, educated men, lawyers, businessmen,
people who were really good at what we today would
(06:49):
call public relations. They were really good at mounting a
campaign so that even in states where the resistance the
Constitution was strong, they were able to change public opinion,
turn the tide. So the ratifying conventions, which remember a
distinct from the legislatures. Ratifying conventions, could be persuaded to
(07:13):
vote for the Constitution. A good example of this was
the state of New York. A lot of loyalists in
New York, a lot of loyalist sentiment in New York
which did not translate into ardent desire to see America
become a nation among nations. The debates in New York
(07:36):
were heeded, often course in ad hominem. But out of
these debates in New York came eighty five articles written
by Hamilton and Madison, then John Jay of New York.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
These are called the.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Federalist Papers, but they were written as newspaper articles designed
to sway public opinion in New York. And let me
tell you these are very high order op ed articles.
You wouldn't find things like this in the Washington Post,
of the New York Times or USA Today Today at all.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
And you've been listening to Professor Bill McLay of Hillsdale
College tell the story of how the Constitution got made,
and actually how it almost didn't get made. There was
serious opposition, as you were hearing from Professor maclay. These
states had different geographical concerns, commercial concerns, They were almost
entirely different countries. And here they were being pushed together.
(08:37):
And nobody less than Patrick Henry bring me liberty or
bring me death? Well, he opposed this idea of we
the people. He wanted it to be we the states.
He was afraid that we'd veer from a republic, a
constitutional republic, to an empire. All of that central power
would come to no good. And up in New York
(08:58):
there they were the brilliant three, the brilliant triumvirate of
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay Penning. Through newspaper
articles op eds in a sense, the federalist papers making
the argument for the Constitution, and by the way Bill
McLay teaches at Hillsdale College, and all of our history
(09:22):
stories are brought to us by the great folks at Hillsdale,
where you can go to learn all the things that
are good in life and all the things that are
beautiful in life. Go to Hillsdale dot edu to sign
up for their free and terrific online courses. When we
come back, more of the remarkable story of our Constitution,
a part of the story of us the Story of
(09:43):
America series with Professor Bill McLay. More after these commercial messages,
(10:09):
and we returned to our American stories and our Story
of America series with doctor Bill McLay, author of Land
of Hope. When we last left off, Bill McLay was
telling us about why the Federalist papers High Order op
Eds written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison, all supporters of
ratifying the Constitution, came to be. Let's return to the
(10:29):
story here again is Professor Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
They were published under a pen name, which was a
common practice, a pen name often from classical history. Whether
the most distinguished anti Federalist writers used the pen name
of Brutus. You may remember from reading Shakespeare that Brutus
was the opponent of Julius Caesar, who became the first emperor,
that is, the transformation of Rome from a republic to
(11:00):
an empire. The writer Brutus, in the American context saw
himself performing a similar role, resisting the transformation of the
American Republic into an American empire. Hamilton, Madisine, and Jay
used the pen name Publius, and I think most people
(11:21):
would agree these eighty five articles, the Federalist papers, as
we call them, constitute the best introduction to the thinking
behind the framers of the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
They start right off the.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Bat saying some very important things. Hamilton wrote Federalist number one.
And we know now who the authors were. They weren't
disclosed at the time. They were just all under the
name Pupius. Hamilton said this. It has been frequently remarked
that it seems to have been reserved to the people
(11:56):
of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide
the important question whether societies of men are really capable
or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice,
or whether therefore ever destined to depend for their political
constitutions on accident and force good government from reflection and choice,
(12:20):
or is it just accident in force it determines thinks.
Let me continue with Hamilton's prose, and if there be
any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we
are arrived may, with propriety be regarded as the era
in which that decision is to be made, and a
wrong election of the part we shall act may, in
(12:42):
this view, deserve to be considered as the general.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Misfortune of mankind. Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
He is saying that the whole world, and in some
ways the destiny of humankind is riding on the way
that this group of people and the North American, the
strand of the British what was formerly British North America,
(13:12):
to decide. It's depending on them to decide whether it's
possible to create a good government based on rationality, reflection, choice,
knowledge of history, knowledge of human behavior to craft it,
or are we forever dependent on the kind of collision
of blind forces or just the eventualities of history. America
(13:40):
is deciding this at this very moment. That's what Hamilton
is saying. It's really very powerful, and you know, it
does recall for us the words of John Winthrop had
the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Winthrop didn't
think he was establishing the United States of America, but
there was this sense the colony, the plantation that he
(14:04):
was establishing in Masterussetts Bay, was deciding something that would
have an effect for the rest of the world. The
rest of the world was looking or would be looking
to it as an exemplar, the light of the world,
the salt of the earth. That was what that colony
was to be. And here Hamilton's this is strictly secular,
but it's doing the same thing. It's saying that something
(14:26):
could be brought to the dismal record of human history,
of failed regimes that would provide a new way, a
new path, one that would be reliant upon the rational
capabilities and the historical knowledge of those who were framing
that form of government. One of the essays that was written,
(14:53):
Federalist number ten, would become a great contribution.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
To the history of political thought.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
This was written by Madison, who was very, very systematic
in his political thinking, and it had to do with factions,
the problem of factions, and how could a republican government
such as the one the Constitution was proposing, deal with
the problem of faction. And now faction is actually a
(15:21):
word that it's abstract, where it could stand for many things.
It could stand for a political party, a segment within
a political party, an interest group, an ideological group, a
regional group. The problem is, how do you have a
republican form of government when you have lots of factions.
(15:42):
These guys knew their history, and they knew that every
republic in the past had suffered from and had to
deal with the problem of faction things breaking down. And
one of the things that all the great philosophers from
Aristotle to Montesquieu had said about republican government is that
it had to be small because if it got too big,
(16:05):
you couldn't have a high degree of localism, you couldn't
have face to face dealings, in various other ways that
people would no longer participate in their own government. I mean,
in an empire, you have large bureaucracies, you have governors
who are directed from central authority. You don't have the
people governing themselves. So the feeling was, if you're going
(16:27):
to have a republic, it's got to be small. And
that's a problem for the Americans because they want to
have a republic. It's written into the Constitution, this favoring
of republicanism in the states and in estates.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
That should be added would be Republicans.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
But it was also going to be a big country
right from the start, thirteen states. How could you maintain
republican government and not have things break down into faction.
So with that background, let me read to you some
of Madison's brilliant analysis. Okay, by a faction, I understand
(17:07):
a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or
minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion or of interests, adverse to
the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of
curing the mischiefs of faction, the one by removing its causes,
(17:31):
the other by controlling its effects. There are two methods
of removing its causes, the one by destroying the liberty
which is essential to its existence, the other by giving
to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and
the same interests.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
They could never be more truly said than of the
first remedy, that it's worse than the disease.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an
element without which it instantly expires, isn't that wonderful? Liberty
is to faction what air is to fire. So you
want to have liberty, you're gonna have faction. You're gonna
have conflict. Back to Madison, but it could not be
(18:16):
a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to
political life because it nourishes faction.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Then it would be to wish the annihilation of air.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Which is essential to animal life because it imparts to
fire its destructive agency. As long as the reason of
man continues fallible and he's at liberty to exercise it,
different opinions will be formed.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Long as we have both.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Reason and self love, we'll have different passions, so we
have different reasoning.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
And you've been listening to Professor Bill McLay of Hillsdale
College and author of Land of Hope tell the story
of how the Constitution got made and the role that
the Federalist papers played in doing so, and his explanation
his exploration of Federalists ten by James Madison. While the
words speak for themselves. When we come back more of
(19:15):
Professor Bill mcclay's Story of America series here on our
American Stories. And we returned to Our American Stories and
(19:40):
Our Story of America series with Bill McClay, author of
Land of Hope and the Terrific Young Reader's Edition. When
we last left off, Professor McClay was reading James Madison's
brilliant writing on Factions from the Federalist Papers. In his writing,
Madison stated that we all have different faculties, different standings
in society, and that might not be as bad as
(20:03):
it seems. Let's continue with that reading. Here again is
Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.
The possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately
results from the influence of these on the sentiments and
views of perspective proprietors, and suites. A division of the society,
of the different interests and parties.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
That's very well put.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Let me restate it though, and obviously you can't do this,
but let's just say you could.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
It's a thought experiment.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
What he's saying is that even if you equalized everything
right now overnight, gave everybody the exact same background, the
exact same economic standing, the exact same social skills, and
then you start the race of life from there. Almost
immediately you'd find that people had different faculties, different skills,
(21:06):
different ambitions, and the possession of these different skills would
lead to different possessions of property. There are some people
who can make money just by waking up in the morning.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
It seems just comes so naturally to them.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Then there's the rest of us who can't rub two
nickels together. Some people are perfectly happy to do what's
put in front of them, to do as their father did.
If their father was a farmer, they're a farmer. And
then there are others who are ambitious who want to
try to create different things. This will inevitably result and
(21:42):
some people becoming richer, some people becoming poorer, and divide
the society into different interests and parties. There's always going
to be an equality. The Madison wasn't finished. He later
describes why a republic is a better way than a
direct democracy to manage factions.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Let me read what he says about it.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
A republic, by which I mean a government in which
a scheme of representation takes place, promises the cure for
which we're seeking.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
The two great.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Points of difference between a democracy and a republic are
first the delegation of the government in the latter to
a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Secondly,
the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of the
country over which the latter may be extended. That latter
(22:36):
point is what I think we are going to want
to concentrate on. The smaller the society, the fewer probably
will be the distinct parties and interests composing it. The
fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will
a majority be found at the same party. The smaller
the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller
(23:00):
the compass within which they're placed, the more easily will
they concert and execute their plans of oppression. So a
smaller society can be more oppressive. They can concert and
execute their plans of oppression more easily. Extend the sphere,
(23:24):
and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,
you make it less probable than a majority of the
whole will have a common motive to invade the rights
of other citizens, or if such a common motive exist,
it will be more difficult for all who feel it
to discover their own strength and to act in unison
with each other. Now, what he's getting at here is
(23:46):
in for example, some of the republics of Italy, of Renaissance, Italy, Florence, Verona,
because you had a smaller sphere, the antagonisms were more intense.
You've all read Romeo and Juliet, the Montagus and the Capulus.
They're like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the feuding mountaineers.
(24:10):
But you bring in other families, you bring in seven,
eight to ten other families, then it's not going to
be all about the Montague and Capulates, or the Hatfields
and the McCoys. And that's exactly the principle that Madison
is putting forward here. A larger republic, which encompasses more
diverse interests, will be much more likely to be able
(24:35):
to fend off the tyranny of any one interest group.
If you think of a place like South Carolina, where
there's this strong dependency on slave labor. If South Carolina
was an independent country, there'd be no hope of ever
dislodging that institution, since the majority of voters would either
(24:59):
be slave holders or would be in league with white slaveholders.
You extend the sphere and include states where there is
no slavery, then you change things. This works with all
kinds of economic interests. Not all of the country involves
the mining of coal or the catching of codfish off
(25:22):
the coast of New England. So you see, it sets
up conflict. Remember the Constitution is all about conflict. But
extension of the sphere that Medicine is describing is a
way to ensure that no one faction is going to
have dominance in perpetuity over all the others. It's a
pluralistic system. It makes democracy more effective, makes self rule
(25:48):
more effective by preventing the tyranny of any one particular faction.
He goes on to say, besides other impediments, it may
be remarked that where there's a consciousness of unjust or
dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion
(26:09):
to the number whose concurrence is necessary. You can't get
away with unjust or dishonorable purposes if a.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Whole lot of other people are watching.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within
their particular states, but will be unable to spread a
general conflagration through the other states. A religious sect may
degenerate into a political faction in part of the confederacy,
but the variety of sex dispersed over the entire phase
(26:40):
of it must secure the national councils against any danger
from that source. A rage for paper money, for an
abolition of debts, any other improper or wicked project, will
be less apt to pervade the whole body of the
Union than a particular member in the same proportion. As such,
a malady is more likely to tained a particular county
(27:03):
or district than an entire state. So you get the
idea that the more you divide things up, the less
able any one faction is to take control of the whole.
If you extend the sphere enough, there's always going to
be a faction that says, wait a minute, paper money
is bad for this or that purpose.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Wait a minute.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Equal division of property penalizes me, penalizes my efforts. Wait
a minute, your religious convictions are different from mine, Get
off my back. So it's another way that the Constitution
slows the process of radical change and allows different ways
(27:48):
of life, different ways of making a living, different ways
of worshiping, different ways of regarding even the role of
local government to subsist and flourish. That was the genius
of Federalists ten. And to do it he had to
go right in the face of the most venerable philosophers
of both antiquity and modernity. I gave the example Aristotle
(28:10):
and Momuscue and their others. But he had to say, no,
you're wrong. A republic doesn't have to be small. Actually,
a republic needs to be big. It needs to be
larger in order to balance liberty with order, in order
to have both the advantages of a national government but
(28:30):
also the advantages of local idiosyncrasies, local customs.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Local ways of life.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
So this document that Madison, Hamilton and Jay were defending
was really pathbreaking in the same way that as we
saw on Federalist one, that John Winthrop's document.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
That's been passed down to us was pathbreaking.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Now, Hamilton, Madison j were not creating a zion in
the wilderness. Yes, they were not after the kind of
to be an example for the purification of the church.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
In the world.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
That was what went through a pad in mind, not
what these secular men did. They were after a structure
of secular government, a charter of fundamental law that would
support the ideals of liberty and self rule, self governess,
and they were using history to protect against the poisons
(29:33):
of history. History was the antidote to history. They were
drawing on the lessons of the past to foster a
different way, a different path, to keep the virtues of republicanism,
of self rule, but to do it within the context
of a stable, orderly regime that could last. That's what
(29:53):
the Constitution attempted to do.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
And special thanks to Hillsdale College for sponsoring all our
history stories. Go to Hillsdale dot edu to sign up
for their free and terrific courses. The Story of Us
the Story of America series with Professor Bill McLay. Here
on our American stories.
And we returned to our American stories. Up next another
installment of our series about Us, the Story of America series,
with Hillsdale College professor Bill McLay, author of the fantastic
book Land of Hope. When the Constitution was finished, it
took a massive effort on the part of the framers
to make it the law of the land. Let's get
(00:32):
into the story. Here's Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Okay, So the Constitution had been drafted, had been approved,
but it didn't automatically take effect. Now it had to
be ratified, ratified by the respective states, and this was
(00:55):
not going to be easy. There was a real fear
of any expanse of power, of centralized power, of national power,
and not without reason. They founders had understood this was
going to be a difficult thing. But they also understood
there needed to be that kind of popular approbation, that
(01:16):
popular approval of the Constitution for it to be legitimate,
for it to be accepted by the people as their
ruling document. They crafted Article seven of the Constitution with
this end in view, that the Constitution would become law
(01:38):
by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states. By conventions,
they could have done it. The obvious easy way to
do it would be to use the state legislatures of
the thirteen states.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Well, this was a very very.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Smart move on the part of the proponents of the Constitution.
Conventions were different from the state legislatures. You might have
to some of the same people, because you would probably
want to elect among the most eminent people in your
state to both the legislature and the state gratification convention.
(02:17):
But the conventions had to be large enough to encompass
lots of interest groups, lots of members, and even with
some of the same people, they would act differently. They
would be freer to participate in a deliberation and discussion.
There would be a greater willingness to consider change if
(02:40):
it wasn't coming from the body that was being changed.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Very very smart.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
The debate that proceeded state by state split into two
roughly two camps, the Federalists, a very tightly organized group
led by Madison and Hamilton and a few others seeking
the ratification of the Constitution, and the anti Federalists, a
term that is much more used by us than was
(03:10):
at the time. It's a kind of grab bag of
all the people who supported the existing framework over the Constitution.
They had a different view of the country. The federalists
really looked towards the new United States as a nation
state able to stand proudly among the nations of the world,
(03:34):
a magnet for foreign investment, that would be able to
conduct foreign policy foreign trade. Alexandra Hamilton said that America
was a hercules in the cradle.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
We could be big, big, big stuff on.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
The world stage if we had the right kind of
institutions and governance, including a strong executive. The anti federalists,
they really preferred the notion that the Constitution should authorize
as the articles had a loose confederation of mostly independent
(04:12):
states that would govern themselves as local as possible, that
would not sacrifice the interests of the state for the
sake of some larger national interests that often would be
defined by an elite group made up of people like
Hamilton and Madison and others. They were decentralists. They were
(04:34):
also disturbed that the Constitution makes no mention does not
begin with an invocation of God, a request for God's
providence to watch over the nation, as so many of
the state constitutions did, and the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Didn't do that.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
The preamble of the Constitution, which is very beautiful. It's
probably the only part of the Constitution that's beautiful does
not mention the deity. The anti federalists were puzzled by this.
They feared the concentration of power. They feared the loss
of republicanism, the loss of self rule, of the values
(05:18):
associated with self rule. They feared America turning into an empire.
No less a figure than Patrick Henry, one of the
great patriots of the Revolution, who gave the famous speech,
give me liberty or give me death. No less a
figure than Patrick Henry opposed strongly opposed the Constitution because
(05:40):
he said, it begins not with we the states, but
we the people.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Why not we the states.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What he feared was that America, a stronger, more unified America,
would become an empire. And an empire is the antithesis
of a republic. An empire is a nation state in
which individuals are ruled over by an all powerful central
government that agrondizes all of the power unto itself and
(06:14):
leaves the individual states and localities without the ability to
govern themselves.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That had been their right.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Way of life, that had been the essence of the
rights of Englishmen.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
For which they rebelled.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Maybe this was giving up everything that had been important
about the revolution. These are different groups culturally to the
federalists and the anti federalists. The Federalists were professionals, educated men, lawyers, businessmen,
people who were really good at what we today would
(06:49):
call public relations. They were really good at mounting a
campaign so that even in states where the resistance the
Constitution was strong, they were able to change public opinion,
turn the tide. So the ratifying conventions, which remember a
distinct from the legislatures. Ratifying conventions, could be persuaded to
(07:13):
vote for the Constitution. A good example of this was
the state of New York. A lot of loyalists in
New York, a lot of loyalist sentiment in New York
which did not translate into ardent desire to see America
become a nation among nations. The debates in New York
(07:36):
were heeded, often course in ad hominem. But out of
these debates in New York came eighty five articles written
by Hamilton and Madison, then John Jay of New York.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
These are called the.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Federalist Papers, but they were written as newspaper articles designed
to sway public opinion in New York. And let me
tell you these are very high order op ed articles.
You wouldn't find things like this in the Washington Post,
of the New York Times or USA Today Today at all.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
And you've been listening to Professor Bill McLay of Hillsdale
College tell the story of how the Constitution got made,
and actually how it almost didn't get made. There was
serious opposition, as you were hearing from Professor maclay. These
states had different geographical concerns, commercial concerns, They were almost
entirely different countries. And here they were being pushed together.
(08:37):
And nobody less than Patrick Henry bring me liberty or
bring me death? Well, he opposed this idea of we
the people. He wanted it to be we the states.
He was afraid that we'd veer from a republic, a
constitutional republic, to an empire. All of that central power
would come to no good. And up in New York
(08:58):
there they were the brilliant three, the brilliant triumvirate of
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay Penning. Through newspaper
articles op eds in a sense, the federalist papers making
the argument for the Constitution, and by the way Bill
McLay teaches at Hillsdale College, and all of our history
(09:22):
stories are brought to us by the great folks at Hillsdale,
where you can go to learn all the things that
are good in life and all the things that are
beautiful in life. Go to Hillsdale dot edu to sign
up for their free and terrific online courses. When we
come back, more of the remarkable story of our Constitution,
a part of the story of us the Story of
(09:43):
America series with Professor Bill McLay. More after these commercial messages,
(10:09):
and we returned to our American stories and our Story
of America series with doctor Bill McLay, author of Land
of Hope. When we last left off, Bill McLay was
telling us about why the Federalist papers High Order op
Eds written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison, all supporters of
ratifying the Constitution, came to be. Let's return to the
(10:29):
story here again is Professor Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
They were published under a pen name, which was a
common practice, a pen name often from classical history. Whether
the most distinguished anti Federalist writers used the pen name
of Brutus. You may remember from reading Shakespeare that Brutus
was the opponent of Julius Caesar, who became the first emperor,
that is, the transformation of Rome from a republic to
(11:00):
an empire. The writer Brutus, in the American context saw
himself performing a similar role, resisting the transformation of the
American Republic into an American empire. Hamilton, Madisine, and Jay
used the pen name Publius, and I think most people
(11:21):
would agree these eighty five articles, the Federalist papers, as
we call them, constitute the best introduction to the thinking
behind the framers of the Constitution.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
They start right off the.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Bat saying some very important things. Hamilton wrote Federalist number one.
And we know now who the authors were. They weren't
disclosed at the time. They were just all under the
name Pupius. Hamilton said this. It has been frequently remarked
that it seems to have been reserved to the people
(11:56):
of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide
the important question whether societies of men are really capable
or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice,
or whether therefore ever destined to depend for their political
constitutions on accident and force good government from reflection and choice,
(12:20):
or is it just accident in force it determines thinks.
Let me continue with Hamilton's prose, and if there be
any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we
are arrived may, with propriety be regarded as the era
in which that decision is to be made, and a
wrong election of the part we shall act may, in
(12:42):
this view, deserve to be considered as the general.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Misfortune of mankind. Wow.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
He is saying that the whole world, and in some
ways the destiny of humankind is riding on the way
that this group of people and the North American, the
strand of the British what was formerly British North America,
(13:12):
to decide. It's depending on them to decide whether it's
possible to create a good government based on rationality, reflection, choice,
knowledge of history, knowledge of human behavior to craft it,
or are we forever dependent on the kind of collision
of blind forces or just the eventualities of history. America
(13:40):
is deciding this at this very moment. That's what Hamilton
is saying. It's really very powerful, and you know, it
does recall for us the words of John Winthrop had
the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. John Winthrop didn't
think he was establishing the United States of America, but
there was this sense the colony, the plantation that he
(14:04):
was establishing in Masterussetts Bay, was deciding something that would
have an effect for the rest of the world. The
rest of the world was looking or would be looking
to it as an exemplar, the light of the world,
the salt of the earth. That was what that colony
was to be. And here Hamilton's this is strictly secular,
but it's doing the same thing. It's saying that something
(14:26):
could be brought to the dismal record of human history,
of failed regimes that would provide a new way, a
new path, one that would be reliant upon the rational
capabilities and the historical knowledge of those who were framing
that form of government. One of the essays that was written,
(14:53):
Federalist number ten, would become a great contribution.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
To the history of political thought.
Speaker 2 (15:00):
This was written by Madison, who was very, very systematic
in his political thinking, and it had to do with factions,
the problem of factions, and how could a republican government
such as the one the Constitution was proposing, deal with
the problem of faction. And now faction is actually a
(15:21):
word that it's abstract, where it could stand for many things.
It could stand for a political party, a segment within
a political party, an interest group, an ideological group, a
regional group. The problem is, how do you have a
republican form of government when you have lots of factions.
(15:42):
These guys knew their history, and they knew that every
republic in the past had suffered from and had to
deal with the problem of faction things breaking down. And
one of the things that all the great philosophers from
Aristotle to Montesquieu had said about republican government is that
it had to be small because if it got too big,
(16:05):
you couldn't have a high degree of localism, you couldn't
have face to face dealings, in various other ways that
people would no longer participate in their own government. I mean,
in an empire, you have large bureaucracies, you have governors
who are directed from central authority. You don't have the
people governing themselves. So the feeling was, if you're going
(16:27):
to have a republic, it's got to be small. And
that's a problem for the Americans because they want to
have a republic. It's written into the Constitution, this favoring
of republicanism in the states and in estates.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
That should be added would be Republicans.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
But it was also going to be a big country
right from the start, thirteen states. How could you maintain
republican government and not have things break down into faction.
So with that background, let me read to you some
of Madison's brilliant analysis. Okay, by a faction, I understand
(17:07):
a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or
minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion or of interests, adverse to
the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of
curing the mischiefs of faction, the one by removing its causes,
(17:31):
the other by controlling its effects. There are two methods
of removing its causes, the one by destroying the liberty
which is essential to its existence, the other by giving
to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and
the same interests.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
They could never be more truly said than of the
first remedy, that it's worse than the disease.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an
element without which it instantly expires, isn't that wonderful? Liberty
is to faction what air is to fire. So you
want to have liberty, you're gonna have faction. You're gonna
have conflict. Back to Madison, but it could not be
(18:16):
a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to
political life because it nourishes faction.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Then it would be to wish the annihilation of air.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Which is essential to animal life because it imparts to
fire its destructive agency. As long as the reason of
man continues fallible and he's at liberty to exercise it,
different opinions will be formed.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Long as we have both.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Reason and self love, we'll have different passions, so we
have different reasoning.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
And you've been listening to Professor Bill McLay of Hillsdale
College and author of Land of Hope tell the story
of how the Constitution got made and the role that
the Federalist papers played in doing so, and his explanation
his exploration of Federalists ten by James Madison. While the
words speak for themselves. When we come back more of
(19:15):
Professor Bill mcclay's Story of America series here on our
American Stories. And we returned to Our American Stories and
(19:40):
Our Story of America series with Bill McClay, author of
Land of Hope and the Terrific Young Reader's Edition. When
we last left off, Professor McClay was reading James Madison's
brilliant writing on Factions from the Federalist Papers. In his writing,
Madison stated that we all have different faculties, different standings
in society, and that might not be as bad as
(20:03):
it seems. Let's continue with that reading. Here again is
Bill McLay.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.
The possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately
results from the influence of these on the sentiments and
views of perspective proprietors, and suites. A division of the society,
of the different interests and parties.
Speaker 3 (20:32):
That's very well put.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Let me restate it though, and obviously you can't do this,
but let's just say you could.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
It's a thought experiment.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
What he's saying is that even if you equalized everything
right now overnight, gave everybody the exact same background, the
exact same economic standing, the exact same social skills, and
then you start the race of life from there. Almost
immediately you'd find that people had different faculties, different skills,
(21:06):
different ambitions, and the possession of these different skills would
lead to different possessions of property. There are some people
who can make money just by waking up in the morning.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
It seems just comes so naturally to them.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Then there's the rest of us who can't rub two
nickels together. Some people are perfectly happy to do what's
put in front of them, to do as their father did.
If their father was a farmer, they're a farmer. And
then there are others who are ambitious who want to
try to create different things. This will inevitably result and
(21:42):
some people becoming richer, some people becoming poorer, and divide
the society into different interests and parties. There's always going
to be an equality. The Madison wasn't finished. He later
describes why a republic is a better way than a
direct democracy to manage factions.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Let me read what he says about it.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
A republic, by which I mean a government in which
a scheme of representation takes place, promises the cure for
which we're seeking.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
The two great.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Points of difference between a democracy and a republic are
first the delegation of the government in the latter to
a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Secondly,
the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of the
country over which the latter may be extended. That latter
(22:36):
point is what I think we are going to want
to concentrate on. The smaller the society, the fewer probably
will be the distinct parties and interests composing it. The
fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will
a majority be found at the same party. The smaller
the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller
(23:00):
the compass within which they're placed, the more easily will
they concert and execute their plans of oppression. So a
smaller society can be more oppressive. They can concert and
execute their plans of oppression more easily. Extend the sphere,
(23:24):
and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,
you make it less probable than a majority of the
whole will have a common motive to invade the rights
of other citizens, or if such a common motive exist,
it will be more difficult for all who feel it
to discover their own strength and to act in unison
with each other. Now, what he's getting at here is
(23:46):
in for example, some of the republics of Italy, of Renaissance, Italy, Florence, Verona,
because you had a smaller sphere, the antagonisms were more intense.
You've all read Romeo and Juliet, the Montagus and the Capulus.
They're like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the feuding mountaineers.
(24:10):
But you bring in other families, you bring in seven,
eight to ten other families, then it's not going to
be all about the Montague and Capulates, or the Hatfields
and the McCoys. And that's exactly the principle that Madison
is putting forward here. A larger republic, which encompasses more
diverse interests, will be much more likely to be able
(24:35):
to fend off the tyranny of any one interest group.
If you think of a place like South Carolina, where
there's this strong dependency on slave labor. If South Carolina
was an independent country, there'd be no hope of ever
dislodging that institution, since the majority of voters would either
(24:59):
be slave holders or would be in league with white slaveholders.
You extend the sphere and include states where there is
no slavery, then you change things. This works with all
kinds of economic interests. Not all of the country involves
the mining of coal or the catching of codfish off
(25:22):
the coast of New England. So you see, it sets
up conflict. Remember the Constitution is all about conflict. But
extension of the sphere that Medicine is describing is a
way to ensure that no one faction is going to
have dominance in perpetuity over all the others. It's a
pluralistic system. It makes democracy more effective, makes self rule
(25:48):
more effective by preventing the tyranny of any one particular faction.
He goes on to say, besides other impediments, it may
be remarked that where there's a consciousness of unjust or
dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion
(26:09):
to the number whose concurrence is necessary. You can't get
away with unjust or dishonorable purposes if a.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Whole lot of other people are watching.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within
their particular states, but will be unable to spread a
general conflagration through the other states. A religious sect may
degenerate into a political faction in part of the confederacy,
but the variety of sex dispersed over the entire phase
(26:40):
of it must secure the national councils against any danger
from that source. A rage for paper money, for an
abolition of debts, any other improper or wicked project, will
be less apt to pervade the whole body of the
Union than a particular member in the same proportion. As such,
a malady is more likely to tained a particular county
(27:03):
or district than an entire state. So you get the
idea that the more you divide things up, the less
able any one faction is to take control of the whole.
If you extend the sphere enough, there's always going to
be a faction that says, wait a minute, paper money
is bad for this or that purpose.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Wait a minute.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Equal division of property penalizes me, penalizes my efforts. Wait
a minute, your religious convictions are different from mine, Get
off my back. So it's another way that the Constitution
slows the process of radical change and allows different ways
(27:48):
of life, different ways of making a living, different ways
of worshiping, different ways of regarding even the role of
local government to subsist and flourish. That was the genius
of Federalists ten. And to do it he had to
go right in the face of the most venerable philosophers
of both antiquity and modernity. I gave the example Aristotle
(28:10):
and Momuscue and their others. But he had to say, no,
you're wrong. A republic doesn't have to be small. Actually,
a republic needs to be big. It needs to be
larger in order to balance liberty with order, in order
to have both the advantages of a national government but
(28:30):
also the advantages of local idiosyncrasies, local customs.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Local ways of life.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
So this document that Madison, Hamilton and Jay were defending
was really pathbreaking in the same way that as we
saw on Federalist one, that John Winthrop's document.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
That's been passed down to us was pathbreaking.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Now, Hamilton, Madison j were not creating a zion in
the wilderness. Yes, they were not after the kind of
to be an example for the purification of the church.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
In the world.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
That was what went through a pad in mind, not
what these secular men did. They were after a structure
of secular government, a charter of fundamental law that would
support the ideals of liberty and self rule, self governess,
and they were using history to protect against the poisons
(29:33):
of history. History was the antidote to history. They were
drawing on the lessons of the past to foster a
different way, a different path, to keep the virtues of republicanism,
of self rule, but to do it within the context
of a stable, orderly regime that could last. That's what
(29:53):
the Constitution attempted to do.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
And special thanks to Hillsdale College for sponsoring all our
history stories. Go to Hillsdale dot edu to sign up
for their free and terrific courses. The Story of Us
the Story of America series with Professor Bill McLay. Here
on our American stories.
Host
Lee Habeeb
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!