Antifederalist Society (Chapter one)

The speaker discusses their curiosity about the truth behind the founding of the country and the role of the Federalist Party. They argue that the Federalists did not want to create a government to protect the people from abuses, but rather to protect themselves from their crimes against the people. The speaker mentions the influence of the Federalist Society and its connection to lawyers from elite schools. They highlight the importance of understanding the Anti-Federalists and their opposition to the Constitution. The speaker recommends reading works by Professor Meryl Jensen and Professor Jackson Turner Maine. They also challenge the traditional view that the Articles of Confederation were weak and argue that they were actually strong for the people. The Federalist Party is described as representing the educated, talented, virtuous, and property-owning individuals, who did not believe in democracy or majority rule. ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ្ទ� ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ� ㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇㅇ� So here we will be moving forward. The one thing that always kind of puzzled me was once I got into history and I started to understand what was actually the truth of the founding of this country as relates to so many different avenues and so many different angles and of course we've all been taught about the Federalist. It was probably the first thing I ever heard when it really got into that all the Federalist said this the Federalist said that and but we have been misled because the Federalist did not want to create a government which would protect the people from governmental abuses. The Federalist wanted to create a form of government which would protect them from their crimes against the people and that's what we have today folks and you know you can argue about it you can you know jump up and down and call people a Democrat all you want to but that is in fact the truth and all you have to do is to read some of the letters between these Federalists before the Constitutional Convention and you know one of them especially was from George Washington to John Jay and oh we have a right to impose our imperial dignity and to command obedience. Well this is just a month before they meet in Philadelphia in May of 1787. Do you not think they went there to accomplish what Washington said? A government that would allow them to impose their imperial dignity and command obedience? Isn't that exactly what the government is today? You've got an elite group of people who tell us what to do and if we don't do it you'll get the forces of hell on your head. It's just really that simple but one of the things that got to me as I started studying and getting into this and then I found out of course about the wonderful Federalist Society and you know when you look at it you go okay who created the Federalist Society and why? Well the Federalist Society was created out of lawyers you know those people same people who were in the majority at the Constitutional Convention. It was written by it was created by lawyers out of Yale, Harvard, you know Princeton, a few other of those northern elite schools where they came up with a doctrine you know the Federalist Society and we're here and they immediately of course got as many satellite groups as they could out at the you know with the law schools in America and naturally they're going to have some influence there and what they're doing is they're going to influence for the Federalist who created the Constitution which is oppressive and tyrannical now but they don't want it to change because therein lies the power of their profession. If they had to work for an honest living they'd be in a world of trouble. So but how did we get in this to this level and why do you have a Federalist Society and you didn't have an Anti-Federalist Society? Well the project that I'm about to embark on here is to try to give everyone a fuller understanding of several different topics. Number one is who were the Anti-Federalists and what did they bring and what was their reason for opposing the Constitution? And I think it is really imperative that we understand that under the Articles of Confederation that the Anti-Federalists felt like with the Constitution of 1787 their rights under the Articles of Confederation had been taken from them. So in essence there would have been no Anti-Federalist if there had not been the Articles of Confederation or at least a similar item. So anyway we're going to jump into this and I think as I thought about preparing this and I really wanted to do this yesterday but as I thought about preparing this I said well you know there are two guys who were professors and they published books you know 80 to 50 years ago and my favorite among them about this period of time in these subjects is Meryl Jensen, Professor Meryl Jensen. So I would highly recommend to everyone to read anything you can find by Meryl Jensen, Professor Meryl Jensen. And of course then he had kind of a you know someone he took under his wing and who then continued in his efforts to a great extent and that would be Professor Jackson Turner Maine, M-A-I-N. So much of what I will be discussing here about this period of history comes directly from the works of Professor Maine and Professor Jensen and several others which I will notate as we go through the programs. You know footnotes are one thing but when someone can give you a statement then give you the source and then tell you about the different things that led them to these certain places it gives you some reference from which you can go back and look it up you can read it for yourself and you can make your own determination if you if all these do is not inform you enough and that's what I'm hoping I'm hoping I am inform people enough to make them go do their own research because once you do your own research once you have seen it it belongs to you it's part of you because it's something you found it's not something I said it's not something you read on or heard on Substack although it's a fantastic place to find these things but it still doesn't belong to you to you do your own research so that is what I hope to bring forth with this new series called the Anti-Federalist Society and so we will begin here with probably a better explanation I think to totally understand this to start at the beginning so to speak I think we have to discuss those Articles of Confederation and we all know that throughout my studies high school college what have you I was always told that the Articles of Confederation were so weak and that they were going you know we were going to have anarchy and we were going to have all of these other things and then when you get right down to it you have to ask yourself this question these Articles of Confederation were weak for whom the aristocracy or the people so what I'm going to begin with will be what basically comes from a presentation that was made at a university many many years ago almost 80 years ago almost 90 years ago I'm sorry and this presentation was made at a college in California now remember as we go through this 80 years and this was a presentation by the aforementioned Merrill Jensen and I'm going to go through it and give you some commentary on it because I have found it to be in 40 years of research probably the best explanation that we're going to find about the Anti-Federalists and the Articles of Confederation especially the Articles of Confederation to understand what was happening and to understand that what we are told is not true about the Articles of Confederation because they were strong for the people they were weak for the government and since the government usually controls the media that back then that is exactly what they were doing but we'll get into that but traditionally in the history of the United States the Articles of Confederation have been viewed as the villain and of course they're weak you know all this other stuff but historians old and new have pictured them as the product of inexperience the parent of chaos and the basic cause of the need for the creation of the new Constitution in 1787 by the Federalists and so interpreting the first Constitution of the United States and the history of the country during its existence historians have basically just parroted what the Federalists said well the Federalist Party was organized primarily to destroy the Articles of Confederation because the Articles of Confederation contained the ideals of government and economic practice which were absolutely abhorrent to the Federalist so they needed to change the form of government to suit them and to protect them from their crimes and we'll go into that as we move along so what if we could come up with a definition what was the Federalist Party no one knew better than did probably John Adams and we have to remember that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton once Adams was president and it was nearing the 1800 election they became so contentious Adams and Hamilton that it split the Federalist Party but when Adams was asked what was who are the members of the Federalist Party and John Adams said it is the educated the talented the virtuous and the property of the country so they own the property of the country stop and think about that now folks how that relates to the government today do they not feel they own everything you can't own a piece of property try not paying your taxes on it and see if you own it it's never yours you lease it from the government well as a party the Federalists did not believe in the phrase democracy as we understand it or majority rule which had been made possible under the Articles of Confederation in the convention of 1787 Edmund Randolph from Virginia explained that the framers of the Confederation were very wise and great men but that their primary concern was human rights oh and that's a bad thing the rights of the people was the primary concern of the people who wrote the Articles of Confederation and that is in direct opposition to government somehow right Mr. Randolph well since then Randolph would say and I quote our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions it is a maxim which I hold incontrovertible that the powers of the government when exercised by the people themselves swallows up everything else oh we can't have the people in charge was he was what Randolph was saying it has to be you know the we have an imperial right well he also made continuing with Mr. Randolph he said the feeble Senate of Virginia is a phantom Maryland has a more powerful Senate but the late distractions in that state have discovered that it is not powerful enough the check established in the Constitution of New York and Massachusetts is yet a stronger barrier against democracy but they all seem totally insufficient unquote so here they're saying from the very beginning Edmund Randolph says that we're here to destroy the powers of the people and put it into the hands of the wealthy aristocracy the people with imperial dignity according to George Washington well Alexander Hamilton was in profound agreement in his statements in the convention are just as equally illuminating of the character and the purpose of the people of the Federalist Party freely and openly Hamilton declared himself in favor of government by and I quote the rich and well-born unquote well that's not you and I folks well maybe a few of you but it's certainly not me and not most of the people I know who are out there fighting for their rights you want to check their net worth compared to the people who are trying to destroy us but he was also in favor of the rich and well-born having the use of force to suppress the mass of the people whom he said will not conform to our dictates of reason and justice hmm okay well John Jay another one of the Federalists did not elaborate his beliefs to the same extent as his fellow Federalists but he contended himself with his favorite maxim over and over and over again and I quote the people who own the country ought to govern it unquote so these Federalists who believed as Randolph Hamilton and John Jay they undertook to blacken the reputation of the Articles of Confederation you got to make it look bad folks before the people will accept something else you got to tell them what they got is terrible and this they were able to do with quite a bit of success and we're going to understand why they could do that was so much success but these Federalists pictured the Confederation period as one of chaos which they described as the critical period in American history sole responsibility for the chaos was laid upon the Articles of Confederation well the Federalist papers were but one portion of the propaganda in favor of the Constitution of 1787 which subsequent historians have accepted not as lies and propaganda which it is but as the true exposition of history of the so-called critical period now I promise you the Federalist Society will tell you exactly that but I think it's imperative that we approach the Articles of Confederation from the point of view of the admitted difficulties and distresses of the years after the Revolution but we can't do that and not include why that they had become weak and I think that is most significant logically the articles can be approached only from the point of view of the social political turmoil out of which came the American Revolution from that point of view the nature of the Articles of Confederation the problems involved in their construction and the ends desired as a result of their adoption by the people they were ratified by every state all thirteen appear in a quite different light from that cast on them by historical hindsight and propaganda and an absolute I don't know what it is we were like starved chickens and they throw out lies and we run and pick them up if it's the government and we have accepted as fact a massive propaganda program of the Federalist well the work of historians who have made an effort to study the internal history of the American colonies prior to the nineteen thirties show that so far as any given colony is concerned or was concerned the causes of the revolution were exceedingly complex it was not as simple as we are told it was not no taxation without representation we're going to war no and I'm attempting to touch on those in several of my other sub stack series which is called you know the 35 years of founding era history which you weren't taught about but such work that has been done by some of the people like Jensen and Maine and others has shown that the American Revolution was far more than a war between the colonies on one hand and Great Britain on the other what has been revealed in most what had been revealed in most of the colonies was a struggle between those clothed with political power and those who had no voice whatsoever in their government who imagine that so the development of the colonies since their very creation had seen the broad range of social groupings based on economic and political conditions just like you know anywhere you go but wealth and political power centered more and more in the coastal regions of those thirteen colonies and especially in the hands of the planners in the south and of the merchants in the north especially the slave trade merchants well during the colonial period this ruling aristocracy which arose kept itself in power by a number of political shenanigans as wealth accumulated and concentrated along these coastal areas and as the frontier moved farther and farther west go west young man from the coast and became more of a debtor society as they were moving out there because if they were going to do something they had to borrow they had to make it they had to do whatever and they were also the propertyless element in town and we see that even today in the larger towns especially well the possessors of property demanded a political interpretation of their favored position over the people who didn't have and of course we certainly still have the same thing today they demanded political supremacy in order to protect their property from the economic programs of debtor agrarians and the urban poor colonial wealth encouraged by the British government gradually secured the political safeguards it demanded the possession of a certain amount of property became the prerequisite of the right to vote listen to that folks the prerequisite of a right to vote was you had to own property we're going to find out that that wonderful beginning that wonderful preamble those first three words we the people is total crap unless you realize that the people they mentioned and there's two different entities in your preamble to the Constitution we the people the United States in order for more property blah blah blah blah blah okay that's wonderful then do ordain and establish this government for the people of the United States of America two separate elements there and we are taught that we the people meant that this wonderful Constitution had been written and adopted for all of us yeah right well the wealthy aristocracy the rich and the well-born demanded political supremacy as I said to order to protect themselves but colonial wealth which had been encouraged by the British government gradually secured the political safeguards for the wealthy aristocracy that they demanded so the problem here is the colonists and people keep expanding you had that westward growth you had people going across the Alleghenies going across the Appalachians and King George at one time forbade that he didn't want people going that way but the people were moving out to try to find a life for themselves and so the newly settled areas of the 13 colonies west of the Atlantic coastline were given little to no representation or you know they were even openly denied representation in the government and we certainly weren't taught that but thus the ever-growing West and those people in it found it impossible to overcome the minority control of the East by any legal means whatsoever and folks I would highly recommend a book which was published in 1905 that you can read and get the coverage that you would need and desire and it's still available reprints are available and it was written by a A.E. McKinley and the title of the book was The Suffrage Franchise in the 13 English Colonies in America and as I said it was published in Philadelphia in 1905 has 485 pages but it is a good read well especially if you've read that it becomes difficult to escape the conclusion that democracy as we heard mentioned before was decreasingly a characteristic of constitutional development within the American colonies the oligarchical political control made possible by restrictions on voting and representation enabled the wealthy ruling class to deny most of the popular demands by the majorities of the people discontent simmered and occasionally flared up in a violent outburst but it would be forcibly suppressed by the red coats but opposition to increasing economic and political stratification within the colonies did not become effective until after the French and Indian War and the Stamp Act which we've gone into on the other platform then fostered by economic depression and aided by the bungling policies of Britain and the Bank of England and the East India Trading Company and the desire of the local governing classes for independence within the empire colonial radicalism became united in an effort to throw off its local and international bonds and this is something that most people just cannot seem to understand is that these wonderful founders that you talk about and that we have been told about over and over and over and what a great phrase you just call them founders you don't have to describe anything you just call them founders and so we're looking at what was happening with them at this time and this the people wanted to be free who were moving west and many of them were moving west to remove themselves from the control of those wealthy aristocracy and that can be documented in quite a few works and we'll talk about some of those but historians who have viewed the American Revolution from the vantage point of the internal history of the American colonies have seen the significance of the social struggle going on in its relation to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War but the conclusions to be drawn from the history of social conflict within the colonies and applied to such matters of mutual concern to the new states as the writing of a common Constitution are seldom drawn and applied ordinarily the revolution is treated as the end of one age and the beginning of another a new country was born political parties sprang into being political leaders full of wisdom learned during the revolution sought to have the new nation from the results of it saved the new nation from the results of ignorance and inexperience so runs the history that we've been taught and as they say history is written by the winners but the story is true and only a cursory sense the basic social forces in American colonial life were not eliminated by the Declaration of Independence there was no break in the continuity of the underlying conflict between party and party representing fundamental divisions already here in the American society it was this element that was seeking freedom these Western expansion folks and others and some of course like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams and John Hancock and others who were very much still in that society but they opposed it too but almost everyone who was trying to get out of these cities to oppose this of hierarchical rule supported they're the ones who wanted to separate from England but they also wanted to separate from those people who became known as Federalist and until you understand that it makes understanding this entire thing a little bit more difficult this was not a united effort it was united on the field of battle but it was not united philosophically and politically and that would lead us to believe and be a common assumption that the American Revolution is that about the revolution is that all revolutionists were radicals that as time passed and bitter experience taught them the fathers of the revolution repented of their radical beliefs and became you know conservative is that phrase I hate but that's what they're called the fact that a man became a revolution revolutionist is no proof whatsoever of his political radicalism that is critical folks you have to understand that men like George Washington James Wilson Robert Livingston John Dickinson Edward Rutledge and Charles Carroll of Maryland were always conservative which meant support the king in political philosophy and practice none of them adopted the ideas trumpeted by these radical revolutionist though some of them accepted independence as the only solution of the troubles between the colonies in Great Britain the evidence shows that these conservatives I'm going to call them federalists were as strongly opposed as the radicals to British measures threatening the colonial home rule but the bulk of these people wanted no rupture of the connection with King George for that connection was their connection to wealth and power increasingly though these federalists opposed a complete break as they became aware that the independence might result in a revolution within the colonies as well and they became aware that conservative or federalist rule had more to fear from the people of the colonies than it had from the redcoats now that's a tough one to swallow folks but these federalists realized that they had much more to fear from their fellow colonists than they did King George and they moved accordingly but the federalists were slow to awake to this fact as a group it seems and they were caught as they were between a rock and a hard place and the rock was the British legislation and the hard place was the radical activity within the colonies itself which they hated now one of the first to see this federalist dilemma and to state his preference was Gouverneur Morris he explained that the ruling aristocracy had fooled the masses for too long and that the masses were beginning to wake up if the attempt to deceive were continued Gouverneur Morris wrote and I quote farewell aristocracy if the disputes with Great Britain continue we shall be under the worst of all dominions we shall be under the dominion of a riotous mob unquote shows you what Hamilton thought about the people of the colonies right a riotous mob well then what could the aristocracy do to save themselves well old Gouverneur Morris had a ready answer and I quote he said it is the in the interest of all men therefore to seek for reunion with the parent state Gouverneur Morris just said that he was a monarchist remember that and he said it was in the interest of all men to be reunited with King George and the Parliament well maybe they were with the new Constitution but anyway Morris saw what others were not to see for some time and some people didn't see it for years and namely that the connection with Britain was the personal guarantee of the aristocratic order within the thirteen colonies without England they had no basis of rule because their powers had been given to them by King George the growing awareness of that fact did not well yeah it did it did a lot to explain the attitudes of the federalist toward the idea of independence now remember they voted down a Bill of Rights at the original convention unanimously by state that should tell you they wanted the people to have no rights just the control of government it all fits in if you will take the time and educate yourself along these principles so once they saw that independence was not going to be avoided then they had to start making some moves so when Alexander Graydon spelling last name G-R-A-Y-D-O-N returned to Philadelphia in 1776 he found that many of those who had formerly been much in favor of what was called Quigism and Liberty were no longer so ardent the reason he said was power to use a language which had already ceased to be orthodox and could therefore only be whispered had fallen into low hands it was in fact just beginning to be perceived that the ardor of the inflamed multitude is not to be tempered and that the instigators of revolution are rarely those who are destined to conclude them or profit by them unquote here's a man who returned to the colonies in 1776 after leaving during the Stamp Act riots independence was thus seen as an evil which internal discord and revolution seemed to be an inevitable twin we do not want to be independent wrote Joseph Hughes a merchant in North Carolina and a delegate to the Congress assembled and he continued and I quote we want no revolution unless a change of ministry and measures would be deemed such they just wanted new bosses as long as it was controlled by the crown feeling like this and faced with what seemed political ruin the Federalist in the Second Continental Congress opposed every measure that smacked of independence now how many of you knew that that in the Second Continental Congress the Federalist attack anything that dealt with independence from the crown and they were led by John Dickinson and they sent a second petition to the king in the summer of 1775 twice they rejected considerations of Benjamin Franklin's plan of Confederation even though it provided for reconciliation they ignored John Adams plea for the abolition of customs houses and the establishment of independent state governments the formation of a confederation in the opening of the ports of the colonies to the world furthermore they took positive as well as negative action again you've heard me mention John Dickinson he was kind of their leader and this time in a movement to secure instructions from the colonial assemblies who were yet in control of the Federalist instructions directing the delegates of those assemblies to vote against independence vote against independence if it comes up in Congress oh yeah aren't these people just wonderful and they're out there protecting your rights when they didn't want you to have any and it hasn't changed the Federalist retained their control of Congress until February of 1776 now it's critical here folks that we understand this when they met their first significant defeat when George the third charged that and I quote the rebellious war now levied is now become more general and is manifestly carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire unquote the Federalist in Congress attempted to send an address to the colonies denying that independence was the purpose of Congress Congress rejected this address which was written by James Wilson and from that moment on began a steady drive in the direction of independence independence was now talked of openly in Congress the radicals demanded the appointment of a committee to prepare the rules for a confederation resolutions were offered to the effect that the colonies had a right to make alliances with foreign powers soon the ports of the colonies were declared open to any and all trade on May the 15th of 1776 Congress passed what John Adams declared to be the most important resolution ever passed in America what Congress did was to invite a revolution in those colonies yet within the hands of the Federalist the radicals responded with glee the government of Pennsylvania was toppled from its position and the last bulwark of Federalist opposition to independence was therefore crushed the Federalist now had to choose between England and the United States between being loyal and being patriotic may became loyalist as some had done even before that time fearfully and reluctantly the victims of circumstances partly of their own creation others became revolutionist now those conservatives or Federalist who became revolutionist whether willingly or not did not throw away their internal ideas for government they were too cool too long accustomed to government in their own interest to be led astray by the floods of these radical propaganda they were not to be swept along in an idealistic attempt to create an independent democracy their dislike of independence was in part the results of their fear of the people and they had tried to avoid both they failed and therefore they changed their tactics they now attempted to delay independence until a common government could be created such matters as confederation and foreign alliances which they had opposed for a year now quite suddenly became indispensable prerequisites of independence you beginning to see this folks it's not what we've been taught this is not the independence that we think we have it's not not in any way shape form or fashion now there's one thing that I think that I should probably point out to you here I think it would be critical when we move along with this thought but until you understand that these people who would later call themselves Federalist when they were actually monarchist they supported the king they want to stay in the keep stay with the king they did not want independence once you understand that then understanding the Constitution of 1787 which the Federalist wrote because all of the people who were even mildly Anti-Federalist and I'm talking about George Mason here and Elbridge Gerry they refused to sign the Constitution which they had been there for the duration but there were others who became staunch Anti-Federalist who refused to attend the convention because Patrick Henry said he saw a rat leaning toward a monarchy in Philadelphia he was exactly right people you can't go wrong reading Patrick Henry he had amazing insight as did Luther Martin as did Robert Yates as did several of these people you have to get the background so you can understand this it's just that critical but in a general way these Federalists knew what kind of a government they wanted they wanted a highly centralized government which would take the place of the British government just have a different name and wearing a disguise a government which would regulate trade control the disposition of Western properties and provide force to quell internal dissension from their rule they did not need the experience of the Revolution to demonstrate what were for them the benefits of such a government they had been stating their ideas on the subject since the meeting of the very first Continental Congress in that body Joseph Galloway had argued in behalf of his plan of Union that while the colonies denied the authority of Parliament they were in their relations to one another in a perfect state of nature and that conflict between colony and colony was at this moment only suppressed by the authority of the central government and should that authority be weakened or annulled many subjects or of unsettled disputes and which in that case can only be settled by appeal to the sword and must involve us all in the horrors of civil war unquote arguments for a totally coercive superintending power were not confined to those Federalists who became loyalists the Federalists who were to become revolutionists were equally clear in this thought Galloway had argued that some power must have the right to regulate trade for the all of the colonies since they were unable to do it for themselves but so did James DeWayne and John Dickinson these Federalists also conceived of Union as desirable for the purpose of making now listen to this quote laws relative to the general policing of America this will have a tendency of checking that revolutionary spirit in any of the colonies unquote folks do you see what they do today to rob you of that turbulent revolutionary spirit it becomes more and more evident does it not well but by 1776 these Federalists were also genuinely alarmed at the possibility of a war breaking out between the colonies and the wealthy aristocracy if independence were to be declared now Carter Braxton of Virginia wrote that if this were to happen the continent would be torn to pieces by internal wars and convulsions intercolonial disputes should be settled before independence and above all quote a Grand Continental League must be formed and a superintending power also well this idea was expressed eloquently by Edward Biddle who declared and I quote the subjugation of my country I deprecate as a most grievous calamity and yet stricken at the idea of 13 unconnected petty democracies if we are to be independent let us in the name of God at once have an empire and place Washington at the head of it unquote so well folks there you can kind of get I hope a little bit better understanding of what was happening at this time and we will be moving forward with this but again as I said before I think it is absolutely critical yes absolutely imperative that we lay the foundation here for the understanding of everything that transpired because it's been hidden from us I was taught that you know all of these people these people out in the colonies and everything else were all together and all supportive of good old George Washington and the aristocracy but there had been battles going on for decades between those people and those battles continue because the Constitution of 1787 did exactly what they wanted it put the wealthy aristocracy back in control and they have been controlling it for the last 230 some years and still control it today well that kind of completes our first lesson and the Anti-Federalist Foundation so we'll be back hopefully hopeful to see you in the next couple of days thank you for tuning in and please if you can possibly support my work with a paid subscription at Substack thank all of you for listening and God bless