You updated your password.

Reset Password

Enter the email address you used to create your account. We will email you instructions on how to reset your password.

Reset Password Modal Form

Forgot Your Email Address? Contact Us

The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution

Get a ring-side seat on the tremendous intellectual battles fought by our founding fathers as they worked to develop the U.S. Constitution—one of the most influential documents ever created.
Guidebook
 
 
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.1
  • CLOUD, getReviews, 5.92ms
  • REVIEWS, PRODUCT
  • bvseo-msg: HTTP status code of 404 was returned;
Significance and Historical Context

01: Significance and Historical Context

We introduce the major players in the debate over the Constitution's ratification. Most important are those who took part in the struggle in New York—where some of the most thoughtful Anti-Federalist writings were produced and later responded to with the influential “Federalist” papers organized, and in substantial part written, by Alexander Hamilton.

34 min
Classical Republicanism

02: Classical Republicanism

The Anti-Federalists attack the proposed constitutional order, saying it departs too much from the traditionally revered Greco-Roman ideal of virtuous participatory republicanism. We clarify the Anti-Federalist objections and explore their own reservations about classical republicanism.

32 min
The Anti-Federalists' Republican Vision

03: The Anti-Federalists' Republican Vision

The participatory and virtue-centered vision of the Anti-Federalists dictates a more decentralized arrangement than the more consolidated national government proposed by the Federalists. We introduce the Federalists' response, highlighting their focus on the demands of national security and foreign policy.

28 min
The Argument over National Security

04: The Argument over National Security

Articulating a need for sound defense and foreign policy, “The Federalist” critiques the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and then moves to a general critique of the inadequacy of confederacies. Anti-Federalists counter by suggesting that Federalists may be falling prey to visions of an empire.

34 min
The Deep Difficulties in Each Position

05: The Deep Difficulties in Each Position

Anti-Federalists accuse Federalists of giving national security pre-eminence over republican freedom. Federalists reply by claiming that Anti-Federalists fail to face up to what union and national security truly require.

34 min
Debating the Meaning of “Federalism”

06: Debating the Meaning of “Federalism”

The Federalists' defense of “Federalism” reveals that the state governments are to be strictly subordinate to the central government—thereby intensifying the Anti-Federalist critique.

32 min
The Madisonian Republic

07: The Madisonian Republic

How do the Federalists propose to prevent despotism in the central government? Their answer, articulated by James Madison, rejects the classical republican ideal of a confederacy of small, fraternal democracies in favor of a vast, representative republic, animated by competition among mutually hostile “factions.”

30 min
The Argument over Representation

08: The Argument over Representation

Madison identifies majority faction as the overriding danger in republics and calls for a new conception of representative government removed from the populace—a call that echoes, although in a more aristocratic way, the emphasis upon virtue found in the classical tradition.

31 min
Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 1

09: Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 1

For Anti-Federalists, the proposed House of Representatives is too weak and will be overpowered by more powerful branches of government. For Federalists, the House is the most dangerous part of government and therefore most in need of being checked and balanced.

30 min
Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 2

10: Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 2

Anti-Federalists argue that a federal-level “separation of powers” would be merely artificial, with no reliable basis in social reality; they argue instead for state governments to check the federal government. They also argue for a small executive council instead of the proposed presidency.

30 min
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

11: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Hamilton's expectation of a virtuous national leadership is most evident in his defense of the unelected, life-tenured Supreme Court and its historically unprecedented power of “judicial review.” The Anti-Federalists predict abuse of this power and insist on a court that includes elected officials.

30 min
The Bill of Rights

12: The Bill of Rights

The addition, by the first Congress, of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is the one great victory of the Anti-Federalists—but it is won at the ironic cost of giving much more power to a Supreme Court that they fear.

32 min

Overview Course No. 4878

Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Its authority and stature are routinely invoked by voices from every point on the political spectrum, with frequent references to the Founding Fathers and their true “intent.” What really was their true intent?

As these 12 surprising lectures show, many of those Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry - were highly critical of the new Constitution and staunchly opposed it when it was first put forth for ratification by the states as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.

The debate over the Constitution raged for the better part of two years, and beneath its rhetorical flourishes lay not only the longest and most profound civic argument in our nation's history, but also a civics lesson that deserves to endure for all time. It was an argument that would result not only in the ratification of the Constitution, but also in what that Constitution would become.

Author and award-winning professor Thomas Pangle of the University of Texas at Austin takes you into this debate. You'll see which Founders opposed the new Constitution, which Founders led the battle for it, and how both sides helped define the result. In an era when contemporary arguments on the national stage so often mirror the same conflicts debated by the Founders, our own reenactment of that original debate can enrich our ability to be active and participating citizens.

About

Thomas L. Pangle

Learning about the original debate over the founding and the meaning of our Constitution has never been more timely, and even urgent, than it is in our strife-ridden civic culture today.

INSTITUTION
The University of Texas at Austin

Dr. Thomas L. Pangle holds the Joe R. Long Chair in Democratic Studies in the Department of Government at The University of Texas at Austin. He earned his B.A. from Cornell University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. Before joining the faculty at The University of Texas, Professor Pangle taught at Yale University, Dartmouth University, the University of Chicago, and the …cole des Hautes …tudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. He is the recipient of many awards and accolades, including four fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Robert Foster Cherry Great Teacher of the World Prize from Baylor University. He also has given prestigious lectures, including the Exxon Lectures in Humane Approaches to the Social Sciences and the Werner Heisenberg Memorial Lecture at the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation in Munich. Professor Pangle is the author of several works on political thought, including The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke; The Ennobling of Democracy: The Challenge of the Postmodern Age; and Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy. He also serves on the editorial boards of Political Research Quarterly and Polis: The Journal of the Society for Greek Political Thought.

By This Professor