Jayden Johnson

Dr. Josefson

American Philosophy

December 9, 2020

The key central argument of the Federalists was that there needed to be a strong national

government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the National Government did not have any

power. Most of that power resided in the individual states. While the key argument of all

individuals included in the Federalist group, each individual differed from each other in other

ways; whether it regarded the implementation of these ideals or the form of government in which

they felt was necessary. Alexander Hamilton in his arguments at the Constitutional Convention

provided some controversial points that would go on to help shape the Federalist view. Hamilton

explained that nobody supported the national government because it did not have any power.

Because of human beings' love for power, Hamilton felt that the national government was the

perfect remedy to solve this lack of support. With the national government having most of the

power, it had the ability to prop up individuals into positions of power, which in turn, would

make them happy and lead them to support it. In giving people power, they become better. Next,

the national government must be able to get people attached to it. This also relates to the

previous point: if individuals are attached to the government in some way, it will thrive. His next

argument was that the national government must have a monopoly on violence. Having this

monopoly will create order, peace, and be able to protect the power of the government. The

ability of the government to commit glorious acts in times of way is something the people need

and want. Lastly, the national government must have influence on the people. The people will be

more likely to follow and love their government if it gives them awards and honor and produces
great men. The power of the national government must swallow up the state government, thus

creating the American National State (Hamilton, 183). Because of this creation, state sovereignty

is nonexistent. In modeling this form of national and state government, Hamilton uses the British

government which is extremely controversial. In copying the British government, the United

States would need a king and the house of lords, which is controlled by the aristocrats.

According to Hamilton, the English king is the only good example of the executive. The

king has so much power and wealth that he cannot be bought and his power is restricted

domestically. These two facts make him unable to be corrupt (Hamilton, 184). The need for the

American government to be more like the English government is expressed by Hamilton because

it solves the problem of interest and humans’ lust for power. The best men in society are put in

government and they all compete for power and glory, therefore resulting in them checking each

other. In the pursuit of power of glory, they also make the nation rich and powerful. At the core

of Hamilton’s belief, the power of the Constitution comes from the people and in a reverse way

directly empowered the people. In his critique of state government, Hamilton explained that they

only captured the interest of the wealthy and not of the people. Under the Articles of

Confederation, a power machine was created that will collapse on itself. There must be a

constitution created so that there can be a balanced power machine, putting power in the national

government. In buffering his argument for creating a stronger national government, Hamilton

introduces two different kinds of laws. Fundamental laws that are within the Constitution and

then regular laws made by the government. The basic way in preserving the fundamental law is

by making it supreme and more difficult to change. In changing the regular laws created by the

government, you would only need a majority to change that law. But to change the Constitution,

one would need a constitutional amendment or Constitutional Convention.

 Another key figure within this Federalist group is James Madison. A key question in

understanding Madison’s Federalist view of government is the regime question: Who is the

source of sovereignty? A central argument of this Federalist view is that the people are the

source of sovereignty, and this is known as the nationalist perspective. In Federalist No. 39,

Madison defines what a republic is and says it is a government that derives its power and

authority from the people (Madison, 266). Here, it can be seen that Madison’s view on the

republic and the source of sovereignty is consistent with the left Republican view of Hannah

Arendt. In holding this view, Madison was worried about the republic being captured by a small

body of the people who pretend to be republicans but in the end they are not. This is yet another

instance in which Madison sounds like he is a left Republican. While he says this, he later goes

on to explain that the assent and ratification of laws is to be given by the people, not as

individuals, but as independent states. In allowing this to happen, the establishment of the

Constitution will be federal and not national.

This is extremely interesting because just as Madison was leaning toward the left

Republican ideals of non-sovereignty and the nationalist perspective of the United States, he then

contradicts himself and takes the confederate view. Later in Federalist No. 51, Madison talks

about all of the power being submitted to a single government and the usurpations are guarded

by a division of that government into separate departments (Madison, 273). His writing in

Federalist No. 51 is a completely different understanding of what was written in Federalist No.

39. In Federalist No. 39, Madison suggested that the fundamental source of sovereignty was the

people in each state, then, those people form their state governments. The state governments

receive all of the power of the people, and the people in the state governments give part of their

power to the national government and another part still resides in the states. In a purely national
government, a way to do this is that the people give some power to both the national and state

governments at the same time. The question arises on whether Madison is a state’s rights

confederate or a nationalist, and the answer is unknown according to these two documents. This

same contradictory belief persists in other aspects of Madison’s work. In understanding the

power, the House of Representatives, Madison believed it came from the people, once again

adopting the nationalist perspective. When describing the senate and where that power came

from, he wrote that it came from the states. Another instance in which Madison took the side of

both perspectives (Madison, 267).

It is obvious that Madison does not fall clearly on one side between the national or

confederate view of the American Republic. Instead, it can be seen that Madison feels that there

needs to be a mixture of these two perspectives. This is where he and Hamilton differ although

they are still a part of the same group. It was clear Hamilton took the nationalist perspective but

here, it is obvious that Madison feels that there should be a blend between the two.

The Anti Federalists were opposed to this idea of a strong national government because

they feared it would once again lead to Great Britain’s form of government. In a strong national

government, the power would be controlled by the wealthy interest. In opposing the ratification

of the Constitution, the Antifederalists felt that the Articles of Confederation should only have

amendments added. Robert Yates and John Lansing are the first to highlight the problem with the

ratification of the new Constitution in their writings to the governor of New York. Yates and

Lansing’s first point explain that the people in the constitutional convention do not have any

more power than what was delegated to them by the people. Here, they are explaining that the

actions the delegators were taking in the convention were destroying the citizens political

happiness or in other words their ability to participate in government (Yates, 227). This here is
showing that the Antifederalists were more consistent with Hannah Arendt and her creation of

left Republicanism. Yates and Lansing wanted to stress the importance of everyone being able to

give their opinions to the people who were supposed to amend the Constitution and in doing this,

both sides could be heard and all opinions would be respected. In explaining why, the delegates

in the constitutional convention could not do what they did because the people only delegated

power for them to add amendments to the Articles of Confederation. In saying this, Yates and

Lansing are tying the powers given to the delegated back to the people who sent them. In

creating a whole new Constitution, it creates a national government that eventually leads to the

states being destroyed. The Anti Federalists think that the power and authority ultimately rests in

the people and the people living in different areas of the United States direct their delegates to do

a very small and specific task. The power of that delegate is originally given by the people, only

allowing them to do what the people tell them to do. This idea shows that they believe in non-

sovereignty. Although the Antifederalists could not stop the ratification of the Constitutional,

their next objective was to make sure the Bill of Rights was included in its ratification. The

Antifederalists held that a Bill of Rights must be included because it protected the individual

liberties of the people. In protecting their civil liberties, the citizens would be able to continue to

have freedom to debate political issues. Next, in the ratification of the Constitution, the

Antifederalists felt that it was necessary for the Bill of Rights to be included in the Constitution.

In its addition, they felt the civil liberties of the people would be protected. Therefore, they

would still be able to publicly debate political issues.

Antifederalist Lenoir highlighted some of the reasons why the Constitution was not

complete by itself. First, he established that the Constitution was simply not proper for adoption

because it endangered the civil liberties enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. Relating
back to the previous points made by Yates and Lansing, the delegates of the convention had no

authority to completely destroy the confederation because the people only gave them the power

to amend it. In drafting this Constitution, the delegates exceeded the powers given to them. In the

creation of this Constitution, Lenoir feared that it would lead to the “most dangerous aristocracy

that ever was thought of...” (Lenoir, 244). The fear of Lenoir is so real that he felt that there

should be no Constitution at all. In listing the problems with the Constitution, Lenoir explained

that the right to representation in government was not preserved to the people. This goes back to

Yates and Lansing’s points about the citizens of the United States being able to exercise political

happiness and being able to publicly participate in government. Lenoir also is displaying his left

Republican thinking as related to Arendt. Under this Constitution it appeared to Lenoir that the

delegates were trying to consolidate the states into one big empire. In doing this, it would take

away all of the state’s sovereignty. After listing his many fears, Lenoir says again that he hopes

the Constitution would not be adopted until amendments are made. It will be seen that the civil

liberties that the citizens enjoy and those liberties that are expressed by Yates, Lansing, and

Lenoir would be fulfilled with the implementation of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

This is why the Antifederalists implore the delegates for its addition.

The Antifederalist perspective of the Union is a confederation of states. Antifederalists

knew that the union had to be strengthened but in their view the states had to remain

independently sovereign and equally free. Their fear that the Constitution would consolidate the

state governments into one big national government led them to feel this way. They were

convinced that under this strong national government for which the Federalists wanted, would

lead to rule of the few. For a country with such extensive territory, it was necessary for the

confederation of states to remain. Luther Martin in his writing explained this understanding of
the union. He writes, “the states… are only entitled originally to agree upon the form of, and

submit themselves to, a federal government, and afterwards by mutual consent to dissolve or

alter it” (Martin, 229). Here, Luther Martin is explaining that the states in their political capacity

and sovereignty have the ability to submit to a national government if they wish, but also have

the ability to alter or leave that national government. In this relationship with the national

government, the states are free and equal. In exercising their sovereignty, the states will have the

same authority to enact treaties, regulate commerce. An interesting note made by Luther Martin

regarding the people and the formulation of state governments. He wants it to be understood that

the power originates from the people and when that power is exercised by the people, in forming

the state governments, that power then transitions to the state government. This power in the

state governments is not given back to the people unless events take place that led to the

destruction of that state government. Also, he wanted it known that in the dissolution of the

national government, due to the sovereignty of the states, the state governments would not

dissolve with it.

Transcendentalism was an idea that undermined the conceptual traditions that were

central in European thinking. Transcendentalism saw American nature as a New Testament

which revealed possibilities for individuals to transcend the old laws of nature. Nature in

Transcendentalism is always changing or progressive. Emerson explains, “Of persons all have

equal rights in virtue of being identical in nature” (409). In trying to understand this simple

quote, many would assume all persons are equal just because we are identical in the biological

makeup of our bodies. In understanding Emerson’s perspective, all persons have equal rights

because they are all in nature and they all share the experience of being in nature. All individuals

have access to the truth of nature which can be found in the experiences they have. This idea can
be seen as a radical puritan perspective because with all people being in nature, everyone seems

to have a revelation that is directly related to the nature they experience.

Transcendentalism attempted to transcend many different aspects of society like religion,

the past, the present, and law and politics. Transcendentalist thinkers when trying to transcend

religion felt that God was omnipresent in each individual and in nature. God and man were one,

forever connected, and this belief undermined dualism. All human experience was an

individual’s chance to create their own New Testament, and this individual instance was the

highest source of knowledge one could achieve. In having this intuition, one could become more

individualistic, self-reliant, and reject religious authority because there was nobody above you

and God. Ralph Waldo Emerson was able to explain this intuition or instinct. He explained, “…

but mainly because there is an instinctive sense, however obscure and yet inarticulate, that the

whole constitution of property, on its present tenures, is injurious, and its influence on persons

deteriorating and degrading…” (Emerson, 409). Here, Emerson takes us back to his previous

point about the experiences we have in nature and how it reveals the truth. That instinctive sense

comes from our individual revelation. Next, Emerson wants us to understand that people are

going to have a tough time understanding our senses but he wants us to remember that the rules

of property and economic exchange are supposed to be complicated. In exchanging and buying

property, there is a liberal focus on trying to fulfill one’s private interest. Everyone must buy and

sell to get what they desire, and in this Emerson feels that it destroys human beings. This whole

liberal idea is wrong to Emerson and he feels that people should engage in revelation.

Next, in transcending law and politics, Transcendentalism rejected both conservative elitist and

democratic populism. Because of Transcendentalism’s reliance on the development of the

individual and its overall individual nature, Transcendentalism synthesizes both the public and
private good and gives us the achievement of the public good through the heroic cultivation of an

individual’s talents. Henry Thoreau produced specific arguments against any democratic form of

government including his own. He says, “But a government in which the majority rule in all

cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it” (Thoreau, 416). Here,

Thoreau is making a strong argument against one of the fundamental aspects of democracy,

which is majority rules. In his belief, no government should only ever answer to the wishes and

demands of the majority, for that is not true justice. In only answering to the wishes of the

strongest group it shows that that government is not virtuous. He questions why there must be a

majority to decide on what is right and wrong. In trying to find a solution to his problem,

Thoreau believes that man should have the most respect for the right things to do, rather than

have respect for the laws the government creates. There is a heavy emphasis on individuals being

men first and subjects to a government after.

Going further in criticizing the American government, Thoreau appears to be one of the

first Transcendentalists to address the slave problem. He explains, “I cannot for an instant

recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also”

(Thoreau, 416). Here, Thoreau begins his feelings about the American Government and how

people should behave toward our form of government. Altogether Thoreau believes we should

disassociate ourselves with the government all together. In speaking about his own feelings, he

says that he refuses to recognized the government as his own because of how they have handled

certain situations lime slavery. In response to these situations, he explains that he understands the

ability the people have of the right to revolution against an inefficient government. Under the

current conditions he feels that the people have the duty to rebel against the government. At the

heart of transcendentalism was the ability for the individual to be free, learn, and experience God
through their experiences in nature. Because of slavery, a whole group of individuals was not

able to do this fundamental thing. This would lead to many transcendentalists becoming a part of

the abolitionist movement. The next issue in American society as a whole was women’s rights.

Margaret Fuller in her essay Women in the Nineteenth Century, used transcendentalist principles

in advocating for women’s rights. Really having the same sort of argument transcendentalist had

about slavery were made for women during this time. In understanding Transcendentalism and

its many ideas and thinkers, one has to appreciate what it contributed to contemporary political

thought.

First was its emphasis on individualism, self-reliance, and the secularization that

occurred in the religious communities. Its interest or emphasis on the religious experience and

the revelation an individual has through experience, rather than the specific religion, is

something that still resonates today. Also, their progressive stances on women’s right, abolition,

and reform as whole, is something that hasis become more common in contemporary political

thought and society.

Jacksonian Democracy applies two aspects, democratization and producerism. The

Jacksons democratized American society by expanding suffrage to include all white males and

popular election of the president. Producerism was the basic idea that the basis of American

society is the heroic labor of the individual crafts person and farmer. This produces a heroic

vision of manhood, which envisions a person conquering nature through hard labor. This heroic

labor is the basis for citizenship and economic equality. Also, Jackson is trying to eliminate the

money power. The government under federalism or English mercantilism is following the

influence of money. Jackson wants to eliminate the influence of rich people who use government

in an aristocratic way. Elizabeth Cady Stanton helps us better understands this in her address at
Seneca Falls. Stanton lets her disagreements be known about the current laws in America which

subject her to her husband to be beaten and chastised (Stanton, 438). This notion that men could

ever beat or chastise their wife originated from Roman Republic and their practices of right

republicanism. This political ideology basis all authority in private life in violence. Individuals

get property through violence and once they turn that property into their household, it becomes

their own private dominion. In its creation, violence is fundamentally at its core and it continues

forever, subject the wife and whoever else lives there to the dominance of the father. In relation

this back to Jacksonian Democracy and producerism, if freedom is based in heroic production,

one can see how it transforms working class men from being dependent servants to being

independent producers. Once someone is independent because they are producing something,

that person is transform from being confined to a private space where they are subject to the

dominion of the farther, and they are able to become an independent citizen. This further

illustrates the democratization that occurred under Jacksonian Democracy. I believe this shows

that Jackson had a mix of both liberal and republican. In what was just mentioned, in

transforming an individual from being subjected to the dominance and violence of the father in

private life, and being able to become an independent citizen shows the liberal aspect of political

ideology. On the other hand, one can see some republican aspects in this as well in the expansion

of suffrage to include all white males.

In Jacksonian Democracy they are trying to in a way radicalize democracy with universal

suffrage rights regardless of property, and the new ideology of producerism. Producerism gives

an opportunity for all people to become virtuous citizens through heroic labor, which can be

done in the factory or on the farm. In Whig Nationalism, the democratic ideas that are created by

Jackson which involve a lack in government intervention, are changed into a nationalist
reformism. Their thought process was that they could promote the development of individual

capacities, development of economy, and protection of labor through government policy. Some

examples of this are internal improvements or tariffs. In comparing both Jackson and Whig

Nationalism, Whig nationalist felt that democratic freedom could be reached more effectively

with some government involvement. William Lloyd Garrison in his writing seems to take a left

liberal approach when he is discussing liberty. Saying that individuals should have the liberty to

do whatever they want without being encumbered by a master. In the pursuit of happiness, it

seems to be a private thing that individuals enjoy. In addressing slavery Garrison says, “But

those, for whose emancipation we are striving—constituting at the present time at least one-sixth

part of our countrymen…” (Garrison, 441). Here Garrison is essentially saying that slaves are

human beings that make up a large portion of their society. He claims that white people have

kept slaves in the dark intellectually and have not allowed them to transcend as an individual. It

seems here that he is taking a transcendentalist approach and he wants black people to be able to

participate in this individual’s development of their capacity for reason, freedom, and an

individual’s ability to move toward a transcendent truth.

John C. Calhoun in his writing produces a liberal understanding of liberty. In speaking on

happiness and interest, he believes that we should use the government to protect our private

interest (Calhoun, 454). The fundamental purpose of government is to protect property, which is

understandable coming from a rich property and slave owner in South Carolina. Next, he

explains that each community has its own balance of its security interest and property interest,

and that security should protect the government from foreign nations like Great Britain and the

French, and also from slave rebellions within the states. To protect himself from this anarchy

from within, he feels that freedom cannot be given to slaves and poor whites because they are
inferior beings, they must be controlled. To Calhoun there is no public good and everything

should be based on self-interest. This makes Calhoun’s argument and ideology fundamental anti-

republican. In having this form of society and government, the superior people will rise and

control the inferior groups of people, therefore creating a conservative end through liberal

means. In answering the question of how to get protection of property and inequality in a liberal

and democratic government, Calhoun explains in order for the government to act it must have

unanimity among the states and when a state disagrees with the government, they can nullify the

law and the next step would be succession.

In answering the question of where sovereignty lies, the Jacksonian Democrats say it lies

with the states, but Daniel Webster repackages federalist nationalism. Webster in his view thinks

the sovereignty lies with the people. His argument is that with the states’ rights perspective, the

people cannot be one and there are really different people for each state. In his view the

American people are one. In relation to Calhoun’s argument about individual interest, Webster

would say that this is not true and that the American government is based on the people. In

understanding Webster and the Whig Nationalist view of the people, it must be remembered that

they had the transcendentalist reform protestant understanding of the people. The people are

trying to realize the fundamental and religious development toward some public good. Webster

explains, “It is, Sir, the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people,

made by the people, and answerable to the people” (Webster, 485). There is not sovereignty over

the people, the people are sovereign. This presents the left republicanism developed by Hannah

Ardent.
 Works Cited

Mason, A. T., & Baker, G. E. (1985). Free government in the making: Readings in American

political thought. New York: Oxford University Press.