History 404: US Constitution Seminar

One of the most important issues during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution was the question of where and how power would be allocated. In Federalist No. 39 James Madison articulated the Federalist view that the new nation would be a combination of federal and national power. This essay was meant to assure doubtful Anti-federalists that the new government was not taking power away from individuals or from the separate states. On the other side of the debate, the fiery, Virginian Antifederalist Patrick Henry delivered a speech on June 7, 1788 that questioned whether the new central government was really just consolidating power for itself.

Word Cloud: Federalist No. 39

Madison’s essay most prominently features the words ‘government,’ ‘states,’ ‘people,’ and ‘national.’ This word selection is representative of Madison’s point that the states and the national government will both have power under the new Constitution. Madison begins by trying to explain the Constitution’s Republicanism as a mix of powers between the national and state governments. Maintaining that the power lies with the people, Madison claims that the Constitution is “in its foundation it is federal, not national,” and is in practice “partly federal and partly national” (Federalist 39). The House of Representatives will derive its power directly from the people, making it a national, not federal, organization. On the other hand, the Senate is elected by the states, making it federal and not national. The presidency “will be derived from a very compound source…presenting at least as many federal as national features” (Federalist 39). Beeman also touches briefly on Madison’s advocacy of this duality, reminding the reader that the essay was at heart both “high-minded theory and political propaganda” (Beeman 407). When looking at the Word Cloud, one should notice that the words ‘federal’ and ‘national’ are represented twice, so keep in mind that these words are actually featured much more prominently than they appear to be.

Madison’s frequent use of the words ‘powers’ and ‘authority’ shows that his emphasis is on these factors and how they will be distributed. A common Antifederalist argument that came from the lower and middle classes was that power and authority would be invested in an aristocracy of a few powerful, wealthy men. The Federalists presented the counterargument that this ‘aristocracy’ would be “both an aristocracy of power and an aristocracy of merit,” ensuring that any citizen could wield power (Cornell 1158).

Word Cloud: Patrick Henry Speech June 7, 1788

Patrick Henry’s speech before the Virginia ratifying convention was almost a direct rebuttal to Madison’s “Federalist No. 39,” claiming that the Federalists were leading people astray with false promises. In the Word Cloud, Henry uses the words ‘government,’ ‘people,’ and ‘power’ prominently, showcasing his concern with the new Constitution’s reassignment of powers. Henry articulately describes the Antifederalist view that the new central government will be taking power away from the people, compromising their safety and their rights. Ever a fervent Virginian, Henry uses the word ‘Virginia’ as much as ‘states’ and ‘American,’ and more than ‘union,’ ‘country,’ or ‘Congress’. Henry relied on Virginians’ pride in their sovereign state and their faith in their own Declaration of Rights when he questioned the centralization of power: “The founders of your own Constitution made your Government changeable: But the power of changing it is gone from you!” (Henry). Henry acknowledges that the government is capable of being influenced by the individual but he asserts that all of the people of the states will now be able to make decisions about Virginia with equal authority as actual residents of the state. The word ‘King’ also features in the Word Cloud, symbolizing another Antifederalist fear that power would be centralized in an uncontrollable authority figure all too reminiscent of a king. Henry specifically says that the Constitution “squints towards monarchy” and worries “how easy is it for [the American chief] to render himself absolute” (Henry).

Image Courtesy of http://www.wordle.net.

One of the most important topics of debate at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 concerned the executive branch, specifically the the requirements surrounding the act of electing the president and the measures that had to be taken in order to ensure that the election took place in a manner that the members of the convention could agree upon.  This was also one of the issues that continued to reinforce the stark division that had developed between the Federalists and Antifederalists, with the Federalists supporting the ratification of the Constitution and the Antifederalists opposing the ratification.  In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, writing under the alias of Publius, argues in support of the introduction of the Electoral College, now a modern day staple in the process of electing a president, while in Antifederalist Paper No. 70 the anonymous writer, known only by his alias Republicus, is totally against the electoral college as he feels it takes the power of having the responsibility of electing the president out of the hands of the people and places it in the power of a small group of individuals.

However, Hamilton does believe that these individuals, while along with being selected by those people that they are representing in determining the outcome of an election, “will most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” (Hamilton, Federalist No. 68).  This shows that in his quick response to Antifederalist No. 72, Hamilton is taking into account the fact that one of the arguments of the Antifederalists is that the men being elected will not be qualified enough to represent the sentiments of the entire American voting population.  In fact, this is the major point of emphasis in the document by Republicus as he states unequivocally that it is simply not logical “that the sacred rights of mankind should dwindle down to Electors of electors, and those again electors of other electors” (Republicus, Antifederalist No. 72).  The aptly named Republicus was clearly concerned about the fate of the people in this government that was supposedly being designed so that the citizens of America could play an integral role in its outcome.  For these reasons, Federalist No. 68 and Antifederalist No. 72 will be eternally set against one another as the prominent documents advocating both sides of the spectrum on the debate over the process of presidential election.

Image Courtesy of http://www.wordle.net.

While the differences between Publius and Republicus are clear, there are still similar beliefs that both men hold as necessary for the success of the government and these become apparent through the use of Word Clouds.  The Word Clouds themselves give an interesting look into the key words that the authors considered to be important enough to use multiple times throughout the course of their respective documents.  The overlap between the two Word Clouds, displaying the similarity of the issues that were being debated by Publius and Republicus, are apparent on more than several occasions.  Words such as “one” and “president” display the agreement between Publius and Republicus on the idea of a single individual ruling over the nation.  However, while not overlapping, the words “legislative” and “Senate” display the fact that while the president was to be given a great deal of authority, the legislative branch of the government, which includes the Senate, would play an integral role in the system of checks and balances established to prevent one part of the government from having too much power.  Other words such as “people,” which overlaps both Word Clouds, displays the focus of both authors, although Republicus doubts it in the case of the Federalists such as Hamilton, on attaining a government in which the citizens of the United States can have a say.

Federalist Paper No. 8

Federalist No. 8, which Alexander Hamilton titled “The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States” and AntiFederalist No. 6, penned by an author under the pseudonym of Centinel in January 1788 called “The Hobgoblins of  Anarchy and the Dissentions Among the States” both touch upon key matters of the Constitutional Convention of 1867. Though the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed on many platforms, they shared concern for the future of the United States. From the word clouds, clear points of emphasis become apparent from each of these important documents. Both documents touch upon similar issues involving the relationship between the states.

In the Federalist Paper written by Alexander Hamilton, the point of stress was establishing a military of great people. War was a real point of stress for the new nation. One of the objects of the Constitutional Convention was to figure out a way to lessen the tension between the states. Hamilton insisted upon the states forming one union. He also introduces, many times, the subject of the national military. “Military” is clearly the most prominent word in this cloud, followed closely by armies, war and people.

Anti-Federalist No. 6

On January 16, 1788, an anonymous author by the name of “Centinel” penned what is now known as the Anti-Federalist No. 6. In this article, Centinel goes against the Federalist new idea of government. His concerns are clearly visible in the word cloud. Words like “anarchy,” “despotism,” “judgement,” “misery” and evils” jump off the page. This passage establishes some over-arching themes of the Anti-Federalist movement. They were concerned that the new government would bring anarchy to the new nation, resulting from friction and tension among the different states. Centinel was concerned for the rivalries between the states and what could, and probably would, result in their strife. He writes, “To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.” The evils which would come from the new Constitution, he believes, would be disastrous to the United States.

The word clouds present interesting points of view into each of the essays. Both Hamilton and “Centinel’s” key areas of stress become apparent.  On one hand the Federalists, it was the importance of forming one nation, instead of being divided among the states. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists take the position against the new government. They clearly were under the impression that strife between the states was inevitable with anarchy being a serious resolution. Both word clouds portray the key points of the platforms of both parties on this topic.  The conflict between the states and the new government was just beginning.

The national debates between the Federalist and Antifederalists occurred between September 17, 1787, and May 29, 1790 when Rhode Island became the thirteenth and final state to ratify the Constitution.

Federalist, James Wilson’s Speech to the Pennsylvania Convention on November 24, 1787 set the tone for the debates, not only for the remainder of the convention but for the entirety of the constitution’s ratification.  His speech includes the most important ideals set forth in the Federalist papers, focusing largely on the benefits of a union between the states, the illness with the current confederation and the effectiveness of a centralized federal government. By highlighting words like ‘government,’ ‘power,’ ‘people,’ ‘union,’ and ‘representation,’ the content of Wilson’s speech is clearly a persuasive case for the necessity of a federal government  that would strengthen and protect their budding nation. The federal government would seek to preserve order and regulation through peoples ‘representation.’ This would preserve order and secure the liberty of the larger republic.

Wilson also argued that the ‘people’ would ultimately decide the fate of the country because “supreme power…should be vested in the people…..It is a power paramount to every constitution, inalienable in its nature, and indefinite in its extent” (Beeman 381). The frequent appearance of the word ‘people’ accompanied by ‘government,’ ‘power,’ ‘united,’  ‘representation,’ and ‘liberty,’ appeals to the classic republican belief in popular sovereignty.  While ‘government’ appears the greatest number of times in his speech, Wilson cushions the federalist desire for a “comprehensive Federal  Republic” (Beeman 380), with the reassurance that sovereignty would remain intact in the form of the ‘people.’ Essentially Wilsons speech aptly summarizes the Federalists perspective as well as frames the remainder of the debate(Beeman 380).

The Antifederalist argument is best summarized by Melancton Smith of New York in his first Antifederalist paper under the name of the “Federal Farmer.” In this letter he acknowledges that there are many instabilities in the government, however, he believed the new government proposed in the Federalist constitution was not accessible to all types of men in the community. His first letter exemplified the Antifederalist sentiment that the constitution was elitist and largely excluded the common man. This belief stemmed from the secrecy of the constitutional convention which many believed was in direct violation of the Articles of Confederation in the means selected for ratification of the constitution.  Smith states “I have long apprehended that fraudulent debtors, and embarrassed men, on the one hand, and men, on the other, unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men” ( Letters to a Federal Farmer I). In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists often relied on the rhetoric of the Revolutionary War era, which stressed the virtues of local rule and associated centralized power with a monarch. Therefore, the Anti-Federalists frequently claimed that the Constitution represented a step away from the democratic goals of the American Revolution. In essence they believed that the elitist creators of the constitution sought only to further their own powers and goals. Many feared that this government would only succeed in creating a large socioeconomic gap between classes. While the central and most frequently used word in this document is once again ‘government,’ the words that surround it change the meaning and point directly toward the meaning of the Antifederalist debate.Words like ‘free,’ ‘governments,’ ‘states,’ ‘object,’ ‘community,’ ‘people,’ ‘power,’ and ‘men,’ show that the Antifederalist interests were not in a nation as a united front but in the interests if the community and the local state government and the people who controlled it.  The second largest word in the document is men. This shows that local men are of the second greatest importance to the government and that it is these ‘men’ who should be in control. Many Anti-Federalists believed in a type of government that has been described as agrarian republicanism, or a government is centered on a society of landowning farmers who participate in local politics. Lastly ‘Governments’ appears as the third largest word. The pluralization of this word once again reinforces the importance of state run governments to the Antifederalists.