The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention ... by Ralph Louis Ketcham

The sources of these opposed traditions may be traced back to the disputes in ancient Greek philosophy, in thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle who defined politics in different ways. This article provides a theoretical framework to help us understand the controversies between the federalist and anti-federalists in the early history of the United States of America during the Federal Convention in 1787 as a conflict of two political philosophical traditions.

Although the Federalist notion of the public good is severely limited in scope, remaining in some way open as to the final purpose of human beings or the ultimate questions about what is truly good, it is nonetheless much more than the notion of an interdependent collection of private goods. The Federalists argue that there is a public good for all the states combined and thus the federal government must have supreme power over matters relating to commerce-and commerce is spoken of as intrinsically connected to morality and virtue-for the sake of this national public good. The Federalist argument includes the explicit claim that liberty is not license, but tied to a common notion of virtue, or what is truly good for all.

The Anti-Federalist view of representation emphasizes that the public good must be truly public without making clear how the public good differs from majority will the Federalists emphasize the public good must be truly good, the product of sound deliberation. The uniquely federal nature of the Constitution obscures the deeper understanding of the public good of Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, but both sides-especially the Federalists-provide plenty of evidence. Neither side’s understanding of the protection of individual rights as the purpose of government completely forecloses the notion of the promotion of the public good. What did they mean by the “public good” and related phrases? An extended commentary and textual analysis of the published writings of five Federalists (John Dickinson, Oliver Ellsworth, Noah Webster, Tench Coxe, and James Wilson) and five Anti-Federalists (Agrippa, Centinel, Federal Farmer, Impartial Examiner,and Brutus), the dissertation examines the way in which the notion of the public good played a significant part within the larger themes of federalism, representation, liberty versus licentiousness, and union during the ratification period. Federalists and Anti-Federalists assert that the purpose of government is to both promote the public good and protect individual rights. The dissertation examines the meaning of the public or common good considered as an end or purpose of government in the public debate over the adoption of the U.S.

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention ... by Ralph Louis Ketcham