Slavery In The Structure Of American Politics Summary

The mythological and historical narrative of the ‘separation of powers’ between state governments and the Federal government engrains itself within the United States cultural identity. In Chapter 4, "Foundation I," Arendt continues the cultural propagation of this trope, claiming the ‘separation of powers’ constitutes a check on the otherwise abhorrent growth of centralized political power and authority, ensuring that no portion of the government became any more powerful than another. However, Robinson, in Slavery in the Structure of American Politics, challenges both Arendt’s and our own cultural narrative regarding ‘separation of powers’; suggesting instead that the ingrained social trauma of centralized political authority, which has dictated …show more content…
His groundbreaking work ascertains that slavery was not only the, ‘fulcrum to which the Great Compromise was achieved,’ as Professor Permaul would argue, but the foundational framework to which the Constitution is set. Therefore, this paper will analyze the validity of Robinson’s claims against Arendt’s common narrative trope; concluding that the ‘separation of powers’ engrained within the political framework of the Constitution was created in a blatant attempt to protect the private interests of both the North and the South. This is demonstrated most aptly in the creation of the Federal Ratio, and debates surrounding the Slave Trade and Fugitive Slave Act.
Arendt’s framework in Chapter 4 is established upon the typical lines of the United States mythological and historical narrative; and aptly defines the ‘separation of powers’ within the Constitution as beholden to the fear of ‘tyranny anticipated’ and the concept of ‘power versus power.’ The Constitution embarked on a centuries old struggle with the United States’ cultural trauma of ‘anticipated tyranny,’ our unique fear that