Post-Revolutionary Consensus

I have previously hypothesised that the Revolution had a destabilising effect on American thought, breaking up old hegemonic patterns and creating a more open field for change. However, there is also a reverse effect which is perhaps also implicit or dialectially linked. That is the intellectual and social desire to create consensus and stability precisely at the moment when it is weakest. Perhaps it is precisely these countervailing forces that characterise all cultural change.

In the 1780s, the idea of 'union' and what might be called American nationalism was the subject of this consensual movement. Union symbolised American strength in the world, it served to justify the Revolution itself, and ironically it actually united Americans who were together in search of a sense of union and uniformity. If the model outlined above is right, then this type of nationalism also obscured the division and confusion in post-Revolutionary thought. How can historians find their way between these layers?

One approach is to look for differences within the 'union' consensus, among different notions of American nationhood. Yet by exploring its variants, that method might keep the particular issue of union in the foreground, and foster the assumption that it is the most important. It seems more likely to me that it is one of the least important issues, in terms of examining difference, precisely because it is capable of sustaining consensus. This is also why 'union' achieves such prominence in campaign propaganda like the Federalist.

If the question of union is a red herring that can tell us little about the Federalists or anyone else, will it be possible to look behind it to deeper problems of government, society, and liberty?