Commentary on Federalist #5
For those who are tired of the writing of John Jay you are not out of the woods yet because he also composed Federalist #5. Not only that but he, again, continues on the same subject that he has been discussing since the second paper. We have to appreciate, however we might feel about Jay, his ability to craft an argument over the course of four successive papers. Personally, I have enjoyed reading Jay because I usually just remember the writings of Madison and Hamilton so it was like reading something new. In the fifth paper he continues his argument concerning the dangers of foreign force and influence.
As a side note, please excuse the common shifts between past and present tense. There are some sentences that just do not seem to work any other way than in past and present tense and it is a shame they have to be in the same paper. On the one hand, when I write about what Jay said I have been told to speak about in the present tense as if he says it now, for example, “Jay argues….” On the other hand, we are discussing the past and it is not always true of our situation now because a lot of things have already come to pass, for example, “Jay said…” or “Jay made the point…” For those who appreciate the mechanics and structure of grammar, I am not unaware of the problem but there does not always seem to be a clear way to avoid it.
The text of Federalist No. 5.
“Queen Ann, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the union then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 17 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Taking an example from history, Jay laid out the groundwork to complete his argument on this subject. He took a letter written by Queen Ann that would have been about 81 years old to Jay at the time and used it to bolster his argument that Union was necessary. He used two quotations from this queen which he believed could be applied to the American situation.
“‘An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: it will secure your religion, liberty and property, remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interests, will be enabled to resist all its enemies.’”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 17 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Understand that this is a quotation and not just words written by Jay. Queen Ann wrote in her letter that a union would be the solid foundation for ultimate peace. She was speaking at the time to Scotland and telling them that they should be united with Britain. She also gave a list of benefits that would be provided in a union that would not be safe outside of it. She mentioned that their religion would be secure, that their property would be secure, and that it would remove animosities between the people of Scotland and conflict between Scotland and England. Not only that, but she argued that it would be a positive benefit to their trade and commerce and that the whole island of Britain, instead of being divided against each other, would be united and could defend itself against common enemies. This is the same point that Jay himself is tried to make. He used a second quotation from the same letter to further his argument.
“‘We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion; being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will doubtless, on this occasion, use their utmost endeavours to prevent or delay this union.’”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 17 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The two things that Queen Ann seriously recommended to Scotland were “calmness” and “unanimity.” In other words, she recommended that they should think reasonably and rationally about the issue and should being fully decided with the whole country. She also claimed that union was the only true—“effectual”—way to secure happiness for their countries in the short term and in the long term, in the present and in the future. Union of their countries, she argued, would be the only way to effectually thwart the plans of their mutual enemies. In fact, she said that their enemies would be against their union because it would give them an advantage over the two.
Jay basically allowed these two quotations to speak for themselves. He hardly added anything to them or commented on them at all. In his thinking he believed that the quotes were so relevant to the situation that people would not have to have the quotations explained to them.
“It was remarked in the preceding paper, that weakness and divisions at home, would invite dangers from abroad, and that nothing would tend more to secure us from them than union, strength and good government within ourselves.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 17 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Some brief review on the last paper is provided wherein Jay sums up what his whole argument was in the last paper. His simple point was that weakness and divisions that were the result of lack of Union between the states, with no national, federal government, would invite danger because other nations would be led to take advantage of the situation instead of deterred. Jay argued that nothing would be safer or more secure than the formation of a Union because it would provide strength and good government. Jay even remarked, “This subject is copious and cannot easily be exhausted.”[1] In other words, he could have probably gone on to make several more arguments that would have proven the same point. This is why he had so many papers dealing with the same subject.
“The history of Great-Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience, without paying the price which it cost them.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, pp. 17-18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Instead of just looking at the present situation or looking ahead to what might occur in the future if the present government were to continue, Jay looked back to the past in order to show historical examples.
Most people would have had at least some knowledge of the history of Britain and Jay argued that it provided many lessons that the Americans could learn from. Better than that, the Americans had the opportunity to learn the lessons of history without having to experience the consequences that those in the past had to experience. The point is that a wise person or nations will learn from the experience of others and hopefully would be able to repeat their mistakes.
“Although it seems obvious to common sense, that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The readers of this Federalist Paper might have been under the impression that Britain, as an island, had always been a united nation and the readers of this article might have the same understanding. Jay pointed out that that was not true. In fact, for much of history they were divided into three separate, independent states and not only that but those three separate sovereignties were almost always fighting between themselves. The historical record shows that there was major conflict between these three powers and that they were not always united.
“Notwithstanding their true interest, with respect to the continental nations, was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept enflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome, than they were useful and assisting to each other.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Even though fighting each other was against all of their interests they still could not seem to help themselves and Jay saw the cause of those conflicts to be lack of union between them. They had the same interests essentially but because of policy and practices of them individually they could not avoid conflict with one another. Instead of helping each other which would have been the result under a union of some sort, they were a hindrance to each other’s interests and thereby a hindrance to their own interests. Following that description, Jay asked the people reading his paper the obvious rhetorical question,
“Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen?”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay argued from the conclusions that he had drawn about Britain which the people could remember from history, that America could not be divided and suffer the same fate or worse. Based on a realistic view of human nature and how states behave Jay was not so optimistic that he could see the Americans overcoming this historical phenomenon.
“…envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This was Jay’s prediction if America was allowed to remain as separate states or confederacies with no powerful federal government to unite them. It is a grim prediction. The interests of part of the country would be raised about the general interests of the whole country and this would cause even more conflict and strife between the states which could lead to war. Keep in mind also that the danger would not just be internal but would be external. All thirteen states or the confederacies formed would be moving in separate and possibly conflicting directions. Jay believed that this would end in disaster.
“Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Instead of acting like states in a union they would act and already were acting like separate nations that simply shared a border. The risk of this would be that they would always have some sort of dispute or issue that had to be solved between them with no disinterested judge over them that would have proper authority to judge between them. The only course of action would usually be war between the states. If war was not the result then the states would have to be worried that there might be a war. This is the influence of Hobbes who claimed that war is not just in actual fighting but in the known disposition to fight. (For more on Hobbes see the article about him on the Political Factions page). In other words, they would not just have to fight but they would have to be concerned about the possibility of fighting with other states.
“For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies, for a long succession of years.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
An optimistic thinker might theorize that if states were just aware of those risks and dangers ahead of time they could avoid falling into those traps. If all the states simply agreed not to take those actions and follow those paths that have been described by Jay and have been seen in history. Jay and the other defenders of the Constitution were not necessarily pessimistic but they were realistic about how people and states behave.
If the government had to depend on people to always do what was good and right and just then it is really not a good government that could keep order in reality. A good and efficient government could not make the assumption that people and states would just behave themselves and, therefore, the government would not have to do anything. They could not presume that each state or confederacy would—without the demand of a powerful federal government—be able to adopt uniform policies for long. To expect all states to operate the same way, to pursue the same interests, to always see eye-to-eye in disputes, and so on would not be possible in the long-term even if it could happen in the short-term.
“Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies, should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbours, that moment would those neighbours behold her with envy and with fear.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 18 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay argued that in time—even if it was a long time—eventually some states or confederacies would gain advantages over other states or confederacies. These states or confederations might have entered into treaties with other nations, had commerce that was successful, had resources within their state which could be used and so on and these things might make a state or confederacy grow to be more important and more powerful than other states and confederacies.
Jay argued that when this would happen—being absolutely convinced that it would happen—the weaker states or less-advantaged states would either look to the stronger or more-advantaged states with envy or with fear. Either the less-advantaged states would be envious or jealous of the wealth of the more successful states which could have potentially led to conflict between the states or the weaker states could view the stronger states with fear and conflict between the states could arise from there.
“Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good will and kind conduct more speedily changed, than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 19 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This memorable statement lays out the issue extremely well. Good will and kind conduct, Jay argued, can be quickly changed by jealousies and unclear accusations. These things can be expressed outright or merely implied. This is the situation that the states and people were subject to.
“The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable, that the most northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very far distant, be unquestionably more formidable then any of the others.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 19 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
In a moment of unknown foresight Jay made mention of a situation that would be involved in the Civil War. The North was a region with many more economic opportunities that would likely become stronger than the South. This was in context, of course, of the imaginary scenario that was constructed by Jay to make the point that the states should not remained separated as states or into confederacies. It is interesting that the Civil War occurred once certain Southern states left the Union in order to form a confederacy of states.
“They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies, will find abundant reasons to apprehend, that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbours, than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situation in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, in which we should be formidable only to each other.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 19 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Again, Jay pointed back to history in order to show how when nations split themselves into separate states or confederacies that it led to their destruction. He wrote that history in his time was replete with examples of these failures. He claimed that the people who split themselves would no longer be neighbors but merely borderers and as such they would neither love nor trust each other. Union would make love and trust between the people more likely, however, in separate states they would not be forced to be together. In other words, that would be the position they would be in and how some nations currently saw them. Instead of being formidable to foreign enemies if they were together in a Union they would only be formidable to each other and a joke to foreign enemies who would even take advantage of them.
“From these considerations it appears that those persons are greatly mistaken, who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, which would produce that combination and union of wills, of arms, and of resources, which would be necessary to put and keep them in a formidable state of defence against foreign enemies.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 19 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay argued that the people who believed that defensive and offensive alliances in war that would be formed between states or confederacies would unite all the wills of the people, would combine arms and resources, and provide all things necessary for a war were wrong. Not only were these people who had this point of view mistaken, according to Jay, but they were greatly mistaken. Jay made the point that it would not be possible to fight either a defensive or offensive war and be successful against a foreign enemy or enemies.
“The proposed confederacies will be distinct nations. Each of them would have to regulate its commerce with foreigners by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different, and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 19 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Simply put, these confederacies would be their own nations which would be contradictory to a united people. To be distinct nations would mean, by definition, that they would be separated and separateness is opposed to union.
Each state or group of states would regulate its own commerce which was one of the main issues for why the Constitution had to be constructed. Several states had their own currency which made commerce with other nations nearly impossible. The differentness and uniqueness of states was not a bad thing, in fact, it is a good thing in the right context but if they are to be united then they would have to be fully united under a single, federal government. Under a Union the advantage of one state is an advantage to all the states either directly or indirectly but without union the states would be hindered by conflict and inefficiency and even war between them.
“Hence it might and probably would happen, that the foreign nation with whom the Southern confederacy might be at war, would be the one, with whom the Northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 20 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay gave another example for his readers to imagine. There could be a scenario in which the Southern confederacy would be at war with a foreign nation and the Northern confederacy might be interested in continuing to pursue a peaceful, beneficial relationship with that same foreign nation. The divergent and unique interests of the North and South made this a realistic possibility. The situation would basically mean that the North would be tempted to help the war effort against the South or that the North might be dragged by the South into a war in which it has no interest. It might even occur that the North or South in this imaginary situation might make war against each other because of the dispute. Under the Union and the Constitution, however, the situation would change to either the whole nation going to war with the foreign nation or the whole nation deciding to make peace with that foreign nation and continue the relationship.
“Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighbouring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests, and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another, than from distant nations…”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 20 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Instead of being likely to all unite together it would be more likely that separate states or confederacies would choose sides, different sides, and fight one another. This had been the case in Europe numerous times in history as Jay made note of. He even said that states would be more likely to fight each other than distant European nations for the geopgraphical fact that the Atlantic Ocean provides a major barrier between America and Europe.
“Let candid men judge then whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties, would tend to secure us against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.”—John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 20 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Again, Jay invited the people to take these thoughts into consideration as the approached the ratification of the Constitution. He framed the question to them in the terms of whether dividing America or letting it remain divided as it was would be the best path for security from war or influence from foreign nations. The foreign nations would reap the benefit of division but they would be deterred by the states entering into the Union.
[1] John Jay, The Same Subject Continued (Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence), For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787, p. 17 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Factions 
Commentary on Federalist #9
Commentary on Federalist #9
In Federalist #9, Hamilton addressed how Union would be a guard against the danger of factions arising among the people and would also guard against potential insurrection rebellion. These are two of the areas that every government must address. How can a republican government, based on majority will, prevent groups forming that would oppress the rights and liberties of others? Also, how does a government committed to freedom and democratic principles prevent rebellions from arising and how does it quell them when they do? For Hamilton the answer was found in the union between the states as one nation under the Constitution.
The text of Federalist No. 9.
“A firm union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The union between the states would prevent domestic factions and insurrections from forming in the first place. The government would not just deal with these things but would put barriers in the way of them so that they were less of a risk. These things could still occur but they would be more restrained under a union between the states than a separation of the states. The expansion of the size of the republic to all the states under one, powerful federal government would, according to Hamilton, protect against these risks. The fact that the final push for the Constitutional Convention came from a local insurrection—Shay’s Rebellion—this was a subject that had to be addressed.
“It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions, by which they were kept perpetually vibrating between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
History revealed that ancient republics had many revolutions within them which were followed by the formation of a new type of government. The government would still be a form of a republic but it eventually fell into one of two extremes. Hamilton said that this would probably be read by students of history with “horror” and disgust.
What Hamilton observed is that these republican governments were beset by factions in which the majority or even a powerful minority interest infringed on the rights of the others. Eventually a group would rise up to overthrow tyrannical government but that government would be replaced by a government of anarchy that had no order or safety and, therefore, had to safety for liberty. Following that type of government, the people would welcome in a ruler to introduce and keep order but this led to tyranny again. This was a cycle that seemed impossible to escape.
We have made not of the dichotomy between liberty and security before in previous papers. That is a dichotomy that every government has to address. Similarly, there is a dichotomy between tyranny that keeps order and freedom that brings anarchy.
Republicans were especially vulnerable to this because they introduced freedom but were based on the will of the popular majority or even a plurality. This means that one portion of a political society can restrict the freedom of others through simply gaining power in a larger group.
“If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrasts to the furious storms that are to succeed.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Hamilton said that the chaos that came in those republics and others were the norm rather than the exception. In times where republics were not either under tyranny or in anarchy they were moving in one direction or the other. Like a swinging pendulum, the republicans would be in the middle at some point but they would not remain there for long.
“If now and then intervals of felicity open themselves to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret arising from the reflection, that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament, that the vices of government should pervert the direction, and tarnish the lustre, of those bright talents and exalted endowments, for which the favoured soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
In extremely vivid language, Hamilton said that even when republican governments enjoy a brief period of peace from these things that their enjoyment would be mixed with dread for what was about to come. Those times of pleasantness would soon return to times of upheaval. Hamilton said that there were two hallmarks of those times: sedition and party rage. Sedition refers to plots against the government and a plan to rebel. Party rage refers simply to fighting between the parties and their attempts to silence each other.
Hamilton—using symbolic language—said that those peaceful times in republican governments should be understood as the sun breaking through storm clouds briefly that would soon be replaced again by darkness and rain. While it can be enjoyed for the time it also reminds people of their condition and how the government would eventually end the enjoyment of it and that the peace was only temporary.
In short, the republican form of government was its own worst enemy. It could only keep the people in a state of both liberty and security, between chaos and tyranny, temporarily. The rest of the time was spent preparing for and reacting to forms of the two extremes. The ultimate shortcoming of these republicans governments that were so admired in history was that they could not overcome themselves because the nature of the institutions did not guard against it.
“From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics, the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Since republican government was so unstable because it allowed the majority to rule without any constraints, it was easy for tyrants to make their arguments against republican government to gain power. Tyrants always gain power by promising to restore order. People are even willing to give up rights and liberties for the sake of stability, security, and safety. Tyrants are even able to argue against the people having rights and liberties at all. Since there are so many issues that have arisen in free governments tyrants have denied the whole idea of free government.
“They have decried all free government, as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have in a few glorious instances refuted their gloomy sophisms.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 37 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
When republican governments failed because of their structural inability to live up to the principles and values that they espoused and their inability to keep order, leaders who would become tyrants entered the scene and spoke out against all free government. Because of all the issues involved with those republican governments, impactful arguments were made against republican government altogether. They convinced the people that the very idea was impossible. By doing this successfully leaders could rise above other citizens, gain power, and introduce despotism.
The good news, according to Hamilton, is that people have never totally given up their belief in freedom and republican principles. It was a benefit to all people, all humanity, that people never bought the argument that free government was a myth that could never be realized in the real world.
“And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their error.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, pp. 37-38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Hamilton hoped and believed that the people of America would refute the idea that a real and free government could not exist. Not only that, but he hoped that America would be a foundation for other nations to build on because it would have proved that republican government is truly possible and can be accomplished. The goal would not be that America would do this temporarily but would forever stand as a symbol of the reality of republican principles.
“If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends of liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The wording here can be a little bit confusing but there is a key point. Hamilton said that republican government had really been proven to be an impossible form of government for the real world, just a myth that could never become a reality, then those who supported liberty would have just given up the whole idea of republican government a long time ago.
“The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Hamilton here gave a name to the whole field of study concerning government: political science. This may not be the first time the phrase was used but it is important to note that politics is a field of study that can be treated like a science. Even though it is a social science that is based more on theory and is not a science like biology it involved essential elements of a scientific method of study. A science allows someone to describe, explain and predict. Hamilton claimed that the science of politics had been majorly improved over time. What Hamilton said this allowed those who formed government to do was predict how government would operate based on the study of government from the past and present.
“The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges, holding their offices during good behaviour; the representation of the people in the legislature, by deputies of their own election; these are either wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Hamilton went on to describe how the science of politics had been improved. The first thing that he pointed out was how certain principles worked out. There were principles that when policies were enacted that there was an effect from them and that could be traced with more accuracy than it had been in the past. Hamilton argued that there was a more clear understanding of these things than ancient peoples had had because they were not aware of them at all or had a limited understanding of them.
Some of the things Hamilton said that had been discovered as political truths were things that would become hallmarks of American government: separation of power into separate departments, checks and balances from the legislative branch, federal courts that had life-long judges to serve as long as they maintained good behavior, that the people should be represented nationally by those they elect themselves. All of those thing are what many would mention when describing American government. Hamilton asserted that these ideas and values were either new or have been accepted in modern times.
“They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellencies of republican government may be retained, and its imperfections lessened or avoided.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This is essential to understanding constitutional American government. American government is an attempt to limit republican government in certain ways in order to avoid the issues of republican government but still maintain the freedom of republican government. That is what most would argue to be the genius of American government. Hamilton claimed that the things he had listed and others that were key to the Constitution were powerful and practical ways that could hold onto the positive aspects of republican government and control the negative aspects of republican government. Notice that he did not say that every issue would totally be removed or prevented but that many could be and others could be lessened.
“To this catalogue of circumstances, that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new constitution; I mean the enlargement of the orbit within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single state, or to the consolidation of several smaller states into one great confederacy.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 38 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The argument here was taken up in greater detail by James Madison in the famous Federalist #10. Hamilton said that there were many things could improve a republican form of government but Hamilton said that he would add one more. What Hamilton mentioned was the simple expansion of the size of the republic itself. This, as Madison would point out in the next essay, would limit the power of groups (or factions) to overpower others by majority rule. This argument will be handled in the next article.
“So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general union of the states, that he explicitly treats of a confederate republicas the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government, and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 39 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
One of the most influential books on those who formed the government of the United States was Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu. In the next quote Hamilton devoted a good portion of his paper to quoting some of the principles written by Montesquieu. Many of the readers of the time would have been familiar with the writings of Montesquieu and some had claimed that he was against the form of government that was proposed under the Constitution. Hamilton said that the arguments of Montesquieu did not stand against the republican government proposed for the United States but rather affirmed it. Hamilton explained that Montesquieu expressly said that republics—when they were expanded—kept the benefits of both monarchies and free government.
“‘It is very probable, says he,* that mankind would have been obliged, at length, to live constantly under the government of a SINGLE PERSON, had they not contrived a kind of constitution, that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC.
This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.
A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruption. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.
If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces, independent of those which he had usurped, and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.
Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.
As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each, and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, pp. 39-40 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This lengthy quotation is not from Hamilton but a quote from Montesquieu. This is a long quote but it has some key aspects. Montesquieu said that if there was no type of constitution to rule by law then the people would have to be ruled by a single person in a monarchical form of government. What was needed was a constitution of some kind that provided the freedom of republican government but also had the strength of a monarchy when dealing with the outside world. This is what Montesquieu termed a confederate republic.
In that type of government, Montesquieu noted, many states agreed to become one through uniting. Individual states formed a larger whole. When these societies assembled became a new society together through uniting that they became capable of having more power, security, and safety together.
This type of republic would be able to withstand force from foreign enemies which a normal republic could not do. This meant that security was provided but otherwise security was one of the biggest weakness of republican government. Since this type of republican government could defend itself from outside forces it was less likely to being destroyed from the inside.
In this case even if one person attempted to gain power he would not have the chance of gaining equal popularity and power in every state. It would be possible in a small state for one person to become a tyrant through gaining popularity with the people and then power over them but in a large republic, with many parts, many people, many interests, it would be almost impossible for one person to gain power over the whole. Even if someone did gain great power over one state it would alert the rest of the states to it and would concern them. Even if a tyrant conquered part of a state or even a state the rest of the people in the state or the rest of the people in the confederacy or nation would probably rise up against that person and force him out of power.
An insurrection or rebellion in a small republic could potentially destroy the whole republic. In one state a rebellion could end the republican government in that state permanently. On the other hand, in a larger republic that was expanded through many states an insurrection in one state would not undo the whole nation. Keep in mind Shay’s Rebellion had happened fairly recently in the history of America. In a large republic a popular rebellion in the part of the republic would not end the whole republic but could rather be quelled. If a part is compromised then it can be corrected by the rest of the whole. Part of a nation can be destroyed without the whole thing being destroyed.
Montesquieu finally argued that the best government was a republic of republics; a large republic built out of smaller republics. This was the best form of government. While on the one hand, the large republic made up of smaller republics was can benefit from the happiness of all the parts it can, on the other hand, enjoy the advantages of a powerful monarchy in relation to external foreign governments.
“The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be, ‘an assemblage of societies,’ or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects, of the federal authority, are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional necessity for local purposes, though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 41 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
A “confederate republic” is what Hamilton referred to as “an assemblage of societies.” This meant that it was, as said before, a republic of republics. Many states become one overall nation. As far as federal power was regarded those things, according to Hamilton, the extent of the powers would be mere details. Hamilton argued that as long as there were separate members united together, as long as there was constitutional law, as long as there was a general submission of authority to the federal government of the Union, all these things would be based on states that were united.
“The proposed constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the state governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive, and very important, portions of the sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #9. The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. Online version, p. 41 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The Constitution that Hamilton and others were attempting to have ratified was not attempting to end state government but rather they would become united members under one federal government. The republican states would join under the larger auspices of the national republic government. The states themselves would be represented in the Senate which meant that two senators from each state would have an essential part in dictating how the federal government would be operated. The federal government would be influenced by state governments in a very real and practical way. The federal government would not just listen to the interests of various states but would rather have terms of the national government dictated by senators from each state. This way the federal, national government of the United States would be a government built on state governments, a republic of republics.
Leave a comment | tags: 1787, 1788, 1789, Alexander Hamilton, America, Articles of Confederation, Commentary, Confederacy, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Democratic, Federalism, Federalist, Federalist 9, Federalist No. 9, Government, Government 101, Hamilton, James Madison, Jay, John Jay, Madison, Politics, Republic, Republican, War | posted in Uncategorized