Commentary on Federalist #2
The second essay of The Federalist is one of the few composed by John Jay. After reading it I kind wished that John Jay had composed a few more of the essays than he had the opportunity to. This paper seems a little bit shorter than the others but his writing is clear and has a flavor distinct from that of Hamilton and Madison. If someone has read some of the more well-known papers before like Federalist #10, #50, #70 then that reader will be more familiar with the writing voice of Madison and Hamilton but the obscure John Jay composed some of the more obscure papers so the reader is not usually accustomed to his voice and style.
This particular paper is said at the top to be about dangers from foreign force and influence. If someone just read the second paper in The Federalist they would not see that it has anything to do with foreign force and influence. This shows that the second paper has to be understood in the context of the next couple papers which are also composed by John Jay and continue the same subject. In fact, John Jay will continue to elaborate on this subject through the fifth paper and Hamilton does not come in until the sixth.
This post will follow the same method as the previous post by putting quotes of the text from The Federalist first for the reader to examine then follow it by notes and general comments. Remember the three questions being used: What does it say? What does it mean? Why does it matter?
The text of Federalist No. 2.
The Gravitas
“When the people of America reflect, that the question now submitted to their determination, is one of the most important that has engaged, or can well engage, their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, must be evident.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The implication of this first sentence is that if the people of America grasp the gravitas of what they are called to consider—the Constitution and the Union—then it would be obvious to them that they need to devote their careful attention to it. The question that the Americans have before them is whether or not they will accept the new Constitution and become a Union under it. John Jay has no reservations about calling this issue one of the important that has, in the past, or can, in the present or future, engage the minds of the people.
Since Jay understood this issue to be of such great magnitude he called the people to examine the arguments for the Constitution comprehensively and seriously. To understand it comprehensively means to read and understand all the arguments and look at the argument as a whole. This means that nothing should be left out and that all angles should be considered. To understand it seriously means to realize that consequences for the decision and the weight of responsibility on those who would decide. In Jay’s view this would be the only proper way to go about judging the Constitution.
It is worth noting that even though this is the first sentence of the paper it is also the first paragraph. This means that this is a single, introductory thought summed up in a sentence that ends the paragraph. This shows the importance of what John Jay believes that he wrote about is the first sentence. Keep in mind that structure actually matters a lot for meaning.
The Necessity
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Here John Jay makes two foundational statements that will have to be assumed to undergird the rest of his argument. These two things are to be assumed as true according to Jay and he believed they were self-evident. They are the necessity of government and the fact that people must give up some rights in order to empower that necessary government. Notice that Jay is so confident in the truth of these statements and the fact that they will not be opposed that he does not take the time to justify and defend them.
The first statement has to do with the necessity of government itself. The reader should take a moment to pause and reflect on the first clause of this quote that ends in the semicolon. “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government…” Jay is totally convinced of this and boldly declares it. He calls the need for government “indispensable” which means that it is something that cannot be done away with. The necessity of government does not go away with time and changing circumstances.
Obviously the Founders were not anti-government. They were very concerned that there be put in place an adequate, energetic and healthy government but they were definitely opposed to certain kinds of government. The Founders were especially suspicious of government that could lead to tyranny or anarchy. They viewed government as necessary for any healthy society for the purpose of keeping order and ruling by the law.
The second statement has to do with the rights of the people in relation to that necessary government. In order for any government to survive people cannot have absolute rights. This did not mean that the government could extend beyond what it should and that all people should have the rights of life, liberty and property. The fact remains, however, that these are not totally absolute rights even in a constitutional republic. People consent to live in a society together under law and that means that laws restrict liberty to some extent.
“It is well worthy of consideration, therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America, that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, than that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each, the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The situation that the people of America faced, as presented by John Jay, was whether it would be in their interest to be one, united nation, with one federal government as opposed to a confederation of united state governments. The states are extremely crucial but they are not totally sovereign and needed a government nationally in order to provide security.
New Voices and the Challenge
“It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion, that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united,…”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay claimed that that until recently in his time no one had contradicted or been opposed to the idea that the American people could only achieve prosperity by remaining united and coming under a Union through the Constitution. The implication was that only once the Constitution began to be introduced did opposing voices come out against the Constitution.
“…our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the states into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Referring to those fifty-five men at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Jay calls them the “best” and “wisest” citizens. Obviously this is a subjective judgment that cannot be measured or quantified but it can definitely be argued that there was no one more capable in that time to accomplish that task than those men. There is always the repetition of the popular saying, “The Constitution was just written by a lot of wealthy, white men.” That is true to an extent but these men chose to act in their time to create a new government that was already seen as radical for the time they were in. This point can be debated further but it is not necessary for understanding The Federalist. It can just be noted that being white, wealthy or a man does not bar someone from discovering political truth. Notice, also, that they are not just called the best and wisest men but rather the best and wisest “citizens.” They were participating parties in the new government they were aiming to create and hoping would be adopted.
These men gave careful attention to the prospect of creating a new government under the Constitution. Following that, Jay argues, other politicians emerged who preferred not to adopt the Constitution. The dichotomy that Jay presents is that these politcians prefer lack of safety and happiness that they would have in a Union and prefer instead division between the states.
“…it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets, without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay was speaking of those who had the “new” political views of being opposed to Union and the Constitution a few years after being united in war together, living together on the same continent, having such similar backgrounds, and experiencing all the inconveniences of the Articles of Confederation. He said that those who espoused such views against the Constitution and against the Union should be absolutely sure of their position. He wanted them to be convinced that if that was going to be the path they wanted to take that it was based on facts and reflected good government policy. Obviously Jay and others who were for the new Constitution were not convinced of either of those things and, in fact, were arguing the opposite.
Aspects of Oneness
“It has often given me pleasure to observe, that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide spreading country, was the portion of our western sons of liberty.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay makes the simple point that America is one connected land that offers many different things from many different places. The territories are right next to each other and this shows the naturalness of a Union.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay points out that the country seems to be already connected but further than that the peopled seemed to be united. Keep in mind that when the Declaration of Independence was signed and the American colonies broke away from England they were not yet the “United States of America” they were the “united States of America.” The focus was on the independence of the states themselves, united in becoming independent but not yet united in a Union. The people were already united in one way yet they had not yet become officially united under a single, national Union.
Some of the points that Jay lays out about the things that led to the country becoming united under the Constitution and these were that the people had a similar descent from ancestors (European), that they spoke the same language, that they professed the same religion, that they were attached to the same principles of government, and even had the same manners and customs. A lot of this is true but even at that point in American history it is not truly accurate to believe that everyone was that homogenous especially in the area of religion. In very broad terms what Jay said was true but it has its limits. This statement should simply be viewed as an exaggeration in order to make a point. Jay was leading up to saying that the people had just fought together in a bloody war so it only made sense that they should join together in a Union. In his mind the people of America were already part of a union in spirit if not yet under a Union officially under a new Constitution. The war was to establish liberty and independence and Jay believed that the Constitution would be the best way to maintain it.
Destiny
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay employs the language of a “match made in Heaven.” He claims that the country itself and the people were made for each other and God brought them together. Notice that he uses the term “Providence” throughout to imply that God sovereignly had brought together America in order to be one Union. Jay argues that the uniting of the people seems to be the clearly intended destiny and that no one should desire—when the signs are so clear—to be separated. His language speaks of missing a chance that is so perfectly laid before the people of America. He could not fathom that the people should try to live as their own sovereign states without a clearly united government.
One People
“To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people… As a nation we have made peace and war: as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies: as a nation we have formed alliances and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay claims that the people of America have always been, for all intents and purposes, one people. Some examples of how the people became one are provided. The people made peace and war as a nation. They did not make war as thirteen individual states but together with a united front. There is nothing that can unite people together more than fighting together in a war except for possibly surviving the war together and gaining peace together. Not only that, but Jay points out that they formed alliances and made treaties. He was making the point that it sounds like a nation already. One of the issues of the Articles on Confederation was that there was no regulation of commerce, therefore, there were issues of individual states having different currencies and not being able to make solid treaties with other nations. The Constitution would provide more legitimacy to the fact that these colonies had just won a war and gained a name for themselves internationally.
The Argument
“A strong sense of the value and blessings of Union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time, when their habitations were in flames, when many of them were bleeding in the field, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections, which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6-7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
All of the portions of these papers can be presented as important in one way or another but not all of them are equally important. The statement above, however, is one of the more important statements to understand. Since it is long the reader can be tempted to pass by it through just skimming it but the argument that Jay provides here is really the crux of what he is trying to say and why he believes in the Constitution.
He argues that the people had a strong sense of being blessed and that they already had valued Union. He argues that this was already the case from a very early point. The people of the united States were already “united.” They saw the necessity of coming together under a government. They also believed it was essential to preserve and perpetuate the federal government, not just institute it. All this had already been done after declaring Independence and under the Articles on Confederation.
Jay argues that the men who formed the first federal government of America formed it as soon as they could out of necessity. They formed this government in the context of being at war with the British. The official war had not started yet when this government was being formed, however, independence from Britain was already being discussed and places like Boston already were experiencing conflict with the British. This is what Jay was referring to when he speaks of houses being burned and bleeding in the field.
Jay acknowledges the spirit of what those men did from the beginning. They united the country even sought to organize some type of federal government even while they were under those circumstances. His point here is that that was essential but not sufficient.
Some type of workable federal government was formed, yes, but it was under the conditions of a major conflict and did not allow as much time for “…calm and mature inquiries and reflection…” which are necessary for good government. The federal government that had united the people at the time had served its limited purpose, Jay argues, and now was the time to accept something better: the Constitution. The Constitution had brought together men to debate, question, inquire and reflect. Not being under pressure from a war, these men were able to take the time and thought necessary to construct a new government based on republican principles, ruled by laws and not men, under the Constitution.
What would you rather have, a government put together with people who understood that they were entering a war with a formidable foreign power or a government formed over months of careful thought and reflection that did not have that type of pressure on it?
Jay comments that he is not at all surprised that a government thrown together under those type of circumstances—the Articles of Confederation—would later to be shown to be insufficient for actual governing in time of peace. The Articles were so severely lacking, Jay argues, that they needed to be bulldozed and replaced by something better.
If I may take a little creative license that I believe is in the spirit of Jay but not in the words of Jay, I can see the Articles of Confederation being necessary for uniting the people initially but only serving for a limited time. The analogy that can be applied here is that the Articles of Confederation can be considered the engagement and the Constitution can be the marriage. Engagements are fun, everyone enjoys them, likes to hear the stories of how they were planned, but they are not durable. Long engagements are sometimes necessary but they are not usually recommended by anyone. They are also limiting. However, at the end of the engagement it is superseded by the thing that is the ultimate point of the engagement: the marriage. The comparison can be accepted or rejected but it is just another way to consider the argument Jay produced.
Constitutional Convention
“Still continuing no less attached to union, than enamoured of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former, and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both, could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they, as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
While recognizing the problems of the current federal government of the time, the people were still committed to a Union and still in love with liberty. These were two values that the people were not at all interested in giving up. The issue was, Jay argues, that the form of government before the Constitution threatened both union in the short term and liberty in the long-term. Both of those these required security and that could only be found in the formation of a new government tailor-made to meet those ends. Therefore, that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
“This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom, in times which tried the souls of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool uninterrupted and daily consultations; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passion, except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This is a simple description of the Convention. Jay saw the men who attended as the best, most qualified men for the job. Arguments could be made against that statement, however, it would have been difficult to find more qualified men than attended the Constitutional Convention. This does not mean, however, that it had all the qualified men who probably should have been there. Remember even John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were not able to attend. Jay describes the task that these men undertook as “arduous” implying the difficulty of the work that they had cut out for themselves.
The benefits of these men forming a new government this time—as opposed to the conditions under which the first federal government of America was formed—were that they were in a mild season of peace rather than war. This arguably led to better decisions for the purpose and form of government. Another one is that they had all travelled there for this task, therefore, they could focus on it exclusively instead of having to fit it into their schedules. A third benefit is that they met almost daily. The consistency allowed them to understand the context of all the arguments and concepts better than taking so much time off and returning to a subject. The last thing that is mentioned by Jay is that these men did not do this out of compulsion or because they were forced and they were not influenced by some sort of inordinate or inappropriate passion that clouded their judgment. The only passion they are said to have had that drove them was love for their country.
“…this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered, that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration, which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The Constitution was still an option at this point, Jay admits, but he wanted to make it very clear that the Constitution was not created through blind approbation—approval or commendation. This means that they did not just blindly approve the Constitution without thinking and carefully considering the arguments. Jay also wanted to make clear that they did not recommend the Constitution by blind reprobation—disapproval, condemnation, rejection. This means that the Constitution did not just come out of rejecting things of the past without thinking carefully. I had to look up these words to make sure that I knew what they meant. Never be too humble to use a dictionary. As opposed to that, Jay says, calm and straightforward consideration of the concept of a new government was the method taken. These men gave the subject the attention that it demanded.
This plan was recommended and Jay hoped that the people would keep in mind all the thought that was put into it and that the people would receive it in that context. He comments, however, with some pessimism that “…it is more to be wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined.”[1] He said that experience had taught him that people may not necessarily be inclined to think carefully about all the options and take into consideration all the concepts proposed.
Congress of 1774
This Congress was formed out of necessity from imminent danger of war with the British. The body recommended things that were wise for the time but it had certain limitations.
“It is worthy of remark, that not only the first, but every succeeding congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 8 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
All meetings had the idea of Union in mind. All roads, according to Jay, led to Union. All American prosperity in the immediate time and in the long run were tied to the Union.
Conclusion
Jay was concerned that those against the Constitution were putting the Union in jeopardy. His hope was for the American people who have clarity of thought and consider the benefits of the Constitution.
“…I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly forseen [sic] by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim in the words of the Poet, ‘Farewell! a long farewell, to all my greatness.’”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 9 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay hoped that the citizens would have foresight in considering the Constitution. Saying goodbye to the Union and to the Constitution would be saying goodbye to the greatness of America. Seeing the result of history, that the Constitution was adopted, is a benefit we possess that Jay did not but he had foresight of the result. His dire prophecy did not come to pass.
[1] John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Factions 
Commentary on Federalist #2
Commentary on Federalist #2
The second essay of The Federalist is one of the few composed by John Jay. After reading it I kind wished that John Jay had composed a few more of the essays than he had the opportunity to. This paper seems a little bit shorter than the others but his writing is clear and has a flavor distinct from that of Hamilton and Madison. If someone has read some of the more well-known papers before like Federalist #10, #50, #70 then that reader will be more familiar with the writing voice of Madison and Hamilton but the obscure John Jay composed some of the more obscure papers so the reader is not usually accustomed to his voice and style.
This particular paper is said at the top to be about dangers from foreign force and influence. If someone just read the second paper in The Federalist they would not see that it has anything to do with foreign force and influence. This shows that the second paper has to be understood in the context of the next couple papers which are also composed by John Jay and continue the same subject. In fact, John Jay will continue to elaborate on this subject through the fifth paper and Hamilton does not come in until the sixth.
This post will follow the same method as the previous post by putting quotes of the text from The Federalist first for the reader to examine then follow it by notes and general comments. Remember the three questions being used: What does it say? What does it mean? Why does it matter?
The text of Federalist No. 2.
The Gravitas
“When the people of America reflect, that the question now submitted to their determination, is one of the most important that has engaged, or can well engage, their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, must be evident.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The implication of this first sentence is that if the people of America grasp the gravitas of what they are called to consider—the Constitution and the Union—then it would be obvious to them that they need to devote their careful attention to it. The question that the Americans have before them is whether or not they will accept the new Constitution and become a Union under it. John Jay has no reservations about calling this issue one of the important that has, in the past, or can, in the present or future, engage the minds of the people.
Since Jay understood this issue to be of such great magnitude he called the people to examine the arguments for the Constitution comprehensively and seriously. To understand it comprehensively means to read and understand all the arguments and look at the argument as a whole. This means that nothing should be left out and that all angles should be considered. To understand it seriously means to realize that consequences for the decision and the weight of responsibility on those who would decide. In Jay’s view this would be the only proper way to go about judging the Constitution.
It is worth noting that even though this is the first sentence of the paper it is also the first paragraph. This means that this is a single, introductory thought summed up in a sentence that ends the paragraph. This shows the importance of what John Jay believes that he wrote about is the first sentence. Keep in mind that structure actually matters a lot for meaning.
The Necessity
“Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Here John Jay makes two foundational statements that will have to be assumed to undergird the rest of his argument. These two things are to be assumed as true according to Jay and he believed they were self-evident. They are the necessity of government and the fact that people must give up some rights in order to empower that necessary government. Notice that Jay is so confident in the truth of these statements and the fact that they will not be opposed that he does not take the time to justify and defend them.
The first statement has to do with the necessity of government itself. The reader should take a moment to pause and reflect on the first clause of this quote that ends in the semicolon. “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government…” Jay is totally convinced of this and boldly declares it. He calls the need for government “indispensable” which means that it is something that cannot be done away with. The necessity of government does not go away with time and changing circumstances.
Obviously the Founders were not anti-government. They were very concerned that there be put in place an adequate, energetic and healthy government but they were definitely opposed to certain kinds of government. The Founders were especially suspicious of government that could lead to tyranny or anarchy. They viewed government as necessary for any healthy society for the purpose of keeping order and ruling by the law.
The second statement has to do with the rights of the people in relation to that necessary government. In order for any government to survive people cannot have absolute rights. This did not mean that the government could extend beyond what it should and that all people should have the rights of life, liberty and property. The fact remains, however, that these are not totally absolute rights even in a constitutional republic. People consent to live in a society together under law and that means that laws restrict liberty to some extent.
“It is well worthy of consideration, therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America, that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, than that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each, the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The situation that the people of America faced, as presented by John Jay, was whether it would be in their interest to be one, united nation, with one federal government as opposed to a confederation of united state governments. The states are extremely crucial but they are not totally sovereign and needed a government nationally in order to provide security.
New Voices and the Challenge
“It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion, that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united,…”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay claimed that that until recently in his time no one had contradicted or been opposed to the idea that the American people could only achieve prosperity by remaining united and coming under a Union through the Constitution. The implication was that only once the Constitution began to be introduced did opposing voices come out against the Constitution.
“…our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the states into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Referring to those fifty-five men at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Jay calls them the “best” and “wisest” citizens. Obviously this is a subjective judgment that cannot be measured or quantified but it can definitely be argued that there was no one more capable in that time to accomplish that task than those men. There is always the repetition of the popular saying, “The Constitution was just written by a lot of wealthy, white men.” That is true to an extent but these men chose to act in their time to create a new government that was already seen as radical for the time they were in. This point can be debated further but it is not necessary for understanding The Federalist. It can just be noted that being white, wealthy or a man does not bar someone from discovering political truth. Notice, also, that they are not just called the best and wisest men but rather the best and wisest “citizens.” They were participating parties in the new government they were aiming to create and hoping would be adopted.
These men gave careful attention to the prospect of creating a new government under the Constitution. Following that, Jay argues, other politicians emerged who preferred not to adopt the Constitution. The dichotomy that Jay presents is that these politcians prefer lack of safety and happiness that they would have in a Union and prefer instead division between the states.
“…it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets, without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 5 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay was speaking of those who had the “new” political views of being opposed to Union and the Constitution a few years after being united in war together, living together on the same continent, having such similar backgrounds, and experiencing all the inconveniences of the Articles of Confederation. He said that those who espoused such views against the Constitution and against the Union should be absolutely sure of their position. He wanted them to be convinced that if that was going to be the path they wanted to take that it was based on facts and reflected good government policy. Obviously Jay and others who were for the new Constitution were not convinced of either of those things and, in fact, were arguing the opposite.
Aspects of Oneness
“It has often given me pleasure to observe, that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide spreading country, was the portion of our western sons of liberty.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay makes the simple point that America is one connected land that offers many different things from many different places. The territories are right next to each other and this shows the naturalness of a Union.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay points out that the country seems to be already connected but further than that the peopled seemed to be united. Keep in mind that when the Declaration of Independence was signed and the American colonies broke away from England they were not yet the “United States of America” they were the “united States of America.” The focus was on the independence of the states themselves, united in becoming independent but not yet united in a Union. The people were already united in one way yet they had not yet become officially united under a single, national Union.
Some of the points that Jay lays out about the things that led to the country becoming united under the Constitution and these were that the people had a similar descent from ancestors (European), that they spoke the same language, that they professed the same religion, that they were attached to the same principles of government, and even had the same manners and customs. A lot of this is true but even at that point in American history it is not truly accurate to believe that everyone was that homogenous especially in the area of religion. In very broad terms what Jay said was true but it has its limits. This statement should simply be viewed as an exaggeration in order to make a point. Jay was leading up to saying that the people had just fought together in a bloody war so it only made sense that they should join together in a Union. In his mind the people of America were already part of a union in spirit if not yet under a Union officially under a new Constitution. The war was to establish liberty and independence and Jay believed that the Constitution would be the best way to maintain it.
Destiny
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay employs the language of a “match made in Heaven.” He claims that the country itself and the people were made for each other and God brought them together. Notice that he uses the term “Providence” throughout to imply that God sovereignly had brought together America in order to be one Union. Jay argues that the uniting of the people seems to be the clearly intended destiny and that no one should desire—when the signs are so clear—to be separated. His language speaks of missing a chance that is so perfectly laid before the people of America. He could not fathom that the people should try to live as their own sovereign states without a clearly united government.
One People
“To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people… As a nation we have made peace and war: as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies: as a nation we have formed alliances and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay claims that the people of America have always been, for all intents and purposes, one people. Some examples of how the people became one are provided. The people made peace and war as a nation. They did not make war as thirteen individual states but together with a united front. There is nothing that can unite people together more than fighting together in a war except for possibly surviving the war together and gaining peace together. Not only that, but Jay points out that they formed alliances and made treaties. He was making the point that it sounds like a nation already. One of the issues of the Articles on Confederation was that there was no regulation of commerce, therefore, there were issues of individual states having different currencies and not being able to make solid treaties with other nations. The Constitution would provide more legitimacy to the fact that these colonies had just won a war and gained a name for themselves internationally.
The Argument
“A strong sense of the value and blessings of Union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time, when their habitations were in flames, when many of them were bleeding in the field, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections, which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 6-7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
All of the portions of these papers can be presented as important in one way or another but not all of them are equally important. The statement above, however, is one of the more important statements to understand. Since it is long the reader can be tempted to pass by it through just skimming it but the argument that Jay provides here is really the crux of what he is trying to say and why he believes in the Constitution.
He argues that the people had a strong sense of being blessed and that they already had valued Union. He argues that this was already the case from a very early point. The people of the united States were already “united.” They saw the necessity of coming together under a government. They also believed it was essential to preserve and perpetuate the federal government, not just institute it. All this had already been done after declaring Independence and under the Articles on Confederation.
Jay argues that the men who formed the first federal government of America formed it as soon as they could out of necessity. They formed this government in the context of being at war with the British. The official war had not started yet when this government was being formed, however, independence from Britain was already being discussed and places like Boston already were experiencing conflict with the British. This is what Jay was referring to when he speaks of houses being burned and bleeding in the field.
Jay acknowledges the spirit of what those men did from the beginning. They united the country even sought to organize some type of federal government even while they were under those circumstances. His point here is that that was essential but not sufficient.
Some type of workable federal government was formed, yes, but it was under the conditions of a major conflict and did not allow as much time for “…calm and mature inquiries and reflection…” which are necessary for good government. The federal government that had united the people at the time had served its limited purpose, Jay argues, and now was the time to accept something better: the Constitution. The Constitution had brought together men to debate, question, inquire and reflect. Not being under pressure from a war, these men were able to take the time and thought necessary to construct a new government based on republican principles, ruled by laws and not men, under the Constitution.
What would you rather have, a government put together with people who understood that they were entering a war with a formidable foreign power or a government formed over months of careful thought and reflection that did not have that type of pressure on it?
Jay comments that he is not at all surprised that a government thrown together under those type of circumstances—the Articles of Confederation—would later to be shown to be insufficient for actual governing in time of peace. The Articles were so severely lacking, Jay argues, that they needed to be bulldozed and replaced by something better.
If I may take a little creative license that I believe is in the spirit of Jay but not in the words of Jay, I can see the Articles of Confederation being necessary for uniting the people initially but only serving for a limited time. The analogy that can be applied here is that the Articles of Confederation can be considered the engagement and the Constitution can be the marriage. Engagements are fun, everyone enjoys them, likes to hear the stories of how they were planned, but they are not durable. Long engagements are sometimes necessary but they are not usually recommended by anyone. They are also limiting. However, at the end of the engagement it is superseded by the thing that is the ultimate point of the engagement: the marriage. The comparison can be accepted or rejected but it is just another way to consider the argument Jay produced.
Constitutional Convention
“Still continuing no less attached to union, than enamoured of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former, and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both, could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they, as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
While recognizing the problems of the current federal government of the time, the people were still committed to a Union and still in love with liberty. These were two values that the people were not at all interested in giving up. The issue was, Jay argues, that the form of government before the Constitution threatened both union in the short term and liberty in the long-term. Both of those these required security and that could only be found in the formation of a new government tailor-made to meet those ends. Therefore, that led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
“This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom, in times which tried the souls of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool uninterrupted and daily consultations; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passion, except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
This is a simple description of the Convention. Jay saw the men who attended as the best, most qualified men for the job. Arguments could be made against that statement, however, it would have been difficult to find more qualified men than attended the Constitutional Convention. This does not mean, however, that it had all the qualified men who probably should have been there. Remember even John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were not able to attend. Jay describes the task that these men undertook as “arduous” implying the difficulty of the work that they had cut out for themselves.
The benefits of these men forming a new government this time—as opposed to the conditions under which the first federal government of America was formed—were that they were in a mild season of peace rather than war. This arguably led to better decisions for the purpose and form of government. Another one is that they had all travelled there for this task, therefore, they could focus on it exclusively instead of having to fit it into their schedules. A third benefit is that they met almost daily. The consistency allowed them to understand the context of all the arguments and concepts better than taking so much time off and returning to a subject. The last thing that is mentioned by Jay is that these men did not do this out of compulsion or because they were forced and they were not influenced by some sort of inordinate or inappropriate passion that clouded their judgment. The only passion they are said to have had that drove them was love for their country.
“…this plan is only recommended, not imposed, yet let it be remembered, that it is neither recommended to blind approbation, nor to blind reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration, which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
The Constitution was still an option at this point, Jay admits, but he wanted to make it very clear that the Constitution was not created through blind approbation—approval or commendation. This means that they did not just blindly approve the Constitution without thinking and carefully considering the arguments. Jay also wanted to make clear that they did not recommend the Constitution by blind reprobation—disapproval, condemnation, rejection. This means that the Constitution did not just come out of rejecting things of the past without thinking carefully. I had to look up these words to make sure that I knew what they meant. Never be too humble to use a dictionary. As opposed to that, Jay says, calm and straightforward consideration of the concept of a new government was the method taken. These men gave the subject the attention that it demanded.
This plan was recommended and Jay hoped that the people would keep in mind all the thought that was put into it and that the people would receive it in that context. He comments, however, with some pessimism that “…it is more to be wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined.”[1] He said that experience had taught him that people may not necessarily be inclined to think carefully about all the options and take into consideration all the concepts proposed.
Congress of 1774
This Congress was formed out of necessity from imminent danger of war with the British. The body recommended things that were wise for the time but it had certain limitations.
“It is worthy of remark, that not only the first, but every succeeding congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union.”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 8 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
All meetings had the idea of Union in mind. All roads, according to Jay, led to Union. All American prosperity in the immediate time and in the long run were tied to the Union.
Conclusion
Jay was concerned that those against the Constitution were putting the Union in jeopardy. His hope was for the American people who have clarity of thought and consider the benefits of the Constitution.
“…I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly forseen [sic] by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim in the words of the Poet, ‘Farewell! a long farewell, to all my greatness.’”—John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 9 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Jay hoped that the citizens would have foresight in considering the Constitution. Saying goodbye to the Union and to the Constitution would be saying goodbye to the greatness of America. Seeing the result of history, that the Constitution was adopted, is a benefit we possess that Jay did not but he had foresight of the result. His dire prophecy did not come to pass.
[1] John Jay, Federalist No. 2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787, p. 7 [Link(s): http://files.libertyfund.org/files/788/0084_LFeBk.pdf]
Leave a comment | tags: Articles of Confederation, Commentary, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Federalist, Federalist Papers, Government, Independence, John Jay, Law, Liberty, Philadelphia, Politics, Security, Union | posted in Uncategorized