by Martin

Federalist No. 3 is another one of John Jay’s contributions and is a continuation of his arguments for strong union. His argument in this essay is that the stronger and more unified America is, the safer it will be. In this essay, Jay appears to mimic some of Hamilton’s penchant for long sentences.

Federalist No. 3

Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (continued)

To the People of the State of New York:

IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well-informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.

It should come as no surprise that a people as intelligent and well-informed as Americans would wish to change a system of government that is not working in their best interests. That fact tends to strengthen their long-held belief in the importance of continuing firmly united under one federal government; a national government with enough power to accomplish its needs.

The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive. Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.

The more I delve into the reasons which have given birth to this opinion, the more I am convinced of their logic and merit.

Among the many things that a wise and free people give heed to, the first is generally that of providing for their safety. There are many factors that relate to the safety of the people, consequently the subject offers a good deal of latitude to those seeking to define it precisely and comprehensively.

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad.

For the purposes of this discussion we will define safety as the preservation of peace and tranquility which includes both protection against the dangers of foreign arms and influence, as well as from the dangers arising from domestic uprisings. Let’s address threats from foreign powers first, since they are the more considerable. We will now look at whether the people are correct in their opinion that an amicable Union, under an efficient national government, provides them the best security possible against hostilities from abroad.

The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or pretended, which provoke or invite them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many just causes of war are likely to be given by united America as by disunited America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.

The number of wars which have happened, or will happen in the world, always corresponds to the number and significance of the causes, whether real or pretended, which provoke or invite them. If this is correct, then we should ask whether more legitimate causes of war are more likely to arise if America is united or if America is disunited. If it turns out that a united America will result in fewer causes for war, then it makes sense that, in this respect, the Union is better for preserving the peace with other nations.

The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.

The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct attack. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. America also has extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the latter two, to contend with territorial proximity.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. For this opinion various reasons may be assigned.

A key factor in the ability of America to remain at peace is that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers. It seems to me that this is more easily accomplished by one national government than it could be be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. There are various reasons for this opinion.

When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, — especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.

Once an efficient national government is established, the best and brightest in the country will not only be willing to serve, but also appointed to manage it. Although a town or country, or other settlement may place men in State assemblies, legislatures, courts of justice, or executive departments; recommendations from a broader community will ensure the higher level of talent and qualifications necessary to fill offices under the national government. The larger pool of qualified persons should ensure that there is no shortage of capable personnel, a scarcity that is not uncommon in some of the States. Consequently, the national government will enjoy more consistency, more efficiency, and wiser judicial decisions in its administration, political counsels, and courts, than the individual States. And so, it will operate better with respect to relations with other nations and result in more safety for us.

Under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner, — whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended.

Under a unified national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations will always be defined and executed consistently. However, the definition, interpretation and implementation of the treaties and laws in thirteen States, or even in three or four confederacies, will not always be in agreement or be consistent. This is because of the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as well as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The convention was wise in setting up a system in which all such questions relating to the jurisdiction and judgment of the courts, are subordinate to one national government.

The prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

A focus on short-term expedients to avoid a near-term loss or exploit a temporary advantage, may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to make questionable decisions. But, these same local temptations, not reaching the other States, will have little or no influence on the national government. A good example of this is the recent peace treaty with Britain.

If even the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

Even if the politicians in a State are inclined to to the right thing and resist such temptations, they may not be able to do so. Such temptations frequently arise out of conditions unique to a particular State and may affect a great number of its inhabitants, and so the governing party may be unable to prevent the injustice being contemplated or even to punish those perpetrating it. But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor lack the power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people. As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.

The just causes of war are the intentional or accidental violations of treaties. These are less likely to occur under one general government than under several lesser ones. In this respect, the former offers more safety to the people.

As to those legitimate causes for war which are the result of direct and unlawful violence, it seems equally clear that one good national government provides a lot more security against dangers of that sort than can be obtained from any other.

Such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

Trouble is more likely to originate in particular areas rather than be widespread, as in one or two States rather than in the entire Union. The federal government, even as feeble as it is, has never precipitated an Indian war. But there have been several occasions when the improper conduct of individual States has provoked hostilities. Consequently many innocent people have been slaughtered as a result.

The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.

The fact that some States border Spanish and British territories tends to confine the regions of likely dispute to these areas. These bordering States are more likely to react injudiciously to real or apparent injury, and by direct violence, to excite war with these nations. Nothing can obviate that danger as well as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be reduced by the local passions of the parties affected.

But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

A national government is not only likely to provoke fewer legitimate causes for war, but it will also be more effective at settling them when they do arise. They will be more temperate and have a better perspective for acting wisely than the offending State. States have pride, just like men do. They are loathe to correct their errors and offenses and seek to justify their actions. The national government will not be affected by this local pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to figure out the best way to get them out of the difficulties which threaten them.

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power. In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other powerful nation?

Besides, it’s well known that powerful countries are accorded more respect than weak ones.

For example, in 1684 Louis XIV was able to demand that the state of Genoa send their Doge, or chief magistrate, and four of their senators to France to beg his pardon and receive his terms. They had no choice but to submit. Would he have been able to demand and receive such humiliation from Spain, Britain, or any other powerful nation?

PUBLIUS