Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 2

When the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question that, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important ever to engage their attention, it will be clear that they should take a very broad as well as very serious view of it.

Nothing is more certain than the absolute necessity of government. It is equally undeniable that, whenever and however government is established, the people must surrender some of their natural rights to it so that it may possess the necessary powers. It is therefore well worth considering whether it would better serve the interests of the American people to remain, for all general purposes, one nation under one federal government, or to divide themselves into separate confederacies and give the head of each the same kind of powers they are advised to place in one national government.

Until recently, it was a generally accepted and unchallenged opinion that the prosperity of the American people depended on their remaining firmly united. The wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have constantly been directed toward that goal. But politicians have now appeared who insist that this opinion is mistaken and that, instead of seeking safety and happiness in union, we should seek them by dividing the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties.

However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has supporters. Certain individuals who once strongly opposed it are now among them. Whatever arguments or inducements may have caused this change in the opinions and declarations of these gentlemen, it would certainly be unwise for the people at large to adopt these new political principles without being fully convinced that they are founded on truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America does not consist of detached and distant territories. Instead, one connected, fertile, and extensive country has become the inheritance of our western sons of liberty. Providence has blessed it in a special manner with a variety of soils and products and has watered it with countless streams for the enjoyment and convenience of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain around its borders, as if intended to bind it together. Meanwhile, the world’s most magnificent rivers, flowing at convenient intervals, provide highways for the easy exchange of friendly assistance and for the mutual transportation and exchange of the country’s various goods.

With equal pleasure, I have often observed that Providence has chosen to give this single 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, and very similar in their manners and customs. Through their joint deliberations, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, they have nobly established their common liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other. It appears as though Providence intended that an inheritance so well suited and convenient for a band of brothers, joined to one another by the strongest ties, should never be divided into a number of unfriendly, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have so far prevailed among people of every class and denomination among us. For all general purposes, we have consistently been one people. Every citizen everywhere has enjoyed the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation, we have made peace and war. As a nation, we have defeated our common enemies. As a nation, we have formed alliances, made treaties, and entered into various agreements and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union led the people, at a very early period, to establish a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed that government almost as soon as they had a political existence. Indeed, they formed it when their homes were in flames, many of their citizens were bleeding, and the advance of hostility and destruction left little room for the calm and mature inquiry and reflection that must always precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is no wonder that a government established in such unfavorable times was found through experience to be deeply flawed and inadequate for its intended purpose.

This intelligent people recognized and regretted those defects. They remained as devoted to union as they were in love with liberty. They observed the danger that immediately threatened the former and more remotely threatened the latter. Convinced that sufficient security for both could be found only in a more wisely designed national government, they called, as if with one voice, the recent convention at Philadelphia to consider this important subject.

The convention consisted of men who possessed the people’s confidence. Many of them had become highly distinguished for their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom during times that tested the minds and hearts of men. They undertook the difficult task. During the calm season of peace, with their minds free from other subjects, they spent many months in careful, uninterrupted, daily consultation. Finally, without being intimidated by power or influenced by any passion except love of their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their united and nearly unanimous deliberations.

It must be admitted, because it is a fact, that this plan is only recommended, not imposed. Yet it should be remembered that it is recommended neither for blind approval nor for blind rejection. It is offered for the calm and honest consideration demanded by the greatness and importance of the subject, consideration that it certainly deserves to receive.

But, as already observed, such consideration is more to be wished for than expected. Experience on an earlier occasion teaches us not to be too hopeful. We have not yet forgotten that well-founded fears of approaching danger led the American people to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to the people it represented, and events proved the wisdom of those measures. Yet we still remember how quickly the press began to overflow with pamphlets and weekly papers attacking them.

Many government officials, following the demands of personal interest, worked tirelessly to persuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Others did the same because they mistakenly judged the consequences, were unduly influenced by old attachments, or pursued ambitions inconsistent with the public good. Many people were indeed deceived and misled, but the great majority reasoned and decided wisely. They are fortunate when they reflect that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. Because its members had assembled from different parts of the country, they brought and shared with one another a wide range of useful information. During the time they spent together investigating and discussing their country’s true interests, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge of the subject. Each of them had a personal interest in public liberty and prosperity. It was therefore not only their duty but also their inclination to recommend only those measures that, after the most mature consideration, they truly believed prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations led the people to place great trust in the judgment and integrity of the Congress. They followed its advice despite the many devices and efforts used to frighten and dissuade them. But if the people at large had reason to trust the members of that Congress, few of whom had yet been fully tested or widely known, they now have still greater reason to respect the judgment and advice of the convention. It is well known that some of the most distinguished members of the Congress, who have since been tested and deservedly approved for their patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political knowledge, were also members of this convention and brought their accumulated knowledge and experience into it.

It is worth observing that not only the first Congress, but every Congress that followed it, as well as the recent convention, has consistently agreed with the people that America’s prosperity depends on its Union. Preserving and perpetuating the Union was the people’s great purpose in forming that convention, and it is also the great purpose of the plan the convention has advised them to adopt.

With what justification, then, or for what good purpose, are some people now trying to diminish the importance of the Union? Why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am personally convinced that the people have always judged this subject correctly. Their universal and consistent attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and substantial reasons, which I will try to develop and explain in some of the papers that follow.

Those who promote the idea of replacing the convention’s plan with a number of distinct confederacies seem clearly to foresee that rejecting the plan would place the continuation of the Union in the greatest danger. That certainly would be the result. I sincerely hope every good citizen will foresee just as clearly that, whenever the dissolution of the Union occurs, America will have reason to exclaim in the words of the poet: “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”

PUBLIUS

Federalist No. 3

It is not a new observation that the people of any country, if they are intelligent and well informed like the Americans, seldom adopt a mistaken opinion about their interests and persist in it steadily for many years. This consideration naturally inspires great respect for the high opinion that the American people have long and consistently held about the importance of remaining firmly united under one federal government, possessing sufficient powers for every general and national purpose.

The more carefully I consider and investigate the reasons that appear to have produced this opinion, the more convinced I become that they are powerful and conclusive.

Among the many subjects that require the attention of a wise and free people, providing for their safety seems to come first. The safety of the people undoubtedly relates to a great variety of circumstances and considerations. It therefore gives wide scope to anyone who wishes to define it precisely and comprehensively.

For the present, I intend to consider safety only as it relates to preserving peace and tranquility: security against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as well as dangers of the same kind arising from domestic causes. Because foreign dangers come first in order, they should be discussed first. Let us therefore examine whether the people are right to believe that a cordial Union under an effective national government provides the best possible security against hostilities from abroad.

The number of wars that have occurred or will occur in the world will always be proportional to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or pretended, that provoke or invite them. If this observation is correct, it is useful to ask whether united America or disunited America is likely to give more just causes for war. If united America is likely to give fewer, it follows that, in this respect, the Union is more likely to preserve peace between the American people and other nations.

Most just causes of war arise either from violations of treaties or from direct violence. America has already made treaties with no fewer than six foreign nations. All of them except Prussia are maritime powers and are therefore capable of troubling and injuring us. America also has extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain. In the case of Spain and Britain, we must also consider that their territories border our own.

It is highly important to the peace of America that it obey the law of nations in its relations with all these powers. It seems clear to me that this will be done more perfectly and consistently by one national government than it could be by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. Several reasons support this opinion.

Once an effective national government has been established, the best-qualified people in the country will not only consent to serve it but will generally be appointed to administer it. Local influence within a town, the countryside, or another limited area may place people in State assemblies, senates, courts of justice, or executive departments. But a broader and more extensive reputation for talent and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend candidates for office under the national government. This is especially true because the national government will have the widest field from which to choose and will never experience the shortage of suitable people that is not uncommon in some States.

It will follow that the administration, political deliberations, and judicial decisions of the national government will be wiser, more systematic, and more judicious than those of individual States. They will consequently be more satisfactory to other nations and more safe for us.

Under the national government, treaties, individual treaty provisions, and the law of nations will always be interpreted in one sense and enforced in the same manner. By contrast, judgments on the same points and questions in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always agree or remain consistent. This inconsistency would arise both from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by separate and independent governments and from the different local laws and interests that might affect and influence them. The convention’s wisdom in assigning such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government cannot be praised too highly.

The prospect of immediate loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to depart from good faith and justice. Because those temptations would not affect the other States and would therefore have little or no influence on the national government, they would be ineffective, and good faith and justice would be preserved. The case of the peace treaty with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

Even if a State’s governing party were inclined to resist such temptations, the temptations might arise, as they commonly do, from circumstances peculiar to that State and might affect a great number of its inhabitants. The governing party might therefore be unable, even if willing, to prevent the intended injustice or punish the aggressors. The national government, unaffected by those local circumstances, would neither be induced to commit the wrong itself nor lack the power or inclination to prevent or punish others from committing it.

Therefore, to the extent that intentional or accidental violations of treaties and of the law of nations provide just causes of war, such violations are less to be feared under one general government than under several smaller governments. In this respect, the former arrangement best protects the safety of the people.

As for the just causes of war that arise from direct and unlawful violence, it seems equally clear to me that one good national government provides vastly greater security against such dangers than can be obtained from any other arrangement.

Such acts of violence are more often caused by the passions and interests of one part of a country than by those of the whole, and by one or two States rather than by the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been caused by aggression from the present federal government, weak as it is. But there are several cases in which Indian hostilities were provoked by the improper conduct of individual States. Those States, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, gave occasion for the killing of many innocent inhabitants.

Spanish and British territories border some States but not others. The causes of quarrels with those powers are therefore naturally concentrated among the people living along those borders. If any States provoke war with those nations through direct violence, they will most likely be the bordering States, driven by sudden anger and an immediate sense of apparent interest or injury. Nothing can prevent this danger as effectively as a national government whose wisdom and prudence are not diminished by the passions influencing the people most directly involved.

The national government will not only give fewer just causes for war. It will also have greater power to reconcile and settle such disputes peacefully. It will be calmer and more temperate and, in this as in other respects, better able to act with caution than the offending State.

The pride of states, like the pride of individuals, naturally inclines them to justify all their actions and makes them unwilling to acknowledge, correct, or repair their errors and offenses. In such cases, the national government will not be affected by this pride. It will proceed with moderation and fairness to consider and decide on the most suitable means of freeing those States from the difficulties threatening them.

Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensation are often accepted as satisfactory when offered by a strong, united nation, even though the same measures would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy with little standing or power.

In 1685, after the state of Genoa offended Louis XIV, it attempted to appease him. He demanded that Genoa send its Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four senators, to France to ask his pardon and accept his terms. For the sake of peace, the Genoese were forced to submit. Would Louis XIV, on any occasion, either have demanded or received a similar humiliation from Spain, Britain, or any other powerful nation?

PUBLIUS