Federalist 3 Paraphrased
The Federalist No. 3 - Dangers from Foreign Threats, continued paraphrased into modern English
by John Jay.
To: the people of New York,
It's commonly known that people of any country who are intelligent and well-informed, as Americans are, don't usually accept and then continue to support a faulty opinion concerning something that affects them personally. That fact has made the American people greatly respect the importance of being securely united under one federal government that has enough authority and power to handle whatever issues come up in a way that's best for the whole nation.
The more I think about the reasons why people feel this way, the more convinced I am that those reasons are justified and indisputable.
There are many issues that a wise and free people have to consider, and the main one seems to be safety. The safety of the people is related to many different situations and issues, so it provides a lot of options for those who want to define it accurately and thoroughly.
For the moment I only intend to look at it as it relates to protection that preserves the peace and calm, not only regarding protection against threats from foreign armies and force, but threats of a similar kind from domestic causes. Since the threat from foreign nations is first on our list, let's discuss that one first. Is it wrong to think that a harmonious Union operating under a capable federal government is the most effective protection against foreign conflict?
The number of wars that have happened in the past or will happen in the future is directly proportional to the number and significance of reasons for starting a war, or encouraging an attack, whether those reasons are real or just imagined. If this is the case, we should consider whether these kinds of causes for war are more likely to happen to a united America, or a disunited bunch of individual states. If causes for war are less likely to happen to a united America, then having a Union [under a federal Constitution] is more likely to preserve peace with other countries.
For the most part, legitimate reasons for war originate from treaties that are violated, or from being directly attacked. America has already made treaties with six foreign countries. All of them except Prussia have a Navy that could come and threaten or attack us. America also does large-scale trading with Portugal, Spain, and England. In addition, we also share borders with territories that are controlled by Spain and England.
If we want to have peaceful relationships with these countries, it is important for us to obey international laws in dealing with these nations. Won't that be more effectively and correctly done by one federal government than by 13 separate states, or a handful of separate confederacies?
After all, once a functioning federal government is set up, the best men in the country will be willing to serve, and they will usually be the ones selected to be in charge of running it. While it's possible for men in cities or rural areas to be chosen for State assemblies, senates, courts, or as governors because of their influence over a local group of people, it will require higher qualifications, capability, and esteem from a wider group of people for someone to be selected for a role in the federal government. There will be a larger group of men to choose from, and, unlike some state positions [drawing from a smaller pool of people], there will be no lack of suitable candidates. That means the guidance, political advice, and decisions of judges will be more prudent, painstaking, and skillful in the federal government than in the individual states, which means they will be more competent regarding relations with other countries, and that means more safety for the people of the United States. Under a single federal government, treaties, details of treaties, and international law will be interpreted with the same uniform understanding, and carried out with unvarying consistency. Imagine thirteen different states, or three or four confederacies trying to determine these issues and questions. They would not always agree or be consistent--not just because of the variety of independent courts, and various judges appointed by different separate governments, but also because each state or region will have its own local laws and issues affecting and influencing them. The men who wrote the proposed Constitution are to be commended for their wisdom in putting these kinds of issues in the hands of courts and judges who are appointed by a single federal government, and only have to answer to that government.
Federal officials from individual states might be tempted to make biased decisions based on the immediate interests of their own state, but those temptations won't affect federal officials from the other states, so the temptation won't have much influence over the country as a whole [the rest of Congress will out-vote the few who might be influenced]. Thus, the temptation will come to nothing; good sense and fairness will prevail. The peace treaty with Britain [the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War] confirms this. [How so??]
Even if the State government is inclined to resist the temptation to compromise in order to benefit local interests, these kinds of temptations are usually the result of circumstances relevant to that state, and will affect many residents of that state. So the government officials [who represent the people] may not be able to prevent a biased decision, and may not be able to punish those who are trying to manipulate those circumstances to work in their favor. But a federal government isn't affected by these kinds of local circumstances. They can't be pressured to make a decision that favors one state, and they won't lack the authority or desire to prevent others from trying to influence that kind of biased decision, or even punish those others.
You can see, therefore, that both intentional and accidental violations of treaties and international law can furnish reasons for wars, and can be avoided more easily under a single federal government than under various smaller governments. Thus, a federal government protects the safety of the people better than state or regional governments.
As far as cases where war results from blatant and direct violence, it seems to me that a single federal government can do much, much more to protect against that kind of threat than anyone else could.
That's because that kind of violence is usually instigated by the feelings and desires of part of a country rather than the entire country -- such as a couple of states rather than the entire United States. Not one single Indian War has come about because of hostility from our current federal government, even though it's just a weak confederation. But there have been skirmishes with the Indians that were provoked by the wrongful actions of individual states. Their unwillingness to prevent their own citizens from unfairly treating the Indians, or their failure punish their citizens for it, has given the Indians justification to slaughter many innocent people.
Spanish and British territories that border some states but not others naturally cause disagreements that only affect the states on their border. It's those bordering states who are likely to be easily provoked, and because of their heightened sense of threat or insult, they are more prone to start a war with these nations over direct violence. The most effective way to prevent this kind of danger is with a federal government whose wisdom and good sense won't be influenced by the indignation that will affect the states directly involved.
It isn't just that fewer reasons to go to war will come up when a federal government is in control. When hostilities do arise, a federal government will be in a better position to handle them tactfully and peacefully. They'll be more levelheaded and composed. In those kinds of incidents as well as other issues, a federal government will be more capable of acting prudently than an offended and indignant state. States and the citizens of those states will naturally be proud of their state, and it's only natural that their pride will make them tend to excuse their own reactions, and make them blind to seeing and correcting their own mistakes and violations. A federal government won't be blinded by state pride. It will act with restraint and impartiality as it contemplates and decides on the best way to get out of the situation that threatens them.
It's well known that countries are more likely to accept an apology, explanation, or compensation from a single strong nation, but they will consider the same apology, explanation, or compensation unacceptable when it comes from an individual state or from a confederacy with minimal importance or authority.
For example, the minor state of Genoa offended Louis XIV and attempted to pacify his anger. He demanded them to send their Doge [chief minister] along with four of their Senators to France to beg forgiveness and hear his terms for peace. They couldn't risk a war by refusing, so they had to submit. Can you imagine France daring to ask such a thing of a powerful country like Spain or England?
Signed, "Publius Valerius Publicola."
Paraphrased by Leslie Noelani Laurio, August, 2023
Comments
Post a Comment