the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit
by their experience without paying the price which it cost them.
Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an
island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages
divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly
embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their
true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the
same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their
mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series
of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were
useful and assisting to each other.
Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four
nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies
arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being “joined
in affection” and free from all apprehension of different “interests,”
envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and
the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general
interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and
pursuits. Hence, like most other BORDERING nations, they would always
be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant
apprehension of them.
The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot
reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal
footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so
at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human
contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality? Independent of
those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one
part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the
effects of that superior policy and good management which would
probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which
their relative equality in strength and consideration would be
destroyed. For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound
policy, prudence, and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of
these confederacies for a long succession of years.
Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it
would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on
the scale of political importance much above the degree of her
neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and
with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not
to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and
would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to
secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her
to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not
only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a
disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates
distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct more speedily
changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether
expressed or implied.
The North is generally the region of strength, and many local
circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed
confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably
more formidable than any of the others. No sooner would this become
evident than the NORTHERN HIVE would excite the same ideas and
sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did
in the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash
conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey
in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more
delicate neighbors.
They who well consider the history of similar divisions and
confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in
contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would
be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but
on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual
injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations
in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., FORMIDABLE ONLY
TO EACH OTHER.
From these considerations it appears that those gentlemen are greatly
mistaken who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be
formed between these confederacies, and would produce that combination
and union of wills of arms and of resources, which would be necessary
to put and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign
enemies.
When did the independent states, into which Britain and Spain were
formerly divided, combine in such alliance, or unite their forces
against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be DISTINCT
NATIONS. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to
regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities
are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties
be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create
different interests, and of course different degrees of political
attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it
might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the
SOUTHERN confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the
NORTHERN confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and
friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would
not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and
fulfilled with perfect good faith.
Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring
nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly
passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering
our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these
confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant
nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to
guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard
against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let
us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into
our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade
or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others
make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under
the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they
pretended to protect.
Let candid men judge, then, whether the division of America into any
given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us
against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.
PUBLIUS.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. VI.
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
The three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an
enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of
disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now
proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more
alarming kind—those which will in all probability flow from dissensions
between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and
convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly
anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full
investigation.
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt
that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united
in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be
thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To
presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against
their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive,
and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number
of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood,
would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at
defiance the accumulated experience of ages.
The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some
which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective
bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the
desire of pre-eminence and dominion—the jealousy of power, or the
desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more
circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their
spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between
commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either
of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in
the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading
individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this
class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many
instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the
pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the
national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.
The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a
prostitute,[1] at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his
countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the
SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the
MEGARENSIANS,[2] another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution
with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of
the statuary Phidias,[3] or to get rid of the accusations prepared to
be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the
purchase of popularity,[4] or from a combination of all these causes,
was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in
the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after
various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the
ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.
The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII.,
permitting his vanity to aspire to the triple crown,[5] entertained
hopes of succeeding in the acquisition of that splendid prize by the
influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure the favor and interest of
this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England into a
war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at
the hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over
which he presided by his counsels, as of Europe in general. For if
there ever was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of
universal monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V., of whose intrigues
Wolsey was at once the instrument and the dupe.
The influence which the bigotry of one female,[6] the petulance of
another,[7] and the cabals of a third,[8] had in the contemporary
policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe,
are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally
known.
To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the
production of great national events, either foreign or domestic,
according to their direction, would be an unnecessary waste of time.
Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the sources from
which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a variety of
instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature
will not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of
the reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference,
tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made
to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not
been a DESPERATE DEBTOR, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts
would have been plunged into a civil war.
But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this
particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who
stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the
States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of
republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency
to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable
humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics,
like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous
contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest,
and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest
of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit?
If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it
not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions,
and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over
human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility
or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than
monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the
latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires
of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not
popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage,
resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent
propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often
governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are,
of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those
individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the
objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and
enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been
as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the
prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity
of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many
instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the
one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of
human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them,
Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often
engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies
of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp;
and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.
Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very
war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into
the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn,
gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a
conquest of the commonwealth.
Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition,
till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II.
found means to accomplish that formidable league,[9] which gave a
deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.
The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and
taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They
had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were
among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of
Louis XIV.
In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose
one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the
predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have
been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom
has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the
people.
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as
royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their
representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs
into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and
sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that
memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA
and BOURBON, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known
that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the
ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,[10] protracted
the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a
considerable time in opposition to the views of the court.
The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure
grown out of commercial considerations;—the desire of supplanting and
the fear of being supplanted either in particular branches of traffic,
or in the general advantages of trade and navigation; and sometimes
even the more culpable desire of sharing in the commerce of other
nations, without their consent.
The last war but two between Britain and Spain, sprang from the
attempts of the English merchants, to prosecute an illicit trade with
the Spanish main. These unjustifiable practices on their part, produced
severities on the part of the Spaniards, towards the subjects of Great
Britain, which were not more justifiable; because they exceeded the
bounds of a just retaliation, and were chargeable with inhumanity and
cruelty. Many of the English who were taken on the Spanish coasts, were
sent to dig in the mines of Potosi; and by the usual progress of a
spirit of resentment, the innocent were after a while confounded with
the guilty in indiscriminate punishment. The complaints of the
merchants kindled a violent flame throughout the nation, which soon
after broke out in the House of Commons, and was communicated from the
body to the ministry. Letters of reprisal were granted, and a war
ensued; which, in its consequences, overthrew all the alliances that
but twenty years before had been formed, with sanguine expectations of
the most beneficial fruits.
From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose
situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason
can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an
expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present
confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough
of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have
amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections,
weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time
to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a
practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as
well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the
happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?
Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and
credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and
ill administration of government, let the revolt of a part of the State
of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and
the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare—!
So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the
tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of
discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion,
that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a
sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation,
constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses
himself on this subject to this effect: “NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he)
are naturally enemies of each other unless their common weakness forces
them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution
prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing
that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves
at the expense of their neighbors.”[11] This passage, at the same time,
points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.
PUBLIUS.
[1] Aspasia, _vide_ Plutarch’s _Life of Pericles_.
[2] _Ibid_.
[3] _Ibid_. Phidias was supposed to have stolen some public gold, with
the connivance of Pericles, for the embellishment of the statue of
Minerva.
[4] _Ibid_.
[5] Worn by the popes.
[6] Madame de Maintenon.
[7] Duchess of Marlborough.
[8] Madame de Pompadour.
[9] The League of Cambray, comprehending the Emperor, the King of
France, the King of Aragon, and most of the Italian princes and
states.
[10] The Duke of Marlborough.
[11] _Vide Principes des Négociations_ par l’Abbé de Mably.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. VII.
The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States)
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
It is sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements
could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It
would be a full answer to this question to say—precisely the same
inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the
nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of
a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our
immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the
restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience
to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those
restraints were removed.
Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most
fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest
proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this
origin. This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast
tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United
States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several
of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for
similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have
heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to
the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which
usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the
limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed
them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of
the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all
that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession,
or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to
the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished
in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an
acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has
been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by
prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for
the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a
continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable
termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy,
however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same
subject. At present, a large part of the vacant Western territory is,
by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property
of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which made the
cession, on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt when the
motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion.
The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion, by right of
representation. Their argument would be, that a grant, once made, could
not be revoked; and that the justice of participating in territory
acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy, remained
undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all
the States, that each had a right to a share of this common stock,
there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted, as to a proper rule
of apportionment. Different principles would be set up by different
States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite
interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a
pacific adjustment.