theatre for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to
interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to
the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend, that the sword
would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The
circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania,
respecting the land at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in
expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The articles of
confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision
of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in
favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of
dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be
entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something
like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have
sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest
censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed
herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like
individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their
disadvantage.
Those who had an opportunity of seeing the inside of the transactions
which attended the progress of the controversy between this State and
the district of Vermont, can vouch the opposition we experienced, as
well from States not interested as from those which were interested in
the claim; and can attest the danger to which the peace of the
Confederacy might have been exposed, had this State attempted to assert
its rights by force. Two motives preponderated in that opposition: one,
a jealousy entertained of our future power; and the other, the interest
of certain individuals of influence in the neighboring States, who had
obtained grants of lands under the actual government of that district.
Even the States which brought forward claims, in contradiction to ours,
seemed more solicitous to dismember this State, than to establish their
own pretensions. These were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut. New Jersey and Rhode Island, upon all occasions,
discovered a warm zeal for the independence of Vermont; and Maryland,
till alarmed by the appearance of a connection between Canada and that
State, entered deeply into the same views. These being small States,
saw with an unfriendly eye the perspective of our growing greatness. In
a review of these transactions we may trace some of the causes which
would be likely to embroil the States with each other, if it should be
their unpropitious destiny to become disunited.
The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of
contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous
of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing
in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or
separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy
peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and
exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on
the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since
the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to
those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent
of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE
THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT
SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise,
which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no
occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable
that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations
of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive
benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations,
on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would
naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.
The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others
tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently
submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New
York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind.
New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her
importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the
inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of
what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego
this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them
should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would
it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to
distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New
Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit?
Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed
enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an
advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so
oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent
weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of
New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will
answer in the affirmative.
The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision
between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the
first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be
alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible
to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is
scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real
objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse
interest of the parties. There are even dissimilar views among the
States as to the general principle of discharging the public debt. Some
of them, either less impressed with the importance of national credit,
or because their citizens have little, if any, immediate interest in
the question, feel an indifference, if not a repugnance, to the payment
of the domestic debt at any rate. These would be inclined to magnify
the difficulties of a distribution. Others of them, a numerous body of
whose citizens are creditors to the public beyond proportion of the
State in the total amount of the national debt, would be strenuous for
some equitable and effective provision. The procrastinations of the
former would excite the resentments of the latter. The settlement of a
rule would, in the meantime, be postponed by real differences of
opinion and affected delays. The citizens of the States interested
would clamour; foreign powers would urge for the satisfaction of their
just demands, and the peace of the States would be hazarded to the
double contingency of external invasion and internal contention.
Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted, and the
apportionment made. Still there is great room to suppose that the rule
agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some
States than upon others. Those which were sufferers by it would
naturally seek for a mitigation of the burden. The others would as
naturally be disinclined to a revision, which was likely to end in an
increase of their own incumbrances. Their refusal would be too
plausible a pretext to the complaining States to withhold their
contributions, not to be embraced with avidity; and the non-compliance
of these States with their engagements would be a ground of bitter
discussion and altercation. If even the rule adopted should in practice
justify the equality of its principle, still delinquencies in payments
on the part of some of the States would result from a diversity of
other causes—the real deficiency of resources; the mismanagement of
their finances; accidental disorders in the management of the
government; and, in addition to the rest, the reluctance with which men
commonly part with money for purposes that have outlived the exigencies
which produced them, and interfere with the supply of immediate wants.
Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints,
recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to
disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual
contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and
coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite,
that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of
money.
Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions
on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may
be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not
authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would
preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if
unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in
too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the
disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the
enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island; and we
reasonably infer that, in similar cases, under other circumstances, a
war, not of PARCHMENT, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious
breaches of moral obligation and social justice.
The probability of incompatible alliances between the different States
or confederacies and different foreign nations, and the effects of this
situation upon the peace of the whole, have been sufficiently unfolded
in some preceding papers. From the view they have exhibited of this
part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if
not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league,
offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring
alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of
European politics and wars; and by the destructive contentions of the
parts into which she was divided, would be likely to become a prey to
the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them
all. _Divide et impera_[1] must be the motto of every nation that
either hates or fears us.[2]
PUBLIUS.
[1] Divide and command.
[2] In order that the whole subject of these papers may as soon as
possible be laid before the public, it is proposed to publish them
four times a week—on Tuesday in the New York Packet and on Thursday in
the Daily Advertiser.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. VIII.
The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, November 20, 1787.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States,
in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be
formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to
those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with
each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not
united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some
of the consequences that would attend such a situation.
War between the States, in the first period of their separate
existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it
commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments
have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the
continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and
economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage
of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that
rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their
introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same
ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified
places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in
reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an
enemy’s country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust
the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an
invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country
almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but
now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the
defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to
frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history
of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations
subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of
battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than
victories; of much effort and little acquisition.
In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of
military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The
want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to
another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with
little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests
would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War,
therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation
ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals
would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize
our military exploits.
This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not
long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most
powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty
will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction
of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm
attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most
attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions
which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To
be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being
less free.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the
correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies,
it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is
therefore inferred that they may exist under it.[1] Their existence,
however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most,
problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied,
must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent
war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant
preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or
confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon
an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to
supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular
and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by
fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to
strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their
constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It
is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the
legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or
confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors.
Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous
governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often
triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength,
which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor
the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit
them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority.
They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had
been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence.
Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of
this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge
of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of
things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in
proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative
defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the
hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are
solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of
human affairs.
It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not
standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often
distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally
satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of
the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and
devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are
incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the
true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue,
which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and
silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which
is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of
nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and
have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the
citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.
There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a
country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in
one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them.
The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so
inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be
maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case,
rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the
people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The
laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military
exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted,
nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state.
The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community
an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to
the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions,
neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of
jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a
power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their
rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the
magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or
insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against
the united efforts of the great body of the people.
In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all
this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government
to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough
for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services
enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the
condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the
civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are
unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which
serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people
are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but
as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of
considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is
very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make
a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military
power.
The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An
insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great
measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the
necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to
make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to
rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of
national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated,
a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has
been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other
causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war.
This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed
to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite
of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain
had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she
would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments
at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe,
she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to
the absolute power of a single man. ’T is possible, though not easy,
that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but
it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which
has been usually kept up within the kingdom.
If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an
advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a
great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to
continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any
dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this
position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited,
and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is
most probable, should be thrown together into two or three
confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the
predicament of the continental powers of Europe —our liberties would be
a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and
jealousy of each other.
This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It
deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and
honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn
pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this
interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and
trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with
trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in
all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that
flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries
would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers,
real, certain, and formidable.
PUBLIUS.
[1] This objection will be fully examined in its proper place, and it
will be shown that the only natural precaution which could have been
taken on this subject has been taken; and a much better one than is to
be found in any constitution that has been heretofore framed in
America, most of which contain no guard at all on this subject.
THE FEDERALIST.
No. IX.
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York: