Federalist No. 3
This third paper is once again written by John Jay. It is largely an extension of Federalist No. 2 in regards the need for unity among the citizenry, as evidenced by all joining together within the single national government.
The official title of this paper is “The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.”
Full text may be found here at the Library of Congress.
Jay begins by telling his audience that they are smart folks:
people . . . [who are] . . . intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests.
Of course, what he is doing here is claiming that smart people don’t make bad decisions and stick with them. Therefore, the decision to come together as one people within a nation (rather than separate states or confederacies) was a good one, so don’t mess it up now.
Shortly after this comes the part which addresses the most basic need for government:
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.
I would that our own modern federal government would focus on this: protection from without and protection from within.
John Jay follows this by laying out a case for a national government being comprised of the best of the best. In essence, stating that cream rises to the top. Then, he states that wars (the American Revolution being still very fresh in people’s memories) would of necessity be fewer for a variety of reasons which he elucidates as follows, if there is a unified national government rather than simply the several states or confederacies of states:
Because, 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
[snip]
Because 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.
[snip]
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.
In short, the national government has to look after everyone, therefore it will not engage in precipitous actions, whereas a state government might do exactly that. (I wonder if this would hold true when one considers that those who make decisions today at the federal level are so far removed from specific state situations that they seem most influenced by whoever has their collective ear, rather than the best interests of the nation or individual state.)
The author finishes this particular paper by a raw appeal to the need for power in international relations:
. . . 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.
Ah yes, make sure you have enough allies (the other states) on your side of the schoolyard that any bully who is there might think twice about coming over and throwing his weight about. Of course, the colonies had just defeated such a bully (as many of Jay’s readers saw it, in throwing out the British) under the auspices established by an earlier unifying document: the Articles of Confederation.
As always, here is the audio for Federalist No. 3.
One Comment, Comment or Ping