The Federalist Papers (Modern, Updated Translation)

Book Summary

The Federalist Papers, written between 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius," represent a comprehensive defense and explanation of the proposed United States Constitution. These 85 essays, originally published in New York newspapers, served to convince states to ratify the Constitution by addressing concerns about federal power, individual rights, and republican governance.

The papers begin by establishing the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, arguing that a stronger federal government is necessary for America's survival and prosperity. Hamilton, in particular, emphasizes the need for a robust national defense and unified economic policy, while addressing fears about excessive federal power.

The series provides detailed explanations of each major constitutional provision, including the separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Madison's contributions, especially Federalist 10 and 51, explore how the Constitution's structure would prevent majority tyranny and faction while preserving republican principles.

The papers examine the proposed powers of each branch of government. They defend the strength of the executive branch, explain the role of the judiciary, and justify the bicameral legislature's structure. Particular attention is paid to explaining how these institutions would work together while preventing any single branch from becoming too powerful.

The essays address specific criticisms of the Constitution, including concerns about the absence of a bill of rights, the federal government's taxing power, and the potential for presidential tyranny. The authors argue that the Constitution's structural protections would safeguard liberty more effectively than a mere list of rights.

The Federalist Papers demonstrate sophisticated political theory, drawing on historical examples from ancient republics to modern confederacies. They analyze why previous attempts at republican government failed and explain how the Constitution's design would avoid similar pitfalls.

These essays remain crucial for understanding the Constitution's original meaning and the Founders' intent regarding federal power, individual rights, and republican government. They continue to influence constitutional interpretation and political thought worldwide.

Federalist Papers (Modern, Updated Translation)

Support more translations by picking up a copy of this book on Amazon.

Buy Book on Amazon

Free Book Preview: In Modern, Updated English

FEDERALIST No. 1: General Introduction

For the Independent Journal. Saturday, October 27, 1787

Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

After clearly seeing that the current federal government isn't working well, you're now asked to think about a new Constitution for the United States of America. This topic is incredibly important because it affects the very existence of the union, the safety and well-being of its parts, and the future of an empire that is, in many ways, one of the most fascinating in the world. It's often said that the people of this country have a unique opportunity to show whether societies can create good government through thought and choice, or if they will always have to rely on chance and force for their political systems. If there's any truth to this idea, then the moment we're in now could be seen as the time when this decision is made. Choosing the wrong path could be considered a major setback for all of humanity.

This idea will add the motivations of kindness to those of patriotism, increasing the concern that all thoughtful and good people should have for the outcome. It will be great if our decision is guided by a wise understanding of our true interests, without being confused or influenced by factors unrelated to the public good. However, this is more something to hope for than something we can realistically expect. The plan we are considering affects too many specific interests and changes too many local traditions, which means the discussion will involve many issues unrelated to its actual value, as well as opinions, emotions, and biases that are not helpful in finding the truth.

One of the biggest challenges the new Constitution will face is the clear interest of a certain group of people in every state who want to resist any changes that might reduce the power, benefits, and importance of the positions they hold in state governments. Additionally, there is another group of people with misguided ambitions who either hope to gain more power from the chaos in the country or believe they have better chances of rising to power if the country is divided into several smaller confederacies rather than united under one government.

However, it's not my intention to focus on observations like these. I understand that it would be unfair to automatically assume that any group of people opposing something is doing so out of self-interest or ambition, just because their positions might make them seem suspicious. Fairness requires us to acknowledge that even these individuals might be motivated by honest intentions. It's undeniable that much of the opposition we've seen, or might see in the future, could come from sources that are at least innocent, if not respectable—like honest mistakes made by people misled by preconceived fears and suspicions. There are so many strong reasons that can lead to biased judgments that we often find wise and good people on both the wrong and right sides of important societal issues. If we pay attention to this, it should teach us to be more moderate, even if we are convinced we are right in any debate. Another reason to be cautious is the realization that we can't always be sure that those who support the truth are driven by purer motives than their opponents. Ambition, greed, personal grudges, party rivalry, and many other questionable motives can influence both those who support and those who oppose the right side of an issue. Even without these reasons for moderation, nothing could be more misguided than the intolerant attitude that has always characterized political parties. In politics, just like in religion, it's equally ridiculous to try to convert others through force. Misguided beliefs in either area are rarely corrected through persecution.

Even though these thoughts are fair, we can already see that this situation will unfold like all previous major national debates. A flood of anger and hostility will be unleashed. Judging by how the opposing sides act, it seems they both believe they can prove their points and gain more supporters by being louder and more aggressive in their arguments. A genuine enthusiasm for a strong and effective government will be criticized as a desire for absolute power and as being against the principles of freedom. On the other hand, an excessive fear of threats to people's rights, which usually stems more from overthinking than from genuine concern, will be dismissed as a mere tactic to gain popularity at the cost of the common good. People will forget that suspicion often accompanies love, and that the passionate pursuit of freedom can sometimes lead to narrow-minded and unfair distrust. Conversely, they will also forget that a strong government is crucial for protecting freedom; that, when viewed with a clear and informed mind, their interests are inseparable; and that dangerous ambitions often hide behind a false show of concern for people's rights rather than behind an obvious push for a strong government. History shows us that pretending to care about people's rights has more often led to tyranny than openly supporting a strong government. Many who have destroyed the freedoms of republics started by flattering the people, acting as champions of the people, and ended up as tyrants.

In the previous observations, I've aimed to alert you, my fellow citizens, to be cautious of any attempts, from any source, to sway your decision on a matter crucial to your well-being, using anything other than the truth. You have likely gathered from the overall tone that these observations come from someone supportive of the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I admit to you that after careful consideration, I firmly believe it is in your best interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest path for your freedom, dignity, and happiness. I won't pretend to have doubts that I don't have. I won't pretend to be undecided when I've already made up my mind. I openly share my beliefs with you and will clearly explain the reasons behind them. Good intentions don't hide behind vague words. However, I won't go on about my sincerity. My reasons are personal, but my arguments are open for everyone to see and judge. They will be presented in a way that respects the truth.

I plan to discuss the following interesting topics in a series of papers:

The benefits of the union for your political success, the inadequacy of the current confederation to maintain that union, the need for a government at least as strong as the one proposed, to achieve this goal, the alignment of the proposed constitution with the true principles of republican government, its similarity to your own state constitution, and finally, the extra security that its adoption will provide for the preservation of this type of government, for liberty, and for property.

As we continue this discussion, I will try to provide a clear and satisfactory response to all the objections that have come up and seem worth your attention.

It might seem unnecessary to provide arguments proving the benefits of the union, a topic that is likely deeply valued by the majority of people in every state, and one that seems to have no opponents. However, the reality is that we are already hearing whispers among those who oppose the new constitution, suggesting that the thirteen states are too large for any unified system and that we must inevitably turn to separate confederacies for different parts of the whole. This idea will likely spread gradually until it has enough supporters to be openly declared. For those who can see the bigger picture, it is clear that the choice is between adopting the new constitution or breaking up the union. Therefore, it will be useful to start by examining the benefits of that union, the definite problems, and the potential dangers that every state will face if it falls apart. This will be the focus of my next discussion.

Publius

Federalist No. 2: About the Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, October 31, 1787

Author: Jay

To the people of the state of New York:

When the people of America think about the fact that they are now being asked to make a decision on a question that will have important consequences, it becomes clear that they should take a thorough and serious look at it.

It's absolutely clear that government is essential, and it's just as undeniable that whenever and however a government is set up, people must give up some of their natural rights to give it the necessary powers. So, it's worth considering whether it would be better for the people of America to be one nation under a single federal government for all general purposes, or if they should split into separate confederacies, each with the same kind of powers that they are being advised to give to one national government.

Until recently, it was a widely accepted and unchallenged belief that the prosperity of the American people depended on staying firmly united. The hopes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have always been focused on this goal. However, there are now politicians who argue that this belief is wrong. They claim that instead of finding safety and happiness in unity, we should seek it by dividing the states into separate confederacies or sovereignties. Although this new idea might seem unusual, it does have its supporters. Some individuals who were strongly against it in the past are now among its advocates. Whatever reasons or motivations have led to this change in their views, it would certainly be unwise for the general public to adopt these new political ideas without being fully convinced that they are based on truth and sound policy.

I've often found it pleasing to notice that independent America isn't made up of separate and far-off territories, but instead is one connected, fertile, and expansive country belonging to our western sons of liberty. Providence has particularly blessed it with a variety of soils and resources, and countless streams that provide enjoyment and convenience for its people. A series of navigable waters forms a kind of chain around its borders, as if to hold it together; while the most magnificent rivers in the world, flowing at convenient distances, offer them highways for easy communication, friendly assistance, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various goods.

I've often happily observed that fate has brought this single, connected country to one united people—a people who come from the same ancestors, speak the same language, follow the same religion, are committed to the same principles of government, and share similar manners and customs. Together, through their combined planning, military efforts, and struggles, fighting alongside each other in a long and bloody war, they have bravely secured general liberty and independence.

This country and its people seem perfectly matched, and it looks like it was meant by fate that such a fitting and convenient land for a group of closely connected brothers should never be divided into a bunch of unfriendly, suspicious, and separate states.

Similar feelings have always been shared by all groups and types of people among us. For all general purposes, we have consistently been one people, with every individual citizen everywhere enjoying 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 countries.

The people recognized the importance and benefits of being united, which led them to create a federal government early on to maintain and continue that unity. They established it almost as soon as they became a political entity, even when their homes were burning, many of their citizens were injured, and the ongoing conflict and destruction left little opportunity for the careful thought and consideration needed to create a wise and balanced government for a free society. It's not surprising that a government created under such difficult circumstances would, upon testing, be found lacking and unable to fulfill its intended purpose.

The smart people recognized and regretted these flaws. Still just as committed to unity as they were passionate about freedom, they noticed the immediate threat to unity and the more distant threat to freedom. Convinced that strong protection for both could only come from a better-designed national government, they collectively called for the recent convention in Philadelphia to address this important issue.

This convention was made up of people who had the trust of the public, and many of them had become well-known for their patriotism, virtue, and wisdom during challenging times. They took on the difficult task. In the calm period of peace, with their minds free from other distractions, they spent many months in calm, uninterrupted, and daily discussions. Finally, without being intimidated by power or swayed by any emotions other than love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan created by their collective and very united efforts.

Let's acknowledge, because it's true, that this plan is only being suggested, not forced upon anyone. However, remember that it's not being suggested for blind approval or blind rejection. Instead, it should be given the calm and honest consideration that the seriousness and importance of the topic deserve, and which it definitely should receive. But, as mentioned in the previous part of this paper, it's more of a hope than an expectation that it will be considered and examined in this way. Past experiences teach us not to be overly optimistic about such hopes. We still remember that real fears of immediate danger led the people of America to create the notable Congress of 1774. That group suggested certain actions to their supporters, and time showed they were wise; yet we clearly recall how quickly pamphlets and weekly papers started appearing against those very actions. Not only did many government officials, driven by personal interests, oppose them, but others did too, due to a wrong understanding of the outcomes, old loyalties, or ambitions that didn't align with the public good. They worked tirelessly to convince people to ignore the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many were indeed misled, but the majority of the people thought carefully and made wise decisions; and they are happy to reflect on the fact that they did so.

They thought that Congress was made up of many wise and experienced people. Since these individuals came from different parts of the country, they brought with them and shared a lot of useful information. Over the time they spent together investigating and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have gained very accurate knowledge on the subject. Each member had a personal stake in the public's freedom and prosperity, so it was both their desire and their responsibility to suggest only those actions that, after careful consideration, they truly believed were wise and advisable.

These and similar thoughts led the people to trust heavily in the judgment and honesty of Congress; they followed their advice, despite various attempts to discourage them from doing so. But if the general public had reason to trust the members of that Congress, most of whom were not fully tested or widely known, they have even more reason now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention. It is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have since proven themselves for their patriotism and abilities, and who have spent years gaining political knowledge, were also members of this convention, bringing with them their accumulated wisdom and experience.

It's important to note that not only the first Congress but every Congress since, as well as the recent convention, have consistently agreed with the people that America's success relies on its Union. Keeping and maintaining this Union was the main goal of the people when they formed the convention, and it's also the main goal of the plan that the convention has recommended they adopt. So, why, at this particular time, are some people trying to downplay the importance of the Union? Or why are they suggesting that having three or four separate confederacies would be better than one? I firmly believe that the people have always been right about this issue, and their strong and consistent support for the Union is based on significant and important reasons, which I will try to explain in some upcoming papers. Those who are pushing the idea of replacing the convention's plan with several separate confederacies seem to clearly understand that rejecting the plan would put the Union's survival at great risk. That would definitely be the case, and I sincerely hope that every good citizen can clearly see that if the Union ever breaks apart, America will have reason to say, in the words of the poet: "Farewell! A long farewell to all my greatness."

Publius

Federalist No. 3: The same topic continued (about dangers from foreign military and influence)

For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 3, 1787

Jay

To the people of the state of New York:

It's not a new idea that the people of any country (especially if they are intelligent and well-informed like Americans) rarely hold onto a wrong opinion about their interests for a long time. This fact naturally leads to a great deal of respect for the strong belief that the American people have consistently held about the importance of staying firmly united under one federal government, which has enough power to handle all general and national matters.

The more I carefully think about and examine the reasons that seem to have led to this opinion, the more convinced I become that they are strong and convincing.

Among the many things that wise and free people need to focus on, ensuring their safety seems to be the most important. The safety of the people is connected to many different situations and factors, which means there is a lot of room for those who want to define it clearly and thoroughly.

Right now, I just want to focus on how a strong union helps keep peace and calm, both from threats of foreign military and influence, and from similar threats that come from within the country. Since foreign threats are the first concern, it's appropriate to discuss them first. So, let's look into whether the people are correct in believing that a strong union, under an effective national government, provides the best protection against attacks from other countries.

The number of wars that have happened or will happen in the world is always related to the number and seriousness of the reasons, whether real or made up, that cause or encourage them. If this observation is correct, it's helpful to ask whether United America is likely to provide as many just reasons for war as a disunited America. If it turns out that United America will likely provide fewer reasons, then it follows that, in this regard, the Union is more likely to keep the people in a state of peace with other nations.

The main reasons for war usually come from breaking treaties or from direct acts of violence. America has already made treaties with at least six foreign countries, and all of them, except for Prussia, have strong navies and can potentially harm us. America also has significant trade with Portugal, Spain, and Britain. Additionally, with Spain and Britain, we have to consider that they are our neighbors.

It's really important for America's peace that she follows international laws with all these countries. To me, it's clear that one national government will do this more accurately and on time than if there were thirteen separate states or three or four different groups.

Once an effective national government is set up, the best people in the country will not only agree to serve but will also generally be chosen to run it. While local or regional influences might get people into state assemblies, senates, courts, or executive roles, a broader and more widespread reputation for skills and other qualifications will be needed to recommend people for positions in the national government. This is especially true since the national government will have a larger pool of candidates to choose from and won't often face a shortage of qualified individuals, which can be a problem in some states. As a result, the administration, political advice, and judicial decisions of the national government will be wiser, more organized, and more sensible than those of individual states. This will make the national government more respected by other countries and safer for us.

Under the national government, treaties and treaty articles, as well as international laws, will always be interpreted in the same way and enforced consistently. In contrast, decisions on the same issues in thirteen different states, or in three or four separate confederacies, won't always agree or be consistent. This inconsistency arises from having various independent courts and judges appointed by different governments, as well as from the different local laws and interests that might influence them. The convention's decision to assign such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and accountable only to one national government is very wise and should be highly praised.

The chance of immediate loss or gain might often tempt the ruling party in one or two states to stray from honesty and fairness. However, since these temptations don't affect the other states and have little or no impact on the national government, the temptation will be ineffective, and honesty and fairness will be maintained. The example of the peace treaty with Britain strongly supports this argument.

Even if the ruling party in a state wants to resist such temptations, these temptations often come from unique situations within the state and can impact many residents. The ruling party might not always be able, even if they want to, to stop the planned injustice or punish those responsible. However, the national government, not being influenced by these local situations, won't be tempted to do wrong themselves and will have both the power and desire to prevent or punish such actions by others.

Whether intentional or accidental, breaking treaties and international laws can lead to justified reasons for war. These risks are less likely under one unified government than under several smaller ones. In this way, a single government better ensures the safety of the people.

When it comes to the legitimate reasons for war that arise from direct and illegal violence, it's clear to me that a strong national government provides much more protection against such threats than any other option.

These violent conflicts are more often triggered by the emotions and interests of a part rather than the whole; by one or two states rather than the entire Union. Not a single war with Native Americans has been started by the current federal government, weak as it may be. However, there have been several cases where hostilities with Native Americans were provoked by the inappropriate actions of individual states. These states, either unable or unwilling to control or punish wrongdoings, have led to the deaths of many innocent people.

The closeness of Spanish and British territories, which are next to some states but not others, naturally limits the reasons for conflict mainly to those states that share borders with them. These bordering states are the ones most likely to start a war with these nations, driven by sudden anger or a quick sense of perceived interest or harm. The best way to prevent this danger is through a national government, whose wisdom and careful judgment won't be affected by the emotions of the directly involved parties.

Not only will the national government have fewer reasons to go to war, but it will also be better equipped to resolve conflicts peacefully. They will be more calm and rational, and in this way, as well as others, they will be better able to make wise decisions than the state that caused the issue. States, like individuals, tend to justify all their actions and resist admitting, correcting, or fixing their mistakes and wrongdoings. In such situations, the national government won't be influenced by this pride. Instead, it will proceed with moderation and honesty to consider and decide on the best ways to help them out of the problems they face.

Moreover, it's well known that apologies, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory when they come from a strong, united nation. However, these same gestures would be rejected as unsatisfactory if they were offered by a state or a confederation with little influence or power.

In 1685, the state of Genoa upset Louis XIV and tried to make amends. He insisted they send their doge, or chief leader, along with four senators, to France to apologize and accept his conditions. They had to comply to maintain peace. Would he have ever demanded or accepted such humiliation from Spain, Britain, or any other powerful nation?

PUBLIUS

Federalist No. 4: The same topic continued (about dangers from foreign military and influence)

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, November 7, 1787

Author: Jay

To the people of the state of New York:

In my last paper, I explained several reasons why the safety of the people would be better protected by staying united, especially against the risk of giving other nations just reasons to go to war with us. These reasons demonstrate that such causes for war would not only happen less often, but would also be resolved more easily by a national government compared to individual state governments or the suggested smaller confederacies.

The safety of the American people from threats by foreign forces depends not only on avoiding giving legitimate reasons for other nations to go to war, but also on positioning themselves in a way that doesn't invite hostility or disrespect. It's important to note that there are both false and legitimate reasons for war.

It's unfortunately true, though it may be embarrassing to admit, that countries often go to war when they think they can gain something from it. In fact, absolute monarchs might even start wars that don't benefit their countries at all, just for personal reasons like a desire for military glory, revenge for personal insults, ambition, or private deals to boost or support their own families or supporters. These and many other reasons, which only matter to the ruler, often lead them to start wars that aren't justified by fairness or the interests of their people. But aside from these reasons for war, which are more common in absolute monarchies and deserve our attention, there are other reasons that affect both nations and kings. Some of these reasons, upon closer look, are due to our specific situations and circumstances.

We compete with France and Britain in the fishing industry, and we can provide fish to their markets at a lower cost than they can, even if they try to stop us by giving financial support to their own fishermen or by taxing foreign fish.

With them and with most other European countries, we are competitors in shipping and trade. We would be fooling ourselves if we think any of them would be happy to see our trade thrive. Since our trade can't grow without somewhat reducing theirs, it's more in their interest, and will be more their strategy, to limit rather than encourage it.

In trading with China and India, we are competing with more than one country because it allows us to share in benefits they almost exclusively had. By doing this, we get goods for ourselves that we used to buy from them.

Expanding our trade using our own ships won't make countries with territories on or near this continent happy. This is because our products are affordable and high-quality, plus we're close by. Our merchants and sailors are skilled and resourceful, which means we'll gain more benefits from these territories than their rulers would like or plan for.

Spain finds it convenient to block our access to the Mississippi River on one side, while Britain prevents us from using the Saint Lawrence River on the other side. Neither of them will allow the other waterways between them and us to be used for trade and communication.

From these and similar considerations, which could be expanded on if it were wise to do so, it's easy to see that suspicions and concerns might slowly creep into the minds and governments of other nations. We shouldn't expect them to view our growth in unity, power, and influence on land and sea with indifference or calmness.

The people of America understand that reasons for war can come from these situations, as well as from other less obvious ones, and that whenever these reasons find the right time and opportunity, excuses to justify them will not be lacking. Therefore, they wisely see that unity and a strong national government are essential to put and keep them in a position that, instead of attracting war, will help to prevent and discourage it. This position involves having the best possible defense, which depends on the government, the military, and the resources of the country.

Since the safety of everyone is in everyone's interest and can't be ensured without some form of government—whether it's one, a few, or many—let's consider whether one strong government might be more effective for this purpose than any other number of governments.

A single government can gather and make use of the skills and experience of the most talented individuals, no matter where they are in the union. It can operate based on consistent policy principles. It can bring together, align, and protect the different parts and members, and share the advantages of its planning and precautions with each one. When forming treaties, it will consider the interests of the entire nation, as well as the specific interests of different regions, as they relate to the whole. It can use the resources and power of the entire nation to defend any specific area more easily and quickly than state governments or separate alliances could, due to a lack of coordination and unified strategy. It can organize the militia under a single system of discipline, and by ensuring their officers are properly subordinate to the chief executive, it will effectively unify them into one force, making them more effective than if they were split into thirteen or three or four separate independent groups.

Imagine if the militia in Britain worked like this: the English militia only listened to the government of England, the Scottish militia only followed the government of Scotland, and the Welsh militia only took orders from the government of Wales. Now, think about what would happen if there was an invasion. Would these three separate governments, even if they managed to agree on something, be able to fight off the enemy as effectively as one united government of Great Britain could?

We've heard a lot about Britain's powerful navy, and if we're smart, there might come a time when America's navy gets the same attention. But if a single national government hadn't organized Britain's shipping industry to train sailors, and if it hadn't used all the country's resources to build fleets, their strength and reputation would never have been so famous. Imagine if England had its own separate shipping and fleet, Scotland had its own, Wales had its own, and Ireland had its own, each under independent governments. It's easy to see how quickly each would become relatively unimportant.

Let's apply these ideas to our own situation. Imagine America is split into thirteen, or if you prefer, three or four independent governments—what kind of armies could they raise and afford? What kind of fleets could they ever hope to have? If one of them was attacked, would the others rush to help and spend their resources and lives in its defense? Wouldn't there be a risk that they might be tempted to stay neutral by appealing promises, or be too eager for peace to risk their own stability and safety for the sake of neighbors they might be jealous of, and whose power they are okay with seeing reduced? Even though acting this way wouldn't be smart, it would still be a natural reaction. History is full of examples from the states of Greece and other countries, and it's likely that what has happened so many times before would happen again under similar circumstances.

But let's say they are willing to help the state or group of states that have been invaded. How, when, and in what amount will they provide help with soldiers and money? Who will lead the combined armies, and from which state will they take orders? Who will negotiate the terms of peace, and if there are disagreements, who will decide between them and enforce compliance? There would be many challenges and issues in such a situation. However, having one government that looks after the overall and shared interests, and coordinates and directs the powers and resources of everyone, would avoid all these problems and greatly enhance the safety of the people.

No matter what our situation is, whether we're strongly united under one national government or divided into several smaller alliances, foreign countries will see us exactly as we are and will treat us accordingly. If they see that our national government is effective and well-run, our trade is wisely managed, our military is well-organized and trained, our resources and finances are handled carefully, our credit is restored, and our people are free, happy, and united, they will be much more likely to seek our friendship rather than provoke our anger. On the other hand, if they find us lacking an effective government (with each state doing whatever seems convenient to its leaders), or split into three or four independent and probably conflicting republics or alliances, with one leaning towards Britain, another towards France, and a third towards Spain, and possibly being manipulated against each other by these countries, America will look weak and pathetic in their eyes! We would become vulnerable not only to their contempt but also to their aggression, and we would quickly learn the hard way that when a people or family divides, it always ends up working against themselves.

PUBLIUS

FEDERALIST No. 5: The same topic continued (about dangers from foreign military and political influence)

For the Independent Journal. Saturday, November 10, 1787

Jay

To the people of the state of New York:

In a letter dated July 1, 1706, Queen Anne wrote to the Scottish Parliament about the significance of the union being formed between England and Scotland, which is worth our attention. I'll share a couple of excerpts from it: "A complete and perfect union will be the solid foundation for lasting peace. It will protect your religion, freedom, and property; eliminate the conflicts among yourselves, and the suspicions and disagreements between our two kingdoms. It will boost your strength, wealth, and trade; and through this union, the whole island, united in spirit and free from any fears of conflicting interests, will be able to resist all its enemies." "We strongly urge you to approach this important matter with calmness and unity, so that the union can reach a successful conclusion. This is the only effective way to ensure our present and future happiness and to thwart the plans of our and your enemies, who will undoubtedly try their hardest to prevent or delay this union."

In the previous paper, it was noted that weakness and divisions within our own country would attract threats from other nations. It was also mentioned that nothing would protect us more from these threats than having unity, strength, and good government among ourselves. This topic is extensive and cannot be easily fully covered.

The history of Great Britain is the one we generally know best, and it offers us many valuable lessons. We can learn from their experiences without having to pay the same price they did. Even though it seems like common sense that the people of such an island should be united as one nation, we see that for many years they were divided into three separate nations. These three were almost always involved in conflicts and wars with each other. Despite the fact that their real interests regarding the countries on the continent were actually the same, the strategies and politics of those continental nations kept their mutual suspicions constantly stirred up. For many years, these suspicions made them more of a hassle and a problem to each other than they were helpful or supportive.

If the people of America were to split into three or four separate nations, wouldn't the same issues arise? Wouldn't similar jealousies develop and be encouraged? Instead of being "united in affection" and free from worries about different "interests," envy and jealousy would quickly destroy trust and affection. Each confederacy would focus only on its own interests, rather than the shared interests of all America. As a result, like most neighboring nations, they would either be constantly involved in disputes and wars or live in constant fear of them.

Even the most optimistic supporters of having three or four separate confederacies can't reasonably expect them to stay equally strong for long, even if they could be made equal at the start. But let's say that is possible—what human plan could ensure they stay equal? Besides the local factors that might boost power in one area and slow it down in another, we also have to consider the impact of better policies and management that might make one government stand out above the others. This would upset their balance of power and influence. It's unrealistic to think that each of these confederacies would consistently follow the same level of smart policies, careful planning, and foresight over many years.

Whenever, and for whatever reasons, it might happen—and it would happen—that one of these nations or alliances becomes much more politically important than its neighbors, those neighbors would immediately look at it with envy and fear. Both of these feelings would lead them to support, or at least not oppose, anything that might reduce its importance. They would also avoid actions that might help or even secure its prosperity. It wouldn't take long for this nation to notice these unfriendly attitudes. It would soon start not only losing trust in its neighbors but also feeling similarly negative towards them. Distrust naturally breeds more distrust, and nothing changes goodwill and friendly behavior faster than jealousies and unfair accusations, whether spoken or implied.

The North is generally the area with more power, and many local factors make it likely that the northernmost of the proposed groups would soon become clearly stronger than any of the others. As soon as this becomes obvious, the northern hive would stir up the same thoughts and feelings in the southern parts of America as it once did in the southern parts of Europe. It doesn't seem far-fetched to guess that its young groups might often be tempted to seek opportunities in the richer lands and gentler climate of their wealthier and more refined neighbors.

Those who carefully study the history of similar divisions and alliances will find plenty of reasons to worry that the ones being considered would only be neighbors in the sense that they share borders. They wouldn't love or trust each other; instead, they would fall victim to disagreements, jealousy, and harming one another. In short, this would put us in the exact situation that some nations probably want to see us in, which is being threatening only to each other.

From these considerations, it seems clear that those gentlemen are very mistaken if they think that offensive and defensive alliances could be formed between these confederacies, and that such alliances would create the necessary combination and unity of intentions, military forces, and resources to establish and maintain a strong defense against foreign enemies.

When did the independent states, into which Britain and Spain were once divided, ever join together in an alliance or unite their forces against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be separate nations. Each of them would have its own trade agreements with foreign countries, and since their products and goods are different and suited for different markets, those agreements would also be fundamentally different. Different trade interests would lead to different priorities, and naturally, different levels of political ties and connections with various foreign nations. As a result, it could very well happen that the foreign nation the southern confederacy is at war with might be the same one the northern confederacy wants to maintain peace and friendship with. An alliance that goes against their immediate interests would not be easy to form, and even if it were formed, it wouldn't be followed and honored with complete trust and sincerity.

In fact, it's much more likely that in America, just like in Europe, neighboring nations driven by conflicting interests and hostile emotions would often end up on opposing sides. Given our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these groups to feel threatened by each other rather than by faraway nations. As a result, each group would be more eager to protect themselves from one another by forming alliances with foreign powers, rather than forming alliances among themselves to guard against foreign threats. And let's not forget how much easier it is to allow foreign fleets into our ports and foreign armies into our country than it is to convince or force them to leave. The Romans and others made many conquests while acting as allies, and they introduced changes into the governments of those they claimed to protect under the same guise.

Let honest people decide whether splitting America into several independent states would actually protect us from the aggression and unwanted meddling of foreign countries.

Publius