The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations & to harrass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest.
So let me get this straight Mr Madison:
IF the central government denies protection, which you hereby declare is its responsibility, of any subject State from invasion across the national border, then that State is "spiteful" and "mistaken" in defending its "views of interest?"
This thought sounds to me like a totally subjective reaction to the issues and events of the moment (various dissension among the colonies), hardly infinite wisdom for all time.
Our forefathers were admirable men, but hardly all-knowing.
Johnny Suntrade
Madison’s view,like Hamilton’s, was that states could be subordinately useful. You couldn’t get rid of them outright, but at least you could subjugate them in a way that was politically expedient. He says so right in this letter. In fact, that’s what “federalism” is—a national government with the phony pretense of a confederacy.
As for protection . . . what you are talking about?
His ideas, like those of other Founders/Framers, continued to evolve over the decades since before the revolution. His proposals were far from spur of the moment.
No one walked out of the convention with the document he expected at the beginning.
Any attribution of "all knowing" is your construct, not theirs nor mine.
Jacquerie
‘IF the central government denies protection, which you hereby declare is its responsibility, of any subject State from invasion across the national border, then that State is “spiteful” and “mistaken” in defending its “views of interest?”’
I think you are referring to controlling immigration, but during this period that was completely controlled by the states.