Posted on 03/04/2010 7:56:50 AM PST by Publius
John Jay had been battle tested in the diplomatic offices and salons of Paris and Madrid, and had navigated the infant Republic through the shoals of French, Spanish and British intrigue. More than anyone else, he understood the duplicity behind the smiles and kind words from European powers, both friendly and not so friendly. He knew precisely what the Great Powers of Europe were up to. He was nobody’s fool.
In this essay, Jay explores the dangers of one foreign policy versus thirteen separate foreign policies.
1 To the People of the State of New York:
2 It is not a new observation that the people of any country – if, like the Americans, intelligent and well informed – seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests.
3 That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes.
4 The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive.
5 Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first.
6 The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.
7 At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the 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.
8 As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed.
9 Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad.
10 The number of wars which have happened, or will happen, in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or pretended, which provoke or invite them.
11 If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many just causes of war are likely to be given by United America as by Disunited America, for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
12 The just causes of war for the most part arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.
13 America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime and therefore able to annoy and injure us.
14 She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain and Britain, and with respect to the two latter has in addition the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
15 It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate states or by three or four distinct confederacies.
16 Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it, for although town or country or other contracted influence may place men in state assemblies or senates or courts of justice or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, especially as it will have the widest field for choice and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the states.
17 Hence it will result that the administration, the political counsels and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical and judicious than those of individual states, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations as well as more safe with respect to us.
18 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; whereas adjudications on the same points and questions in thirteen states or in three or four confederacies will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them.
19 The wisdom of the Convention in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by, and responsible only to, one national government cannot be too much commended.
20 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.
21 The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.
22 Because even if the governing party in a state should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may and commonly do result from circumstances peculiar to the state and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated or to punish the aggressors.
23 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.
24 So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people.
25 As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter.
26 Because such [violence is] more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two states than of the Union.
27 Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is, but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual states who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
28 The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some states and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers.
29 The bordering states, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely by direct violence to excite war with these nations, and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.
30 But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably.
31 They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending state.
32 The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses.
33 The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.
34 Besides, it is well known that 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.
35 In the year 1685 the state of Genoa, having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him.
36 He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France to ask his pardon and receive his terms.
37 They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace.
38 Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other powerful nation?
Jay’s Critique
This is a very short piece, confined to a single subject.
7 At present I mean only to consider [the matter of safety] as it respects security for the 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.
At this point in Jay’s lengthy career, foreign policy was his most noted area of expertise; indeed, except for Franklin, he was pre-eminent in the field, having served as the Confederation Congress’ Secretary for Foreign Affairs for the five years preceding the Federalist Papers. Thus his word on the matter must have carried considerable weight. Having negotiated with several foreign nations already, he has an eye for potential sources of friction.
13 America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime and therefore able to annoy and injure us.
14 She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain and Britain, and with respect to the two latter has in addition the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.
The last phrase is an allusion to the presence of Spanish claims in the south, and British in the north and west of the new nation, both of which would in time produce armed conflicts.
15 It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate states or by three or four distinct confederacies.
There is, of course, the obvious point that it is far less likely for foreign governments to play one regional government off against another than it is to split a unified federal government.
20 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.
But Jay’s argument takes an interesting turn first.
16 Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it, for although town or country or other contracted influence may place men in state assemblies or senates or courts of justice or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, especially as it will have the widest field for choice and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the states.
17 Hence it will result that the administration, the political counsels and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical and judicious than those of individual states, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations as well as more safe with respect to us.
In short, inasmuch as it offers a wider arena, the federal government will attract superior talent. It is a point unlikely to be attractive to the prickly state governments of the time; indeed, the reader has already encountered the objection of Samuel Bryan in Centinel #1 that it would likely lead to an aristocracy, a ruling class remote from the citizens. This at best would be a two-edged sword.
The reader comes to Jay’s speculation – for that is all that it is – that a unified federal government will be less likely to embark in needless wars with the sundry Native American tribes.
27 Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is, but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual states who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
It is not apparent whether Jay was ascribing the lack of such wars to the centralization of the existing federal government – which is, after all, the issue at hand – or to its weakness. In any case, the implication is that a strong federal government will be less likely to be swayed by local circumstances into an inappropriate response, and yet strong enough to respond in places where local governments could not. There are, however, disadvantages to the remoteness of a central federal government alluded to by Jay in the previous piece – and unacknowledged in this one – that would also become apparent in the coming century.
There would be, for example, a local commander who vociferously opposed the decision made by the federal government to relocate certain tribes to reservation areas that made little sense to anyone actually on the scene. In fact, this commander would travel back to Washington DC to testify against such policies, nearly costing him his command for insubordination, and in the end losing his life attempting to enforce policies he detested. His name was George Armstrong Custer.
Jay could hardly have foreseen the specifics, but the principles were certainly not difficult to anticipate. The subsequent history of the federal government with respect to treaties with Native Americans would be a sorry one indeed and remains a point of political sensitivity to this day. Would a decentralized set of governments, more aware of local conditions, have done any better? In any case, one cannot cede Jay this particular point, but the advantages of negotiating, whether with foreign or native nations, on the basis of a single united front, are not to be denied. Jay leaves the reader with a cautionary tale.
35 In the year 1685 the state of Genoa, having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him.
36 He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France to ask his pardon and receive his terms.
37 They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace.
38 Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other powerful nation?
The warning is clear. Power is respected, it is the only thing that is respected between nations, and a single unified federal government speaking for the United States would possess a credibility and a potential menace that smaller regional, or even state, governments could not match. Jay knew from personal experience that such a credibility, such a menace, was necessary to preserve the peace in a world that could be most predatory toward the weak.
The resolve and unity of the new nation was to be tested, and soon, first by the Barbary states and then the British. Jay himself would be instrumental in putting off the latter test for nearly twenty years, but in the end it would come. When it did, despite the occupation and burning of the new nation’s capital, the British would find themselves engaged by one nation, not thirteen. It would prove barely enough.
Discussion Topics
Thirteen or more separate states could not be as strong as one United States of America. They would be easily turned against each other by foreign diplomatic intrigue. Actually they would probably turn against each other before that just because they have different and competing economic and social interests. Eventually the foreigners (presumably the British, but not necessarily) would waltz in and be hailed for liberating the disunited states from the scourge of war by imposing its will. Presumably we would now all happily be singing “God Save the Queen” before our cricket games and soccer matches if it were the British.
I understand that you hate the Constitution. That is regrettable, but that is your problem.
...following the radicalism of the French Revolution Henry's views changed as he began to fear a similar fate could befall America and by the late 1790s Henry was in support of the Federalist policies of Washington and Adams. He especially denounced the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which had been secretly written by Jefferson and Madison, and approved by the legislatures of those two states. He warned that civil war was threatened because Virginia, "had quitted the sphere in which she had been placed by the Constitution, and, in daring to pronounce upon the validity of federal laws, had gone out of her jurisdiction in a manner not warranted by any authority, and in the highest degree alarming to every considerate man; that such opposition, on the part of Virginia, to the acts of the general government, must beget their enforcement by military power; that this would probably produce civil war, civil war foreign alliances, and that foreign alliances must necessarily end in subjugation to the powers called in." ... He strongly supported John Marshall and at the urging of Washington stood for and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates as a Federalist.
Once the Constitution had been ratified, Robert Yates, who was probably Brutus, also said that the debate was over and the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
Wish I had time to respond other than to say the above quote is funny.
I'm really starting to hate this guy.. John Kerry pops into my mind when I read this. Puffed up with unearned money and elitism.
Despite this.. He makes some good points but he is profoundly naive.
The ubermenshen that are so wise to want to rule over us couldn't possibly have ulterior motives, like power, greed, political ideology that would put the nation at risk.
We defeated the British without consolidated government.
We did it without the Articles of Confederation as well, which were ratified just a few months before victory at Yorktown. We won at Yorktown despite the Articles and due to the assistance of the French Army, Navy and the efforts of a Virginia military dictator. His name was Thomas Nelson and his predations were made necessary by inadequate government. Absent his requisitions against the people of Virginian the combined armies may not have prevailed against the British.
This guy makes a number of great points.
That’s not Henry admitting he was wrong in opposing the Constitution. He didn’t recant on any of that. He simply accepted the outcome of the ratification and served honorably under the new system.
Brutal irony in all of that. Henry tried to warn them, but no, they had to have their new fangled system. Then almost immediately they scrambled around trying to deal with the damage they'd wrought,and there was Henry, properly interpreting the system THEY created.
Oh, now you have the time! Let's hear it.
But you seem to want disunion, to think it's a good thing.
chuckle. You're just like John Jay, conflating opposition to the Consitution with disunion.
Too bad the Anti-federalists didn't man up and actually produce their Anti-constitution. I'm sure it would have been the eighth wonder of the world.
It's 2010. The Anti-federalists have produced squat for 223 consecutive years. Will they finally produce this year? You can hold your breath - I won't.
lol. Thanks for showing your true colors.
but never came up with their alternative, their “Anti-constitution” to give it a name for purposes of argument. Since they never came up with their Anti-constitution that left only two choices: The Constitution or nothing, i.e. disunion.
That's nowhere near the truth. For one, we already had a government. Rejection of the Constitution would not have returned them to a state of nature. It would have been just another day under the Articles of Confederation.
The "alternative" to the Constitution is what sent the delegates to Philly in the first place. They were asked to make specific changes to the Articles, but certain delegates, particularly Hamilton and Madison, already had their plan to adopt a new, centralized, national government, and so they seized the opportunity, showing up with a draft already written.
The Anti-federalists have produced squat for 223 consecutive years.
What the antifederalists produced was an accurate critique of the national system created by the Constitution, and some good predictions of the abuses that would follow.
Anyway, I find your hostility and name-calling amusing. Thanks for the entertainment.
Uh, being a student freshly exposed to the roots of our form of government, I must admit that, so far, the Bill of Rights seems to be the child of the Anti-Federalists.
Today, conversation about our form of government is likely, more often than not, to discuss which amendment is being challenged.
Line 27 appears to be an outlier compared to his prior arguments. One can accept that there was no 'official' declaration of war against Indians in part or in whole but the effects of alliances and treaties would have a negative impact on a large scale and soon be realized. Retributions against the Loyalists did not distinguish between Europeans and Indians.
He describes a great gathering of able men to the benefit of all. It can also be interpreted as having the ability to control remote areas and future states from a central authority.
The power of the government ultimately rests with the individual. Given to states or the union, the source remains the same. Jay makes a valid point that a larger group of individuals uniting together has an exponentially stronger bargaining position. He is too willing to overlook the fact (as sig226 says in post 3) "Often the king’s men do not care about the best interests of the king."
24 So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people.
It is understandable that 'one world government' was not an issue at the time. The world influence of a country was generally defined by the range of it's weapons, ships being one of the farthest ranging. Today is different, of course, and we have ICBMs. The consolidation of all governments of our planet would be the logical outcome of his ideology.
Review your own comments directed at John Jay and Gov. Randolph. Your first resort is the ad-hominem. Keep laughing. It suits those who substitute emotion for thought.
Seceding? From a perpetual Union? Surely you jest!!
Fact is that they ALL did seced from the "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation and formed a NEW government under the Constitution. How did they legally do that?
If their criticisms had been accurate they would have continued to point them out after the Constitution was ratified. They weren't and they didn't. Once it was in operation they realized that their criticisms were wrong. They shut up.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. After it was ratified, and the first congress was in session, they added 10 amendments to the Constitution to attempt to improve some of its obvious deficiencies. That's hardly shutting up.
As for who turned out to be wrong, history has shown who was right and who was wrong. Do we have a judiciary that is virtually unchecked and expands federal power? Do we have a congress that deems almost anything within the scope of its "necessary and proper" powers? Do we have states that have been neutered to the point of being mere agents or depaertments of the national government? These were the predictions of the antifederalists.
Or, on the other hand, do we have robust states and a federal government of "few and defined" powers." That was the federalist argument.
Obviously, the question answers itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.