Hamilton’s Federalist paper #7 convincingly argues why a strong federal government is crucial and indispensable in order to avoid dissensions between the states of the union. With respect to the dangers of rivalries among the states, the Federalist paper (#7) begins by asking the following key question: What inducements the states could have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? This question, for Hamilton, deserves “full answer” with respect to the United States as an emerging nation. Accordingly, if disunities persist in the State of the Union, the desired results are not any different from the ones experienced, at different times, in other nations in the world. Hamilton’s Federalist paper suggests four different types of conflicts that could lead to war if a strong federal government is not established: Territorial disputes, commercial disputes, debt liability and dispute over conflicting laws. First, dispute over territory is the source of hostility among nations. The United States is not exempt from such a conflict because of “a vast tract of unsettled territory within its boundaries. More importantly, each of the states, Hamilton argues, would have equally good claim to the title of a land if the federal government were to be dissolved (e.g., real boundary dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut) Second type of conflict, disputes over commerce is that the very fact that states are unequal in natural resources and that each tends to pursue its own commercial policy, contention is inevitable. A federal government is thus necessary to prevent conflict between the states, and prevent one from taking advantage of the other. The third type of conflict, debt acquired during the war of independence, would be a source for friction or a further cause of collusion between the separate states of confederacies. Hamilton observes that some states felt morally obligated to pay off the war-time debt while other states had no interests in paying off the debt. Thus, federal government arbitration is crucial. Fourth and last, dispute over conflicting laws would be a source for contention between the separate states. For instance, a private contract between two parties might be legal in one state but not in another. According to Hamilton, a federal court under a federal government could help provide the coercive force necessary to make sure that the losing parties in one state complies with the ruling of the judge to avoid recurrence to arms.
Shortly, Hamilton believes that, given the dangers from dissensions between the states, federal government would be the real solution to the newly sovereign states of the union. Giving up certain rights to the federal or national government would stop behaviors that could lead the states to war against each other. Therefore, for Hamilton, disunity among the states of the union could not be an option because, America, if not connected all, would gradually find itself engaged in a Hobbesian war or in “all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars.”
Shortly, Hamilton believes that, given the dangers from dissensions between the states, federal government would be the real solution to the newly sovereign states of the union. Giving up certain rights to the federal or national government would stop behaviors that could lead the states to war against each other. Therefore, for Hamilton, disunity among the states of the union could not be an option because, America, if not connected all, would gradually find itself engaged in a Hobbesian war or in “all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars.”
The Federalists saw the importance of quickly unifying the former colonies into a singular nation with a strong federal government, in stark contrast to the prevailing national viewpoint at the time and the pathway commonly set forth by other British Empire possessions that either fought for independence or negotiated Dominion status from Westminster. Lobbying for a unified government laid out over such a vast territory is a true testament to the eventual United States becoming, at first, a continental power, then a global one in the 20th Century, and was a foundational principle for the long lasting unity and stability that remains across the American political landscape. In contrast to Europe, where such potentially divisive factors as noted in this essay led to multiple wars, the Federalists had the foresight to see this possibility and offer a remedy to prevent it from occurring in North America.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe framers saw how a dusuinited unoin with a weak federal government would be unable to functioin. They had the Articles of Confederation and Shay's Rebellion
ReplyDeleteThe federal government should be strong to enable it to solve disptes that might escalate if the federal government was weak. Territorial disputes, commercial disputes, debt liability and dispute over conflicting laws would be the conflict they would be facing. Most of these would be disputed between nations. For them to be disputes between States would be the demise of the union.
Even though the Federalist calls on a strong national government, it really was not as strong on the key issue that should have been addressed in the Federalist; that is slavery. It is not brought up and ends up breaking the union into conflict. It was not the other three that weere listed, but rather the issue of human bondage.
I think that the framers were right in trying to unify the states that form the United States of America. Yet, it does not seem that they really set the tone in terms of where the rights of the states begin and end or where the rights of the Federal government begin and end. They were ambiguous in this instance. Since they were anxious at increasing the power of federal government in relation to foreign powers, the rights of the states were secondary in their mind, not primordial.
ReplyDelete