What the Founding Fathers Really Said (Part II of a Series)

Man, John Jay was really wordy. He used a lot of words to say very little. Federalist Papers No. 2,3,4 and 5 were about the importance of the Union for the security of the nation. Jay argues that the first order of a government is to secure its people. He thought that the Union would be a more powerful and deliberate way to secure peace. He viewed a confederation of independent states as unruly and prone to irrational and unjust conflict based on emotion and pride. He also thought that a wise national government would be more able to cool the passions and particularistic interests of states. Jay also highlighted the importance of following international law (the laws of war at the time) with respect to other nations. Here are a few excerpts.

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. 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.

The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. 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. 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.

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 you have it, the justification of war is the violation of treaties and direct violence. Sponsoring terrorism would probably fall under that category of direct violence. How would the Iraq War fit into this conception? Can you make it fit? I am skeptical.

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.

The rest of 4 and 5 emphasize that a united country would be less likely to be threatened by foreign force, more easily defended, and less likely to quarrel among themselves.

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist 6,7, and 8. He is becoming one of my favorite Founding Fathers. He argued, in a very realist sense, that human nature is power grabbing and a confederacy of independent states would lead to conflict. He also warns against professional militaries, saying that they elevate the military above the citizens and can lead to increased conflict. Perhaps the Founder's intended that the military be drafted, but who supports this nowadays?

James Madison wrote 9 and 10, mainly extolling the virtues of unity and the desirability of a republic to check the passions of a nefarious majority. He also came out against paper money. I guess that battle has been lost. Do we really want to go back to using gold? The necessities of a modern economy cannot jibe with some of the Founders' intents, and I think that if they were alive today they would realize that.

Hamiton, in 11, wrote of the benefit of the Union towards the creation of a navy and the assertion of US commercial interests. This passage was really interesting:

The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority, and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America--that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere.1 Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will will add another victim to his triumphs.

An interesting acknowledgement of the Eurocentric nature of the world and the ideological pathologies that resulted from that.

Federalist 12, 13, and 14 generally describe the benefits of the Union for the economy and revenue collection. Hamilton extols the virtues of free trade for the US and argues for a consumption tax rather than a property tax given that most of the country's people are employed in agriculture their land is not easily turned into a revenue stream capable of paying taxes, as would a rentier landlord or a commercial enterprise. Clearly, the founding fathers designed the tax system to suit the nature of the economy of the time. If the economy had been different I'm sure they would have proposed a different system.