|
Federalist Paper No. 6
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions
Between the States
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
To the People of the State of New York:
THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of
the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts
of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps,
still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions
between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been
already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and
more full investigation.
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if
these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies,
the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests
with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against
their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To
look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected
sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human
events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.
The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which
have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of
this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion--the
jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a
more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are
the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are
others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in
private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading
individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the
favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they
possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice
the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.
The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute,1
at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished,
and destroyed the city of the SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against
the MEGARENSIANS,2 another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with
which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias,3
or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the
funds of the state in the purchase of popularity,4 or from a combination of all
these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the
Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes,
intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.
The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII., permitting his
vanity to aspire to the triple crown,5 entertained hopes of succeeding in the
acquisition of that splendid prize by the influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure
the favor and interest of this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England
into a war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at the hazard of
the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over which he presided by his
counsels, as of Europe in general. For if there ever was a sovereign who bid fair to
realize the project of universal monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V., of whose
intrigues Wolsey was at once the instrument and the dupe.
The influence which the bigotry of one female,6 the petulance of
another,7 and the cabals of a third,8 had in the contemporary
policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that
have been too often descanted upon not to be generally known.
To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the production
of great national events, either foreign or domestic, according to their direction, would
be an unnecessary waste of time. Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the
sources from which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a variety of instances;
and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will not stand in need of such
lights to form their opinion either of the reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps,
however, a reference, tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be
made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a
DESPERATE DEBTOR, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged
into a civil war.
But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular,
there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the
paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each
other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a
tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which
have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed
to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by
mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all
nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true
interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found
that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control
over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice?
Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former
administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections,
rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are
not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy,
avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their
determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and
are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has
commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of
wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not
been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing
system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has
not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the
appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of
human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and
Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and
defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than
a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.
Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that
ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the
gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of
Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.
Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till,
becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish
that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of
this haughty republic.
The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a
leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England
for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of
the opponents of Louis XIV.
In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one
branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of
that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the
wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from
the people.
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars.
The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various
occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their
inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable
struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA and BOURBON, which so long
kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the
French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,10
protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable
time in opposition to the views of the court.
The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out
of commercial considerations,--the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted,
either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and
navigation.
From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations
have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those
reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the
members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen
enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with
promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society
in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to
adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as
the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom
and perfect virtue?
Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit
have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of
government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing
disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in
Massachusetts, declare--!
So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of
those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the
States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of
society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation,
constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this
subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (says he) are naturally enemies of each
other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and
their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing
that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of
their neighbors."11 This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL
and suggests the REMEDY.
PUBLIUS.
(Continue to Page 7)
1 Aspasia, vide "Plutarch's Life of Pericles." 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.
4 Ibid. Phidias was supposed to have stolen some public gold, with the connivance of
Pericles, for the embellishment of the statue of Minerva. 5 P Worn by the popes.
6 Madame de Maintenon. 7 Duchess of Marlborough. 8 Madame de Pompadour.
9 The League of Cambray, comprehending the Emperor, the King of France, the King of
Aragon, and most of the Italian princes and states. 10 The Duke of Marlborough.
11 Vide "Principes des Negociations" par 1'Abbe de Mably.
American Historical Documents | Educational Stuff Main | Home
|
