See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
[November 14, 1787]
To the People of New York.
Introduction and General Outline of Dangers
The last three essays outlined the dangers we’d face from foreign powers if the states were disunited. Now, I’ll turn to a different—perhaps even greater—threat: the dangers that would arise from conflicts between the states themselves, along with domestic factions and uprisings. These risks have already been mentioned briefly, but they deserve a deeper and more thorough examination.
Only someone lost in utopian fantasies could seriously believe that if the states were completely disunited—or joined only in small, partial confederacies—they wouldn’t constantly clash. It’s naïve to assume they’d lack motives for conflict, given that ambition, vengeance, and greed drive human behavior. Expecting lasting harmony among independent, neighboring states is to ignore both the consistent course of human history and the lessons drawn from centuries of experience.ing its institutions.
Causes of Hostility and Pericles’ Story
The causes of conflict among nations are countless. Some are nearly universal and affect entire societies: the desire for power and dominance—or, conversely, the fear of losing power and the quest for equality and safety. Others arise from more specific sources, like commercial rivalries between trading nations. Still others stem from purely personal passions: the attachments, enmities, ambitions, and fears of influential individuals. Whether in monarchies or republics, such people often abuse the trust placed in them, disguising personal ambition as public duty and sacrificing national peace for their own gain.
Take Pericles, for example. To satisfy the grudge of a mistress, he led Athens into a bloody and costly war against the Samnians.¹ Later, to settle a score with the Megarensians,² avoid prosecution for embezzlement,³ or escape accusations of wasting public funds to buy popularity—or perhaps for all these reasons combined—Pericles became the primary cause of the Peloponnesian War. That long and ruinous conflict ultimately brought down the Athenian republic.⁴
Cardinal Wolsey, European Wars, and Personal Motives
Cardinal Wolsey, Prime Minister to Henry VIII, aspired to wear the triple crown of the papacy.⁵ Hoping to secure the favor of Emperor Charles V, Wolsey pushed England into war with France—against sound policy and at great risk to the kingdom’s security. For if any sovereign ever seemed poised to achieve universal monarchy, it was Emperor Charles V, whose intrigues made Wolsey both his instrument and his dupe.⁶
The influence that the bigotry of one woman,⁷ the petulance of another,⁸ and the intrigues of a third⁹ exerted on the politics, conflicts, and treaties of much of Europe has been so thoroughly discussed that it is generally well known.
We need not multiply examples of how personal ambitions have driven national events—whether in foreign wars or domestic strife. Those with even a modest understanding of history will easily recall countless instances. And those familiar with human nature hardly need such examples to know how often personal motives shape public policy.
Perhaps a recent case of this principle is worth mentioning. If Shays had not been a desperate debtor, would Massachusetts have been plunged into civil war?¹⁰
Refuting the Myth of Peaceful Republics
Despite the overwhelming testimony of history, there are still dreamers and schemers who insist that if the states were to separate, peace would naturally follow. Republics, they argue, are peaceful by nature. Commerce will civilize and soften men’s tempers, extinguishing the passions that ignite wars. They claim that commercial republics like ours would never waste themselves in destructive conflicts but would be guided by mutual interest and cultivate lasting harmony.
But is it not the true interest of all nations to embrace this “benevolent and philosophical” spirit? If that is their true interest, have they followed it? Has human behavior ever been governed by such distant considerations of policy or justice? Or do immediate passions and interests always exert a stronger influence?
Have republics been less prone to war than monarchies? Are they not governed by men, just like monarchies? Are popular assemblies immune to rage, jealousy, greed, and other violent impulses? Are they not frequently swayed by a few trusted individuals whose passions then shape national decisions?
Has commerce ended war—or has it merely changed its causes? Is the love of wealth not as dangerous and domineering a passion as the desire for glory or power? Have there not been as many wars founded on commercial motives since commerce became dominant as were once driven by the lust for territory and power? Has commerce not, in many instances, supplied new incentives for both?
Let experience—the least fallible guide of human opinion—be our judge on this question.
Historical Examples of Republics at War
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics—two of them, Athens and Carthage, were commercial republics. Yet they were just as often at war as the neighboring monarchies of their time. Sparta resembled little more than a well-regulated military camp, while Rome was never satisfied with anything short of conquest and bloodshed.
Carthage, despite being a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the war that led to its destruction. Hannibal carried Carthaginian arms into the heart of Italy and to the very gates of Rome before Scipio defeated him on Carthaginian soil and brought down the commonwealth.¹¹
In more modern times, Venice—a leading commercial republic—engaged in wars of ambition until Pope Julius II formed a powerful league to curb its growing power.¹²
The Dutch Republic, until overwhelmed by debt and taxes, played a dominant role in European wars. They fought bitterly with England for control of the seas and were among the fiercest opponents of Louis XIV.
In Britain, the representatives of the people form one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been the predominant pursuit of the nation for centuries. Yet few countries have been more frequently at war. And in many cases, it was the people—not the monarchy—who instigated those wars.
Popular Wars and Commercial Rivalries
There have been, if I may put it this way, almost as many wars driven by popular demand as by royal ambition. Time and again, the cries of the people and the pressure of their representatives have dragged reluctant monarchs into war—or forced them to remain in one—against their own inclinations and often against the true interests of the state.
Consider the long struggle for dominance between the Houses of Austria and Bourbon, which kept Europe in turmoil for years. It is well known that English antipathy toward the French, fueled by the ambition—or rather the greed—of a favored leader,¹³ prolonged the war far beyond what sound policy would have dictated and contrary to the wishes of the Court.
Many of the wars of Britain and France have been driven largely by commercial motives—the desire to displace competitors in specific trades or protect broader trading advantages. Sometimes these motives have been even less defensible, amounting to an outright desire to share in the commerce of other nations without their consent.
Take, for example, the war between Britain and Spain that began in 1739.¹⁴ English merchants had engaged in illicit trade with the Spanish colonies in the Americas. These unjustifiable practices provoked harsh retaliation from the Spaniards—punishments that exceeded the bounds of just reprisal and became inhumane. Many captured English sailors were sent to work in the mines of Potosi. Over time, innocent traders were punished alongside the guilty.
The merchants’ complaints ignited a national outcry, which quickly spread to the House of Commons and then to the King’s ministers. Letters of reprisal were issued, and the resulting war shattered all the alliances that, just twenty years earlier, had been established with high hopes for lasting peace.
Conclusion and Practical Wisdom
From this summary of history—especially from nations whose situations most closely resemble our own—what reason do we have to trust in these fantasies of perpetual peace between disunited states? Haven’t we already seen enough of the absurdity of theories that promise an escape from the imperfections, weaknesses, and troubles that afflict all human societies?
Is it not time to wake from this deceitful dream of a golden age? Should we not adopt the more practical maxim that we, like the rest of mankind, remain far from the reign of perfect wisdom and virtue?
Let our current situation testify. Look at the depths to which our national dignity and credit have sunk. Look at the widespread troubles caused by weak and poorly administered government. Let the revolt in western North Carolina,¹⁵ the recent threats in Pennsylvania,¹⁶ and the actual insurrections in Massachusetts¹⁵ bear witness to the dangers that already confront us.
So far is the general sense of mankind from supporting the idea that neighboring states would remain at peace if left to themselves, that experience teaches the opposite. Proximity breeds rivalry, and history tells us that neighboring nations are natural enemies.
An insightful writer puts it this way: “Neighboring nations are naturally enemies unless their shared weakness forces them into a confederate republic, where a common constitution prevents the disputes that arise from proximity and extinguishes the hidden jealousy that drives all states to expand at the expense of their neighbors.”¹⁸ This passage identifies both the danger and the solution.
— Publius
¹ The Samnians (also called Samians) were citizens of Samos, a city-state in ancient Greece involved in conflicts with Athens.
² The Megarensians were citizens of Megara, another Greek city-state frequently at odds with Athens.
³ A footnote in the original explained that Phidias, a famed sculptor, was accused of embezzling public funds for his statue of Minerva, allegedly with Pericles’ approval.
⁴ The Peloponnesian War (431–404 BCE) was a prolonged conflict between Athens and Sparta that weakened the Greek city-states and marked the end of Athens’ golden age.
⁵ The “triple crown,” or papal tiara, symbolized the Pope’s supreme authority over the Church.
⁶ Emperor Charles V (1500–1558), ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, aimed to dominate Europe and came close to achieving that goal.
⁷ Madame de Maintenon according to a footnote in the original. She was secretly married to Louis XIV in 1684 and persuaded him to persecute the Huguenots, likely the “bigotry” referenced here.
⁸ The Duchess of Marlborough (Sarah Churchill) according to a footnote in the original. She was a close confidante and advisor to Queen Anne of England. Known for her imperious manner and political ambition, she ultimately fell out of favor with the Queen. Their friendship turned into bitter rivalry, leading to the Duchess’s dismissal in 1710 and the subsequent fall of her husband, the Duke of Marlborough.
⁹ Madame de Pompadour according to a footnote in the original. She held significant influence over French politics for two decades (1745–1765). Since Louis XV showed little interest in selecting his ministers, many appointments were made through court intrigues in which Madame de Pompadour played a leading role.
¹⁰ Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787) was an armed uprising in western Massachusetts led by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays. The rebellion, driven by economic hardship and debt, sought to prevent the seizure of farms by closing the courts.
¹¹ Carthage was a powerful city-state in North Africa and a major rival of Rome. The conflict referenced here is the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), during which the Carthaginian general Hannibal famously crossed the Alps to invade Italy. His campaign nearly defeated Rome before the Roman general Scipio Africanus counterattacked and decisively defeated him at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE, leading to Carthage’s decline.
¹² The League of Cambrai (1508–1510) was an alliance formed by Pope Julius II, the Holy Roman Emperor, and several European monarchs to curb the growing influence of Venice.
¹³ The House of Austria (Habsburgs) and the House of Bourbon were two dominant European dynasties that frequently clashed for power. This reference is to the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), a major conflict over who would inherit the Spanish throne. According to a footnote in the original, the “favored leader” was the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill), commander-in-chief of the allied forces of England and Holland. He played a key role in this war. Known for his military genius, Marlborough prolonged the conflict by refusing peace negotiations in 1709, despite opposition from England’s Tory Party.
¹⁴ The War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739–1748) was sparked by conflicts over British trade with Spanish America. The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) had allowed limited British trade in the region, but illegal practices provoked Spanish retaliation, including harsh punishments for captured English sailors.
¹⁵ The “revolt” refers to the short-lived State of Franklin, established in 1784 by settlers in western North Carolina. Dissension within Franklin and opposition from North Carolina led to its collapse in 1787.
¹⁶ The disturbances in Pennsylvania occurred in 1787 in the Wyoming Valley, where some inhabitants attempted to secede and form a new state, leading to armed conflict.
¹⁷ Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787). See footnote 10.
¹⁸ This quote is from Gabriel Bonnot de Mably’s Des Principes des Négociations (1757), in which Mably argues that neighboring states are natural rivals unless they form a federal republic, similar to the Swiss model, which prevents conflict through shared governance and mutual restraint.
See all modernizations at my Federalist Project page.
teddy ray 