A Divided America Would Be Prone to Foreign Influence and Strife
WEAKNESS AND DIVISIONS AT HOME WOULD INVITE DANGERS from abroad, and nothing would tend more to secure us from these dangers than union, strength, and good government within ourselves, as I noted in Federalist 4.
This copious subject is not easily exhausted.
Queen Anne, in her letter to the Scottish Parliament on the 1st of July 1706, observed the importance of the union then forming between England and Scotland, and it merits repeating:
“An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be enabled to resist all its enemies.” (Emphasis added.)
She added: “We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will undoubtedly, on this occasion, use their utmost endeavors to prevent or delay this union.” (Emphasis added.)
The Lessons from Great Britain
The history of Great Britain provides many profitable lessons for our use without payment of the price their experiences cost them.
While it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be one nation, for ages they were divided into three, and almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another.
Even though their true interests with respect to the European mainland were really the same, the arts, policies, and practices of those continental nations kept the mutual jealousies of the three governments of the island perpetually inflamed. For a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome to each other than they were useful and assisting.
The British Example Applied to a Divided America
If the People of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen?
Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being “joined in affection” and free from all apprehension of different “interests,” envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection.
Instead of pursuing the general interests of all of America, the partial interest of each confederacy would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits.
Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or living in the constant apprehension of them.
Superior policy and good management would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest. Their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed. One cannot presume the same degree of prudence, foresight and sound policy would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies for a long succession of years.
However it might happen – and happen it would – if any one of these nations or confederacies were to rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, those neighbors would behold her with envy and fear. Those passions would lead the neighbors to countenance and promote whatever might promise to diminish the importance of the prospering confederacy, and to restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. The prospering confederacy would soon discern these unfriendly dispositions, and begin to lose confidence in her neighbors and to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is goodwill and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.
The Likely Conflict Between North and South
The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that in the near future the proposed northern confederacies unquestionably would be more formidable than any of the others. As soon as this became evident the young swarms of this northern hive might be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors. The same ideas and sensations the northern islands formerly excited in the more southern parts of Europe would be aroused in the southern parts of America.
The history of similar divisions and confederacies shows that northern and southern confederacies of States would be borderers rather than neighbors, who would neither love nor trust one another. We would be prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries. We then would be formidable only to each other, a situation some other nations doubtless wish to see.
Greatly mistaken are those who suppose alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, producing a union of wills, arms, and resources necessary to put them and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign enemies. Did the independent states into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided ever combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy?
The proposed confederacies would be distinct nations, each regulating its commerce with foreigners by distinct treaties. Since the productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns necessarily create different interests, with different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. A foreign nation with whom a southern confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom a northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to the northern confederacy’s immediate interests would not be easily formed, and if formed, would not be observed or fulfilled with perfect good faith.
* * *
The history of similar divisions and confederacies shows that northern and southern confederacies of States would be borderers rather than neighbors, who would neither love nor trust one another. We would be prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries. We then would be formidable only to each other, a situation some other nations undoubtedly wish to see.
* * *
Alliances Between Distinct American Confederacies and Foreign Nations Would Destroy Unity
It is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations – acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions – would frequently be found taking different sides. It would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations.
Each of them would be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. It would be natural to receive foreign fleets into their ports, and foreign armies into their lands. Lest we forget, it is far easier to receive foreign fleets and armies than to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make by appearing as allies to the governments of those whom they pretended to protect?
Let candid persons judge, then, whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.
In Federalist 6, I explain why republics are as subject as to rivalries, intrigues and wars as monarchies.
Jay