The Federalist 2:
Written by John Jay
Government is necessary.
There are challenges to the need for union by new voices who’d prefer division.
America has been one country by the land and by the homogeneity of the people. It is providence that these men and this land have been made for each other.
- Discussion: How important do you think homogeneity is to uniting people?
- Discussion: How do you think this argument contrasts to the concept of America as a melting pot, where we celebrate that people of many stripes and creeds can get along?
As a nation we have made peace and war, made alliances, acted as a union most generally.
These people instituted a federal government. It was good but imperfect.
The constitutional convention consisted of trusted men from across the territories. There is much praise for these men and the convention. All meetings of congress thus far have invariably joined with the people in thinking the prosperity of America relies on its union.
People who propose confederacies over the new constitution seem to foresee that rejection of the constitution would put the whole union in jeopardy.
The Federalist 3:
Written by John Jay
Americans are smart enough to change their mind to recognize that a federal government respects their interests. Great credit to them for such.
Safety seems to be the first place people should direct their attention. Especially against foreign arms and influence, as well as similar domestic dangers. Let us examine how the Union does this best.
Wars will be fought in proportion to the causes of them. One national government will do best at respecting the laws of nations with which we have treaties. Distinct states may have more ability to antagonize other countries.
The best men in the country will generally be appointed to manage it, especially because it has the widest field of choice. Thus, it will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than individual states.
- Discussion: Do you believe the national government is on balance more wise, systematical, and judicious than our state governments? Does our system do a good job at selecting for the wisest, or does the natural selection of politics select more for other traits?
Treaties by one government will be consistent and coherent, while thirteen states will not always agree.
State governments are more likely to swerve from good faith and justice than a national government not subject to local incentives.
- Discussion: Do you believe that the incentive structures are such that the federal government is more insulated from corruption than state governments?
Individual states are more likely to get into petty, unjust, unlawful wars (essentially for revenge) while a national government may be insulated from such quibbles.
State governments would be bad at settling quarrels because of pride causing them to justify their actions. National governments won’t be affected by this pride but will proceed with moderation and candor.
- Discussion: Do you believe that the federal government can forego pride, admit its mistakes, and correct? Do you think it can better than individual states would?
The Federalist 4:
Written by John Jay
Rival nations like to start wars when they can get anything by it.
We are economic rivals with various countries. Someone will eventually get annoyed. Being united will discourage war.
There are several military benefits afforded to unitary control. England would be diminished if the United Kingdom was not united; and it might be natural for states to not help defend each other even if it would be wise. Greece is a good example.
If foreign nations see us efficient and well administered, with a good economy, military, resources, well-managed finances, and people free and happy, then they will want to be our friend rather than enemy. By contrast, we would be a poor pitiful figure if we ended up as three or four confederacies always bantering with each other.
The Federalist 5:
Written by John Jay
The United Kingdom united for its security.
There are many examples of how being united helps security more than disunity. Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England were in tussles for ages while disunited. Wouldn’t America do the same thing if divided? We should avoid the advocates for three or four confederacies.
It is more likely that a single government would observe sound policy, prudence, and foresight than smaller confederacies.
- Discussion: Do you think more localized or more federalized governments are better at sound long term planning?
Multiple confederacies would quickly become jealous and distrustful of each other.
Different confederacies, having different interests and economic concerns, may become allied differently. It may be that someone aggravating the south is an ally of the north. We may then end up with confederates pitted against each other rather than in alliance.
The Easy Federalist 
Leave a comment