The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 8:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

Since we have determined that the states would end up in war if we don’t stay unified, let’s examine what those wars would look like.

In Europe, strings of castles and fortifications prevent campagins into the heartland of a country. The populous states would easily overrun their less populous neighbors. It would be a battle of plunder and devastation.

Love of liberty will eventually give way, as even those states most attached to liberty will resort to institutions that will provide safety in lieu of liberty. To be safer, people will be less free.

• Discussion: The dichotomy between safety and liberty is one discussed still today (i.e. COVID masks, privacy intrusions, etc). What do you think are the limits of security in favor of liberty? What do you think are the limits of liberty in favor of security?

Those institutions are chiefly standing armies and military establishments. The new Constitution does not disallow standing armies, and so we can assume they will exist. Such a standing army under the Constitution is at most problematic and uncertain, but would certainly exist with a dissolution of the confederacy. 

• Discussion: Hamilton seems rather anti-standing-army. He seems specifically worried about the militaries running the government (see third world). What do you think of this paragraph seeming to use standing armies in a negative context in the eyes of the new Americans?

To defend themselves, the weaker states would be the first to create standing armies. They would then be incentivized to strengthen the executive at the expense of the legislature, which might lead to monarchy.

• Discussion: Hamilton says it is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislature. In many ways this seems like it’s happened today (i.e. executive orders having power past original intent, the executive essentially starting wars without congressional declaration, etc.). Why do you think the executive so often garners power from the legislatures?

The more this happens, the more likely we are to end with the scourge of despotism of the Old World—organized governments and militaries conquering each other.

People might ask, in opposition, why didn’t Ancient Greece then have standing armies? The modern conditions of industry and finance have produced a revolution in the system of war since. 

Standing armies in a country with internal peace versus that of civil unrest are different. Those in the former are rarely in danger of military subordination. But those in the countries of high conflict are much more subject to being overrun and controlled. In those of internal piece, the community (and assumedly the militas it can draw) are an overmatch for the standing army. They will neither love nor fear the soldiery but view them as a necessary evil that is weak enough to be resisted if required. The military could be strong enough to suppress a mob, but not the weight of the entire people.

• Discussion:  This seems like the strongest motivator behind the Second Amendment so far—it seems that the right to bear arms was intended so the civilian population could overmatch the military. Do you think this is true and how do you think this applies now?

In a country where there is much civil unrest, the power of the solider will be increased and that of the citizen suppressed. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The citizens will be subject to frequent infringements on their rights.

Great Britain is a good example of the first, more internally peaceful state. It maintains only a big enough army to stop an insurrection until the greater militia has time to rally. If it had been on mainland Europe, Great Britain would have had to make its armies much larger and more comparable to the rest of Europe, and would, like those other European countries, be under the power of whatever single man ruled them.

If we remain united, we may be as one of these peaceful countries. If we don’t we will be a set of of warring confederacies with standing armies. If you take all of this seriously, you will not hesitate from a few small objections to the Constitution.

---