 Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 8 | |
| Author | Alexander Hamilton |
|---|---|
| Original title | Consequences of Hostilities Between the States |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Series | The Federalist |
| Publisher | New York Packet |
Publication date | November 20, 1787 |
| Media type | Newspaper |
| Preceded by | Federalist No. 7 |
| Followed by | Federalist No. 9 |
| Text | Federalist No. 8 at Wikisource |
Federalist No. 8 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eighth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The New York Packet on November 20, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. In it, Hamilton argues for the utility of the Union to the well-being of Americans, specifically addressing the negative consequences if the Union were to collapse and conflict arise between the states. It is titled "Consequences of Hostilities Between the States".
Essay Synopsis
If the states do not unify into a single nation there will be a perpetual cycle of conflict between neighboring states. Their alliances or disunions create circumstances similar to European nations, where the cycle of aggression between neighboring nations creates the need for domestic armies and fortifications. Additionally, if not unified, populous states motivated by greed might plunder weaker states for their resources.
The motivation for a union is safety, being aware that no matter how great the nation's commitment to liberty, some freedoms are compromised in order to achieve protection. The physical damage of armed conflict compels nations to implement a military deterrent and in doing so an overly militaristic culture diminishes the civil and political rights of the people. "To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."
The new Constitution does not prohibit standing armies and it is inferred that a perpetual army will exist. The frequency of conflict and the need for defense will necessitate a ready armed force for defense. By its nature, a militaristic state strengthens the executive arm (from which a monarchy could emerge). War increases executive authority at the expense of the other branches of government.
Extreme defense would likely give rise to oppressive government practices.
Observing history; the livelihood of citizens cause the population to be ill suited for war. A varied workforce necessitates the development of a profession of soldiers who would be distinct from the body of the citizens.
"The military state becomes elevated above the civil." Nations without a full-time army are less likely to oppress citizens. The leaders of nations prone to invasion must maintain defensive forces, however frequently this militarism infringes upon the citizen's rights or weakens their sense of entitlement of those rights. The continental nations of Western Europe were examples of this.
Also, a Union of states would act as a deterrent from aggression by nearby foreign colonies.
Background and publication
Federalist No. 8 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius in New York newspapers to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. [1] It was first published in the New-York Packet on November 20, 1787, and then in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787. [2] Federalist No. 8 continued the argument of Federalist No. 7 that union would provide better security for the states than division. [3]: 33 The Federalist Papers had yet to address the issue of a standing army in its first seven essays; opponents of the proposed constitution feared that a national standing army would be dangerous to the states. [4] [5]: 80
Analysis
Standing army
During Hamilton's lifetime, it was widely accepted in political philosophy that the size and centralization of a government was correlated with the state's engagement in war. [6]: 93 While he accepted that there were inherent dangers in a standing army, [7]: 41 he gave little credence to those who objected to the existence of such an army. He believed that the military would be loyal to the people, who would oppose military action against the states. Hamilton presented the issue as one of risk against one of guaranteed failure, [4] saying that the risks surrounding a standing army would be even greater if it was not created under a national government. [5]: 81 He argued that a failure to unify would create a constant state of war. [8]: 36 Hamilton believed that war between the states would be especially devastating, as the states had no fortifications or standing armies of their own. [6]: 92 This would then lead to "plunder and devastation" during times of war, incentivizing the creation of fortifications and a standing army to prevent entry of enemy combatants. [7]: 17 The standing army would then be more entrenched in society than if it had been created as part of a national government. [5]: 81
Hamilton compared the nature of contemporary warfare to that of ancient Greece, arguing that the Greeks had no need for a standing army. He explained that the Greeks were able to employ civilian-soldiers, while modern advancements in industry made it difficult for men to give up their occupations to go to war and advancements in warfare made it difficult for untrained men to become soldiers. [7]: 17 The ancient Greeks also found themselves taken from their trades to serve in armies, while a modern volunteer military allows professionals to retain their roles. [7]: 31 Hamilton further warned that a professional class of soldiers creates an air of societal importance around the soldier that can diminish the citizen's place in society. [7]: 18
Federalist No. 8 was the first of The Federalist Papers to reference modern industry as something valuable to society, describing the advancements that have called men to professions other than war. [8]: 153 Conversely, he acknowledged that this expansion of industry is what allowed advancements in warfare to develop. [7]: 18 The essay revisited an idea from Federalist No. 1: that the United States found itself in such a convenient position be accident. Federalist No. 2 proposed that this position was brought about by divine providence. [7]: 19
The idea of unifying under a central government for common defense is essential to the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. [3]: 33 Hamilton described a "natural course of things" in Federalist No. 8, reminiscent of the " natural condition of mankind" as described by Hobbes. The natural course of things as Hamilton described it prevents control of government by the people; it begins with entry into war, which leads to a strengthening of the army, which in turn leads to despotism. [7]: 17
Geographical advantage
Hamilton made an appeal to geography in Federalist No. 8, similar to that which had been made by John Jay in earlier essays. [5]: 81 He believed that the United States was advantaged because it was geographically separated from other nations, and he warned that splitting into several nations would nullify this advantage. [8]: 38 If the states were to be separate, Hamilton argued, then they would be no different than the nations of Europe in their conflicts. [3]: 34 Hamilton compared the circumstance to Great Britain, which as an island nation was able to isolate itself from conflict with other European nations. This allowed Great Britain to avoid the entrenchment of a standing army that would curtail liberty. [5]: 81 [7]: 17 Peace in the British Isles had been a recent development, only coming to be after the Kingdom of Great Britain was established through the union of England and Scotland in 1707. [6]: 94
Applying this logic to the United States, Hamilton argued that the states would be isolated from conflict if they were unified but that they would be surrounded by one another as adversaries if separated, not unlike continental Europe. [5]: 81 [7]: 19 A similar explanation for American democracy was given by 19th century political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the United States, though de Tocqueville did not give consideration to what may have been if the states had not unified. [8]: 39 To appease detractors of standing armies, Hamilton argued that the low odds of an invasion meant that an American army could remain small. [3]: 33
Aftermath
Hamilton continued his arguments regarding a standing army in Federalist No. 24 through No. 29. [5]: 96 In Federalist No. 41, James Madison repeated Hamilton's argument that geographic isolation was an asset for Great Britain and the United States. [8]: 39 In Federalist No. 51, Madison echoed Hamilton's argument regarding the risk of sacrificing liberty, applying the same logic to justice instead of safety. [8]: 36 The Anti-Federalist Papers took the opposite position as Federalist No. 8, criticizing the proposed constitution for allowing the creation of standing armies. [6]: 93 Shortly after the constitution's ratification, it was amended with the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment guaranteed private citizens the right to bare arms and states the right to form militias, while the Third Amendment forbade the military from quartering soldiers in the homes of private citizens. [4]
As Hamilton suggested, the geographic position of the United States kept it from facing direct invasion, excepting the War of 1812. His prediction of disunion in the states leading to war also saw relevance in the American Civil War. [3]: 34 Hamilton's description of the army as a privileged class can be compared to the concepts of valor and heroism associated with military service. [3]: 35 Public opinion on standing armies has changed since the writing of The Federalist Papers. Instead of a detriment to the protection of liberties, military strength has come to be seen in the United States as a means of its protection. [6]: 93 Following World War II, the United States established a strong standing army and formed international alliances that sometimes involve military support, including NATO and the United Nations. The United States has since used its army to engage with opponents in other parts of the world, nominally to protect democracy, but also to ensure its own security through mutual defense [3]: 34
References
- ^ "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 17, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g Levinson, Sanford (November 24, 2015). An Argument Open to All: Reading "The Federalist" in the 21st Century. Yale University Press. pp. 29–33. ISBN 978-0-300-21645-5.
- ^ a b c Scott, Kyle (2013). The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-1-4411-0814-2.
- ^ a b c d e f g Millican, Edward (2014). One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6137-2.
- ^ a b c d e Edling, Max M. (2020). ""A Vigorous National Government": Hamilton on Security, War, and Revenue". In Rakove, Jack N.; Sheehan, Colleen A. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13639-7.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Epstein, David F. (2007). The Political Theory of The Federalist. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-21301-9.
- ^ a b c d e f Potter, Kathleen O. (2002). The Federalist's Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic. LFB Scholarly Pub. ISBN 978-1-931202-44-2.
External links
|
Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 8 | |
| Author | Alexander Hamilton |
|---|---|
| Original title | Consequences of Hostilities Between the States |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Series | The Federalist |
| Publisher | New York Packet |
Publication date | November 20, 1787 |
| Media type | Newspaper |
| Preceded by | Federalist No. 7 |
| Followed by | Federalist No. 9 |
| Text | Federalist No. 8 at Wikisource |
Federalist No. 8 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the eighth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in The New York Packet on November 20, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. In it, Hamilton argues for the utility of the Union to the well-being of Americans, specifically addressing the negative consequences if the Union were to collapse and conflict arise between the states. It is titled "Consequences of Hostilities Between the States".
Essay Synopsis
If the states do not unify into a single nation there will be a perpetual cycle of conflict between neighboring states. Their alliances or disunions create circumstances similar to European nations, where the cycle of aggression between neighboring nations creates the need for domestic armies and fortifications. Additionally, if not unified, populous states motivated by greed might plunder weaker states for their resources.
The motivation for a union is safety, being aware that no matter how great the nation's commitment to liberty, some freedoms are compromised in order to achieve protection. The physical damage of armed conflict compels nations to implement a military deterrent and in doing so an overly militaristic culture diminishes the civil and political rights of the people. "To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."
The new Constitution does not prohibit standing armies and it is inferred that a perpetual army will exist. The frequency of conflict and the need for defense will necessitate a ready armed force for defense. By its nature, a militaristic state strengthens the executive arm (from which a monarchy could emerge). War increases executive authority at the expense of the other branches of government.
Extreme defense would likely give rise to oppressive government practices.
Observing history; the livelihood of citizens cause the population to be ill suited for war. A varied workforce necessitates the development of a profession of soldiers who would be distinct from the body of the citizens.
"The military state becomes elevated above the civil." Nations without a full-time army are less likely to oppress citizens. The leaders of nations prone to invasion must maintain defensive forces, however frequently this militarism infringes upon the citizen's rights or weakens their sense of entitlement of those rights. The continental nations of Western Europe were examples of this.
Also, a Union of states would act as a deterrent from aggression by nearby foreign colonies.
Background and publication
Federalist No. 8 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Like all of the Federalist Papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius in New York newspapers to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. [1] It was first published in the New-York Packet on November 20, 1787, and then in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787. [2] Federalist No. 8 continued the argument of Federalist No. 7 that union would provide better security for the states than division. [3]: 33 The Federalist Papers had yet to address the issue of a standing army in its first seven essays; opponents of the proposed constitution feared that a national standing army would be dangerous to the states. [4] [5]: 80
Analysis
Standing army
During Hamilton's lifetime, it was widely accepted in political philosophy that the size and centralization of a government was correlated with the state's engagement in war. [6]: 93 While he accepted that there were inherent dangers in a standing army, [7]: 41 he gave little credence to those who objected to the existence of such an army. He believed that the military would be loyal to the people, who would oppose military action against the states. Hamilton presented the issue as one of risk against one of guaranteed failure, [4] saying that the risks surrounding a standing army would be even greater if it was not created under a national government. [5]: 81 He argued that a failure to unify would create a constant state of war. [8]: 36 Hamilton believed that war between the states would be especially devastating, as the states had no fortifications or standing armies of their own. [6]: 92 This would then lead to "plunder and devastation" during times of war, incentivizing the creation of fortifications and a standing army to prevent entry of enemy combatants. [7]: 17 The standing army would then be more entrenched in society than if it had been created as part of a national government. [5]: 81
Hamilton compared the nature of contemporary warfare to that of ancient Greece, arguing that the Greeks had no need for a standing army. He explained that the Greeks were able to employ civilian-soldiers, while modern advancements in industry made it difficult for men to give up their occupations to go to war and advancements in warfare made it difficult for untrained men to become soldiers. [7]: 17 The ancient Greeks also found themselves taken from their trades to serve in armies, while a modern volunteer military allows professionals to retain their roles. [7]: 31 Hamilton further warned that a professional class of soldiers creates an air of societal importance around the soldier that can diminish the citizen's place in society. [7]: 18
Federalist No. 8 was the first of The Federalist Papers to reference modern industry as something valuable to society, describing the advancements that have called men to professions other than war. [8]: 153 Conversely, he acknowledged that this expansion of industry is what allowed advancements in warfare to develop. [7]: 18 The essay revisited an idea from Federalist No. 1: that the United States found itself in such a convenient position be accident. Federalist No. 2 proposed that this position was brought about by divine providence. [7]: 19
The idea of unifying under a central government for common defense is essential to the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. [3]: 33 Hamilton described a "natural course of things" in Federalist No. 8, reminiscent of the " natural condition of mankind" as described by Hobbes. The natural course of things as Hamilton described it prevents control of government by the people; it begins with entry into war, which leads to a strengthening of the army, which in turn leads to despotism. [7]: 17
Geographical advantage
Hamilton made an appeal to geography in Federalist No. 8, similar to that which had been made by John Jay in earlier essays. [5]: 81 He believed that the United States was advantaged because it was geographically separated from other nations, and he warned that splitting into several nations would nullify this advantage. [8]: 38 If the states were to be separate, Hamilton argued, then they would be no different than the nations of Europe in their conflicts. [3]: 34 Hamilton compared the circumstance to Great Britain, which as an island nation was able to isolate itself from conflict with other European nations. This allowed Great Britain to avoid the entrenchment of a standing army that would curtail liberty. [5]: 81 [7]: 17 Peace in the British Isles had been a recent development, only coming to be after the Kingdom of Great Britain was established through the union of England and Scotland in 1707. [6]: 94
Applying this logic to the United States, Hamilton argued that the states would be isolated from conflict if they were unified but that they would be surrounded by one another as adversaries if separated, not unlike continental Europe. [5]: 81 [7]: 19 A similar explanation for American democracy was given by 19th century political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the United States, though de Tocqueville did not give consideration to what may have been if the states had not unified. [8]: 39 To appease detractors of standing armies, Hamilton argued that the low odds of an invasion meant that an American army could remain small. [3]: 33
Aftermath
Hamilton continued his arguments regarding a standing army in Federalist No. 24 through No. 29. [5]: 96 In Federalist No. 41, James Madison repeated Hamilton's argument that geographic isolation was an asset for Great Britain and the United States. [8]: 39 In Federalist No. 51, Madison echoed Hamilton's argument regarding the risk of sacrificing liberty, applying the same logic to justice instead of safety. [8]: 36 The Anti-Federalist Papers took the opposite position as Federalist No. 8, criticizing the proposed constitution for allowing the creation of standing armies. [6]: 93 Shortly after the constitution's ratification, it was amended with the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment guaranteed private citizens the right to bare arms and states the right to form militias, while the Third Amendment forbade the military from quartering soldiers in the homes of private citizens. [4]
As Hamilton suggested, the geographic position of the United States kept it from facing direct invasion, excepting the War of 1812. His prediction of disunion in the states leading to war also saw relevance in the American Civil War. [3]: 34 Hamilton's description of the army as a privileged class can be compared to the concepts of valor and heroism associated with military service. [3]: 35 Public opinion on standing armies has changed since the writing of The Federalist Papers. Instead of a detriment to the protection of liberties, military strength has come to be seen in the United States as a means of its protection. [6]: 93 Following World War II, the United States established a strong standing army and formed international alliances that sometimes involve military support, including NATO and the United Nations. The United States has since used its army to engage with opponents in other parts of the world, nominally to protect democracy, but also to ensure its own security through mutual defense [3]: 34
References
- ^ "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 17, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 21, 2023. Retrieved August 23, 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g Levinson, Sanford (November 24, 2015). An Argument Open to All: Reading "The Federalist" in the 21st Century. Yale University Press. pp. 29–33. ISBN 978-0-300-21645-5.
- ^ a b c Scott, Kyle (2013). The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. pp. 66–67. ISBN 978-1-4411-0814-2.
- ^ a b c d e f g Millican, Edward (2014). One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6137-2.
- ^ a b c d e Edling, Max M. (2020). ""A Vigorous National Government": Hamilton on Security, War, and Revenue". In Rakove, Jack N.; Sheehan, Colleen A. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13639-7.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Epstein, David F. (2007). The Political Theory of The Federalist. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-21301-9.
- ^ a b c d e f Potter, Kathleen O. (2002). The Federalist's Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic. LFB Scholarly Pub. ISBN 978-1-931202-44-2.