 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 |
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
The creation of the 8th federalist paper was to argue to establish a proper Union and the importance of protecting it. Without a Union, or unity between states, the United States would've had little to no defensive protocols against foreign invaders. Given the United States was underdeveloped, at the time, in comparison to Great Britain, America would find it difficult to defend itself against attackers of some foreign parties. Hence the creation of a standing army was underway. However, the thought of having a professional army created doubts among the people, that they can not be completely trusted. Meaning, that if an army were to be established, it would have a great deal of power. The issue here is that the militants may misuse their power for their own advantage. Under false pretenses of protection, militants may deceive the same people they swore to protect by stealing from them; promising the people protection for something in return. Regardless of the negativities, an army was required nonetheless.
Apart from an army, the government was another form of power. Capabilities within its grasp only proved the strength it contained. If the central powers were to be distributed among the states, there is the possibility that it would not spread equally resulting in one state having more power than the other(s). Misusing the newfound authority may create conflicts between the states leading to rivalries. If these international affairs are not managed properly, the probability of the States working in unison is negligible. In other words, if the states are too busy with fighting each other, they may not protect each other.
Analysis
In terms of protection against invaders, Federalist 8 shares a strong bond with Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia. Federalist 8 states why a union should exist and why it should be protected, while Federalist 29 mentions the existence of a militia. The connection is that a union should be guarded, and the creation of a militia will ensure the preservation of a union. Since a militia is composed of civilians, it would be prepared to battle anything and anyone that dared to harm the people or their homes. Federalist 29 states that having a militia is better than having a standing army. This may contradict earlier statements, but the positive side of not having a standing army is that there is no possible threat to the people's freedom, meaning the government has the ability to control an army and the power may be misused to silence the people and in the worst case, create a dictatorship.[1] Hence, a militia was preferable and if the United States were to be attacked, a militia would be available immediately.
Four years after Federalist 8 was published, the bill to pass the Second Amendment succeeded. This only improved the benefits mentioned in Federalist 8, as it mentions to secure and protect a Union. The Second Amendment states that the people's right to bear arms will not be "infringed." Meaning that, a citizen will not be punished if he or she raises a weapon against an individual who meant harm.[2] This relates to Federalist 8, in the sense that if a group of individuals from foreign interests decided to harm the U.S., the people have the right to raise weapons against them without facing prosecution.[3]
As mentioned before, Great Britain possessed great power given that it was greatly developed in terms of government, democracy, and overall structure. Their defenses were near impenetrable. If the United States had not created a Union, Great Britain could have taken over the States.[4] The existence of an army was crucial at the time since it was the United States' secondary form of security against intruders.[5] Since Great Britain's army was ahead of its time, they also established the Royal Navy sometime afterwards. That army controlled the seas, so if the United States were to attack Britain, their army would be destroyed before they reach the shores to plan their next attack. So America's best course of action was to remain where they were and focus on the defensive, because if they Great Britain were to attack, the U.S. would instantly face a major loss.
Hamilton's finishing statement in Federalist 8 stated that in protecting the Union, it would face years of enjoyment and be stress free as long as States work in harmony to guard each other. Taking the World Wars into perspective demonstrates the extent to which Federalist 8 reaches beyond the World Wars and into the current generation. The global war on terrorism is an example of how states or countries must work together to rid themselves of a common threat. Once they understand the problem, the best solution will be determined in the form of teamwork. If the nations work together, a solution will be formed, and the more "teammates" there are, the faster the answer will be found. The two nations do not have to be the U.S. and Europe working to fight against terrorism. Nations of the world can work together to eliminate the problem. If this is accomplished, Federalist 8 remains relevant.
Federalist 8 speaks of why and how a union exists, and how it is used to protect territory against outside forces.[6] However, it does not explicitly state that a Union should be only between states. Relationships kept between two or more countries will result in a more secure future. Protection by allies from around the world, aids prosperity. A war should not be fought alone, and safeguarding a Union between two or more countries should remain a priority.
When the World War I began, no nation fought alone since the countries at war had allies. America did not enter the war, that is until the Germans sank the Lusitania; an ocean liner that had American civilians on board. Once it declared war on Germany, America and her allies worked in unison to defeat those who meant harm.
During World War II, a similar course of actions took place. America did not to "participate" in the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Once it entered the game, it "partnered" with allies to defeat a common enemy and to protect its people and homes. All parties aided each other in completing a similar objective.
The United States in the past is another example, especially when it came to the thirteen colonies protecting each other against Great Britain.
A proper Union should needed to be established and a group of individuals gathered to uphold it. If one did not exist of the two, the other would be defunct. In the modern world, Federalist 8 remains applicable given that there are those who seek to cause harm. Forming a relationship with the other countries around the world improves the ability to fend off those who mean harm. The meaning behind the Federalist 8 remains the same since it applies to conflicts that have been fought in the past, present, and conflicts of the future.
References
- ↑ Barber, Sotirios A. "Judicial Review and" The Federalist"." The University of Chicago Law Review (1988): 836-887.
- ↑ Bellesiles, Michael A. "Suicide Path: New Readings of the Second Amendment." Const. Comment. 16 (1999): 247.
- ↑ Massaro, John. "What the Second Amendment Meant to the Founders."Soapbox Weekly, February 11 (2013).
- ↑ Amar, Akhil Reed. "Some New World Lessons for the Old World." The University of Chicago Law Review 58.2 (1991): 483-510.
- ↑ Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The federalist papers. Oxford University Press, 2008.
- ↑ Ketchum, Gerald W. Securing the Homeland-how should the Army fulfill its role?. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA, 2005.
External links
