.jpg) John Jay, author ofFederalist No. 4 | |
| Author | John Jay |
|---|---|
| Original title | The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence |
| Language | English |
| Series | The Federalist |
| Publisher | The Independent Journal |
Publication date | November 7, 1787 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Newspaper |
| Preceded by | Federalist No. 3 |
| Followed by | Federalist No. 5 |
| Text | Federalist No. 4 atWikisource |
Federalist No. 4, titled "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence", is a political essay byJohn Jay and the fourth ofThe Federalist Papers. It was first published inThe Independent Journal on November 7, 1787, under thepseudonymPublius, the name under which allThe Federalist Papers were published. It is the third of four essays by Jay discussing the protection of the United States from dangerous foreign influence and military conflict. It directly continued the argument made inFederalist No. 3, and it was further continued inFederalist No. 5.
Federalist No. 4 addresses the possibility of European nations engaging inwars of aggression against the United States. Jay argued thatunion between the states would prevent foreign nations from conquering the United States or causing division between the states, citing the advantages of a unifiedmilitia over several disparate forces and the ability of a federal government to consider the interests of all the states.Federalist No. 4 represents a strong example of Jay's preference forcentralized government and his skepticism of individual state governments. Since the ratification of theConstitution of the United States, foreign attacks against the United States have been exceedingly rare.
Jay begins by explaining that the United States must prevent itself from being the target of unjust war. He says that nations could seek war any time that there is benefit in doing so. He considers that anabsolute monarch might seek war for personal reasons, such as glory, revenge, or ambition. He also describes an economic incentive for nations to come into conflict with the United States to maintain control over international trade. He concludes from these reasons that any advancement of the United States will draw the attention of European nations and increase diplomatic tensions.
Jay argues that to prevent conflict with European nations, the United States must strengthen its national government through union of thestates. He uses theBritish Armed Forces andBritish militias as an example, citing their strength as a unified force rather than being the individual forces of England, Scotland, and Wales. He argues that a combined militia under a single federal government would be far more effective than separatestate militias, saying that an American militia could protect any part of the country that was under threat by concentrating its resources there. This, Jay says, is not true for thirteen individual militias.
Jay also warns against political interference from European powers. He says that if America were split into three or four confederacies, they might each be supported by a different European nation, such asBritain,France, andSpain. These confederacies could then easily be motivated to ignore conflicts in the others or even to fight each other on behalf of the European powers. He concludes the essay by warning that internal division would do harm to the United States.
Federalist No. 4 was written byJohn Jay. Following theConstitutional Convention in 1787, Hamilton worked withJames Madison andAlexander Hamilton to write a series of essays to explain the provisions of theConstitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. They published these essays in New York newspapers under the sharedpseudonym Publius.[1] It was first published in theIndependent Journal on November 7, 1787, followed by theDaily Advertiser on November 8 and theNew-York Packet on November 9. In the latter paper, it was incorrectly labeledFederalist No. 3.[2]Federalist No. 4 continued the argument fromFederalist No. 3. While No. 3 advocated for union to protect fromjust war, No. 4 advanced this idea by arguing that union also protects from unjust war.[3] No. 4 reinforced and complemented many of the ideas presented in No. 3, establishing a dual argument for union to protect from foreign conflict.[4]
InFederalist No. 4, Jay argued that a unifiedfederal government was necessary to protect the states from foreign conquest.[5] He worried that without union between the states, other nations may be incentivized to wage war, as there would be no federal administration to organize the states and economic advantages would be easier to seize.[4] Jay considered it to be in a state's interest not only to protect its own security, but to protect that of the other states as well.[6] His conception of government in this sense is similar to that ofThomas Hobbes andJohn Locke, identifying it as an alliance of mutual preservation.[7] Throughout the essay, Jay reiterates his support forcentralized government, going so far as to refer to the states as a family.[8]
Jay contended that people are naturally prone to conflict.[5] He held a negative opinion of human nature and was frustrated in his belief thategoism was a driving force in decision making.[9] Jay's focus on self-interested conflict marked a point of divergence fromFederalist No. 3, where Jay considered only just causes for war. Jay argued inFederalist No. 4 that union was a means of preventing conflict.[8] He suggested that a unified federal government would make foreign powers hesitant to engage with force, and he warned that disunity between the states would invite such conflict.[7] Likewise, he proposed that a united federal government would incentivize foreign nations to develop a better relationship with the United States.[10] This belief was informed both by historical examples and by conflicts from Jay's own lifetime. He supported his argument by describing potential causes for an unjust war against the states, including the whims of absolute monarchs and conflicts surrounding trade rivalries.[3]
Should war take place, Jay believed that a federal government would provide advantages over individual state governments. It would have access to a larger population from which to draw leaders, states would be more willing to protect one another, and a federal government would be more inclined to negotiate treaties such that all states benefited.[11] Jay's arguments in this essay may be interpreted as reflecting upon theAmerican Revolutionary War. In apparent contradiction to his argument, the Revolutionary War provided an example of the thirteen states protecting one another in a military conflict without a federal government.[5] It was also an example, however, of the need for a unified military between the states to protect from "unjust attacks".[12] The risk of conflict with European powers was especially prominent in Jay's time, as theBritish Empire and theSpanish Empire held colonial territories bordering the United States.[13] Jay also compared union in the United States to theunion of Great Britain that the states fought against, arguing that the same principles apply. In this example, he also expressed support for the mercantalistNavigation Acts.[8]
Jay made a strong distinction inFederalist No. 4 between a federal government and individual state governments, even more so than in the otherFederalist Papers. His depiction of the federal government was one of an ideal government, while he considered the state governments to be lacking accountability and subservient togreat powers such as the Britain, Spain, and France.[14] Jay concludedFederalist No. 4 with a warning against internal division, assuring that it would lead to failure.[15] By doing so, he stated more explicitly what he had only implied in the previous essay: that he believed confederation was not viable and that it would inevitably cause separation between the states.[16]
Jay continued his argument inFederalist No. 5, which reiterated the main arguments ofFederalist No. 4.Alexander Hamilton would later reiterate the support for Britishmercantilism that was expressed in this essay.[8] Since the federal government of the United States was formed, it has largely been successful in deterring foreign attack. As of 2015, the only significant exceptions were theWar of 1812, theattack on Pearl Harbor, and theSeptember 11 attacks.[17] In the 21st century, the United States does not face a significant threat from aninvasion orconventional warfare, with the only major threats being those ofcyberwarfare andweapons of mass destruction, including that ofterrorist groups in addition to that of adversarial states.[18] The United States has also sought to increase its use of mutual protection by participating ininternational organizations such as theNorth American Free Trade Agreement,NATO, and theUnited Nations.[19]