Federalist Item No. 3
The Federalist article no. 3 is the second of John Jay , one of the founding fathers of the United States , written essay in a series of 85 essays 1787-88 in the newspapers "Independent Journal" , "New-York Packet" and " Daily Advertiser ” and published collectively under the name Federalist Papers .
Article No. 3 appeared on November 3, 1787 under the title "Continuation of the topic: About the dangers of foreign violence and influences" ( The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence ) in the Independent Journal under the pseudonym " Publius ".
Historical background
The 1777 adopted Confederation ( Articles of Confederation ) of the United States had proved a few years after its ratification in 1781 as insufficient to ensure an efficient government of the State Union. In 1787 the Philadelphia Convention was convened to revise the articles, but as a result drafted a new constitution . In September 1787 the draft was passed on to constitutional conventions in the individual states for ratification. From September 1787 the opponents of the federation ("anti-federalists") agitated in newspaper articles against the ratification of the draft constitution. On the Republican side, these were countered by the essays by Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay.
content
In the third Federalist article, Jay directs his gaze to the security of the people, the preservation of peace and quiet internally and externally: A strong federal government can better watch over the security of its citizens by on the one hand being strong in foreign policy and on the other hand moderating Conflicts can act:
"Let us therefore first examine whether the people are wrong in their conviction that a friendly union with an efficient national system of government offers them the greatest degree of security against hostilities from across borders."
A united America offers the greatest chance to maintain a state of peace with other countries. So far America has concluded treaties with six foreign states which, with the exception of Prussia, are all maritime powers and therefore pose a possible threat. There is also extensive trade with Portugal, Spain and Great Britain. In order to keep the peace, international law must be respected, which a national government would probably do better than thirteen individual states or three or four confederations. If the best minds from all countries were to come together in one government, the administration, politics and the judiciary of the national government would only become wiser, more systematic and more prudent, and there would seldom be a shortage of suitable persons for the office of government.
A united state could act more securely in foreign policy:
“In a national system of government, treaties and individual sections of treaties, just like international law, are always interpreted in the same way and carried out in the same way - while the legal interpretation of the same questions in thirteen states or in three or four confederations do not always coincide or are within themselves will be conclusive. "
In contrast to the decisions of the individual governments, which may more often be guided by regional interests and political parties, the judiciary and judgment of the national government are free from such interests. Jay gives additional weight to his argument by referring to the peace treaty with Great Britain of 1783. A national government can better counter intentional or accidental breaches of treaty even if they give rise to a just war, so that a central government can better guarantee the security of its citizens could. Jay points out in this context that the current government, unlike individual states of the Confederation, has never started an Indian war. The immediate proximity of individual states to Spanish and French territories in North America also gives these states more reason to seek armed conflict:
"In such cases, the federal government, unaffected by its pride, will intervene moderately and impartially and seek suitable ways and means to lead the states out of the threatening difficulties."
The article closes with a reminder of the historical humiliations of other states that they had to accept for the sake of peace, and the rhetorical question of whether readers would be willing to tolerate something similar.
literature
Angela and Willi Paul Adams: Hamilton / Madison / Jay: The Federalist Articles: Political Theory and Constitutional Commentary by the American Founding Fathers. With the English and German text of the US Constitution . Schöningh, Paderborn 2004, ISBN 978-3-8252-1788-4 , pp. 10-15 .
Web links
- Federalist Article No. 3 in the Library of Congress , accessed February 17, 2017
Individual evidence
- ↑ Federalist Article No. 3 in the Library of Congress , accessed February 17, 2017
- ↑ Quoted from Adams & Adams (2004): The Federalist Articles, pp. 10-15. In the original: "Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad."
- ↑ Quoted from Adams & Adams (2004): The Federalist Articles, pp. 10-15. In the original: "[Because], under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner, - whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent. "
- ↑ Quoted from Adams & Adams (2004): The Federalist Articles, pp. 10-15. In the original: "The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them."