Federalist Item No. 8
The Federalist article no. 8 is the fourth of Alexander Hamilton , 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. 8 was published on 20 November 1787, entitled "The consequences of hostile actions between states" ( The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States ) in New York Packet , 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 the Anti-Federalist Papers 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 8th Federalist article, Hamilton starts from the premise that if the confederation were to dissolve, the individual states or their alliances would suffer the same fate as all other nations that are not united under one government: war and peace, friendship and enmity .
Wars between independent North American states would have far more serious consequences in the early days of their existence than those between states that had had military facilities for some time. In Europe, the standing armies made sudden conquests as improbable as the devastation of an entire country in a short time. The extensive construction of fortresses in Europe meant that invasions were already exhausted at the borders and in the network of fortifications. In earlier times it was still possible to penetrate deep into an attacked country within a short time. An attack can be quickly repulsed by means of disciplined, relatively small defense troops and a network of bases. Therefore wars in Europe no longer led to the subjugation of entire peoples and the overthrow of entire empires, but only to small profits and high costs.
The situation of the North American states would be completely different: the prevailing distrust of military facilities would delay their construction. The unpaved, open borders made it easy for intruders. More populous states could just as easily conquer their smaller neighbors as it would be difficult to secure territorial gains afterwards. The action of a nation is shaped by the need for security. It drives states to create institutions that could jeopardize their civil and political rights. In the interests of security, you take the risk of being less free. The new constitution does not exclude the establishment of standing armies. A dissolution of the confederation inevitably leads to the creation of armies, with the weaker states being the first to have to introduce such in order to cope with their more powerful neighbors. They would have to compensate for their inferiority in terms of population and resources with a regulated and effective defense system. Necessarily they would also have to strengthen the executive branch of their government so that their constitution would gradually move closer to the monarchy. It is in the nature of war that the executive is strengthened at the expense of the legislature.
Small or inherently weaker states could, thanks to strong government and disciplined armed forces, have the upper hand over larger or inherently stronger ones. Neither their pride nor their need for security would allow them to tolerate such conditions any longer: soon they would resort to the same means to regain their primacy. In a short time the same forces of despotism would be at work that were the scourge of the Old Continent. In contrast to the republics of ancient Greece, today's life, which is determined by the pursuit of profit and the constant improvement of agriculture and trade, is not compatible with the living conditions of a military state, as they would have ruled then. Modern warfare has been completely changed by the increasing availability of gold and silver, advances in industry and finance. Trained troops, separate from the rest of society, arise as a result of constant hostilities.
In addition, there are major differences between the military institutions of countries which, due to their location, are seldom affected by or feared invasions and those in which this is the case. The former would always find good reasons to maintain armies at least as large as the latter. In the former case, the troops are rarely, if ever, used for internal defense. The laws do not have to be relaxed regularly in the interests of the defense, the civil state retains its full strength and is neither confused with nor corrupted by the principles or requirements of the other state sector. The natural strength of the community has the upper hand over the comparatively small army. Its citizens, who are not used to looking up to the military for protection or being oppressed by it, did not love or fear the soldiers, but rather tolerated them suspiciously as a necessary evil. Citizens are always ready to resist a power that they believe can be used to the detriment of their rights. Under such circumstances the government could use an army to control a small splinter group, a riot or an insurrection, but not to oppose the united will of the majority of the population.
The situation is different in a country that is in constant danger. Here the government must always be ready to counter the threat. The armed forces would have to be large enough for immediate defense. The constant need increases the importance of the soldier in the same measure as that of the citizen decreases. The military class gained the upper hand over civil status. Residents of a country that is often a theater of war often have to accept restrictions on their rights. This leads to their sense of these rights being weakened. Step by step, people would be made to perceive the soldiers not only as their protectors, but as superior. This attitude easily leads to the military being seen as masters. Under these conditions, it is difficult to induce a people to courageously and effectively oppose attacks by the armed forces.
Hamilton cites Great Britain as an example of a country living in the circumstances described first. Its island location and powerful navy effectively protected it from foreign invaders and made a large army within the kingdom itself superfluous. In an emergency, a small armed force is enough to withstand a sudden attack from outside until the militia is called up. National politics did not require it, nor would public opinion have allowed a larger number of troops to be available in the interior of the country. This fortunate situation has led to the country enjoying freedom today, despite widespread marketability and corruption. Had Great Britain been on the continent and thus been forced to provide a similarly large number of armed forces as the other major European powers, this country too would probably have fallen under the absolute power of a single person.
If the Union continued to exist, it would have a similarly advantageous island position as Great Britain in the long term. Europe is far away, its American colonies neighboring the Union are so inferior that they pose no threat. Therefore, numerous armed forces are not necessary for the security of a Union. Disagreement and the disintegration of the Union into individual states or two or three smaller confederations, on the other hand, would soon place the North American states in a situation similar to that of the European states, and their freedom would fall victim to the need to defend against ambition and resentment.
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. 38-44 .
Web links
- Federalist Article No. 8 in the Library of Congress , accessed April 1, 2018.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Federalist Article No. 8 in the Library of Congress , accessed April 1, 2018.