Contributor’s note: the following consists of copyrighted material that cannot be reproduced without the permission of the contributor.
In the spirit of getting more Americans to read these works, I am looking for a publisher — if you or someone you know might be interested in this enterprise, please email pthornhill@cox.net.
NUMBER IV
THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED
In my last paper, I addressed several reasons as to why the safety of the people against danger would be be best secured by a national government. The dangers of war threatened by other countries would be more rare, and the reasons given to justify that aggression would also be more rare. But if the dangers occurred, a national government would be better equipped than either state governments or confederacies to deal with that threat.
So, the safety of the people depends upon their refraining from giving other nations a justifiable reason for threatening war. But we all know that there is a need of the people not to act in such a way as to invite hostility, since we know that some wars have just causes while others are based on pretense.
It is also too true, even though it is disgraceful to human nature, that nations generally will start a war whenever they have the possibility of gaining by it. Absolute Monarchs, in fact, will make war, not for national gain, but for personal reasons, such as a desire for military glory, revenge for personal insults, ambition, or because business deals associated with the conflict might benefit their families or associates. These motivations will often move monarchs to engage in wars that are not backed up by justice, nor are they desired by, or in the interest of, the people. Now, most of this relates to absolute monarchs, but there are still others that affect nations as well as kings, and we will see that some of these motivations result from our situation and circumstances.
With France and Britain, we are competing in the fishing industry. We can supply their markets more cheaply than they can themselves, even when they try to prevent this by bounties on their own trade or duties imposed by those governments on foreign fish.
With them and most other European nations we are rivals in ocean navigation and trade, and we’d be lying to ourselves if we think that this is going to make them happy. The fact is, for our trade to increase, it means that theirs will to some degree decrease. Therefore, t is in their interest, and it will be their policy, to restrain our trade rather than promote it.
Extending our commerce using our own ships will not make any nation possessing territory near this continent very happy. Our products are cheap and excellent, we have the advantage of being where the resources are, and our merchants and navigators are hard-working. Therefore, we will have a better advantage by being where we are, and who we are, than what other nations would wish or would support in their policies.
For example, Spain thinks it’s a good idea to shut us out of the Mississippi River, and Britain tries to keep us from using the St. Lawrence River. Neither one wants to let us use the other waters between these rivers as a means of interaction and traffic to be used by all parties.
Considering all of this, and more, it’s easy to see that this jealousy and uneasiness might spread to other nations as well, and they are not likely to regard our growth into a union, and in power and resources, with indifference and disinterest.
The American people are aware that the desire for war could arise from these types of circumstances and others that might not be obvious at this time. If this desire for war arise, there will be available all kinds of explanations offered to justify that desire. Wisely, therefore, do the people consider that a union, a good national government, would be necessary to put the people in, and keep them in, a situation which would discourage war, rather than in a position of inviting war. That depends upon on the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government and the arms and resources of that government.
The safety of the whole is in the interest of the whole, and you need government to provide it. Whether it be one government, or more, or many, let’s consider whether one good government is more competent than the other options to provide that safety.
In one government, you can find the most competent men, from any part of that Union, and use the talents and experience of those men. One government can run on constant and consistent policy. One government can bring together and protect the several state components, and it can extend the benefit of its care and precautions to each. When conducting foreign policy, a national government will take into consideration the concerns of the states and how those concerns are connected with the whole nation. If necessary, it can pool resources from the whole nation to protect one part, and it could do it more effectively than any separate parts could. The military could operate under one order of discipline, and the officers will be answerable to the Chief Executive, who can consolidate the military into one corps, which will operate more efficiently than if they were divided amongst thirteen states or three or four confederacies.
How effectively could the militia of Great Britain operate if the English militia obeyed only the English government, and then the Scotch militia only obeyed the Scottish government, while the Welsh militia obeyed on the government of Wales? What if they were invaded by an enemy – would these three governments, even if they could agree to cooperate, operate as effectively against an enemy separately or under one government?
We hear much of the ships and fleets of Britain, and if we are wise, perhaps the time will come when an American fleet can command attention. If the British government had not regulated a navy as a means to grow a respected fleet – if the government had not organized the means and materials for growing their navy – their power and majesty would have never been realized. Let each of them – Britain, Scotland, Wales and Ireland – each have their own fleets and you can easily see how they soon would become comparatively insignificant.
So apply these facts to our case here in America. Leave American divided into thirteen or even four independent governments – what kind of military could they develop individually, what kind of fleets could they ever hope to support? What if one was attacked, would the others then put their money and blood into its defense? Isn’t quite possible that fellow states would be instead flattered into neutrality by the questionable promises of others? Might they be seduced by a desire for peace that would prevent them from engaging in the hazards necessary to safeguard their neighbor’s interests? Perhaps they might even be jealous and therefore have a desire to see the neighbor compromised. Not that that sort of conduct would be wise but it does follow from human nature. The history of the states of Greece and other countries abounds with situations like I describe, and there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t happen again.
But let’s just say that neighboring states might be willing to help the invaded state or confederacy. How, when and in what proportion should aid of men and money be offered? Who would command be organized? Who would give commands, and who would receive them? How would the terms of peace be decided upon? And if there is a dispute between the allied states, what forum will be available to settle the problem? All types of variables and problems would apply to the separation of the states. However, under one government which watches over the general and common, which combines and directs the resources and powers as a whole, would be free from embarrassing infighting and more efficiently provide for the safety of the people.
Whatever our situation is, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of separate sovereignties, it is certain that foreign nations are going to recognize our vulnerability and they will act accordingly. If they see that our government is efficient and effectively administered, and that our trade is prudently regulated, our militia organized and disciplined, our resources and finances wisely managed, our credit secure and our people free, content and united, they will be more likely to want our friendship than to want to provoke us. On the other hand, if they find us broke as a result of ineffective government, with each state conducting itself, for right or wrong, as it sees fit; or they see us split up into three or four separate confederacies, perhaps hostile to each other, while one allies with Britain, another France, and another Spain, with these other countries pitting the confederacies against one another, America is going to seem weak to all three! America would be open to their contempt and even their outrage. It would only go to prove that when a people or a family divided, they always do so at their own expense and peril.
PUBLIUS [Jay]