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 XI
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION IN RESPECT
TO COMMERCE AND A NAVY
Looked at prudently, the importance of the Union is one of those things about which there is the least amount of room to have a difference of opinion, and which in fact has commanded the most general agreement among men who are familiar with the subject. This applies as much to our interaction with foreign countries as it does to those of us who live in America.
There are reasons to believe that some think that the adventurous spirit which sets apart American commercial interests has already created some uneasiness among several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be worried about too great an interference in the trade that supports their navigation and in the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them that have colonies in America are concerned about what this country is capable of becoming. The neighborhood of States has the intention and the ability to grow their own navies, and they worry that this could threaten their American interests. This belief encourages divisions among us and can deprive us as much as is possible of engaging in an active commerce amongst ourselves. This would solve three problems among us, by preventing our interference in their navigations, by preventing the monopolization of trade, and by preventing us from growing to a dangerous strength of greatness. If prudence didn’t prevent me from disclosing the details, it wouldn’t be hard to trace the planning of this policy to the cabinets of ministers.
If we continue to stay united, we can counteract a policy like this that is so unfriendly to the growth of our wealth in a variety of ways. We can use the restraints of regulation applying through all of the States to require foreign nations to compete against one another for the privilege of using our markets. This assertion will appear reasonable to those who understand the importance to any manufacturing nation of a market containing three million people, which is increasing rapidly in population and which is almost completely invested economically in agriculture. And it’s likely that local circumstances will cause this type of economy to remain dominant. There would be a major difference regarding the trade and navigation of such a nation when you compare the direct communication among its own ships and the indirect communication of its products and the income derived from that, to and from America, in the ships of another country. Suppose for example that we had a government in America that had the right to exclude Great Britain (with which we have no treaty of commerce at present) from our ports. What would be the probable outcome of this action upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the greatest possibility of success, for valuable and extensive commercial privileges with that kingdom? When this question has been asked before, believable answers have been offered but they have not provided a solid or satisfactory answer. It has been said that prohibitions of trade on our part wouldn’t effect Britain, because she would just use the Dutch as a go-between regarding trade with America for the products that she desired from our markets. But wouldn’t the loss of advantage of being her own carrier be materially damaging to her commercial interests? Would not a large part of their potential profit be taken by the Dutch as compensation for their agency and risk? A considerable deduction would also result just due to the costs of freight shipment. Such circular dealings would promote the competition among other nations, by increasing the price of British commodities in our markets and by transferring to other hands the management of this particular branch of British commerce.
A complete consideration of these questions and observations will support a belief that the real disadvantage to Great Britain from this proposed state of things would encourage a mellowing in the Britain’s current trade practices which would allow us to enter into the markets of Islands like the West Indies and elsewhere. This is particularly notable when you consider how the joining of the interests in a great part of the nation are in favor of American trade and also when you consider the pressing demands of the West India islands. Our trade would benefit substantially from this arrangement. If the British were to relax trade regulations, which of course would have to be matched by our own waivers and privileges in our markets, this would very likely have a similar effect on the conduct of other nations, who be then not be prone to see themselves as completely undermined in trade.
In this respect, another resource that would shape the conduct of European nations towards us would come from the establishment of a federal navy. There is no doubt that if we continue as a Union under an effective government, we would then have the ability to create a navy in the not too distant future, and this navy could, if not equal the power of the greatest maritime powers, it could be at least respectable enough to compete with either of the two contending parties. This would be particularly applicable to the situation with the West Indies. A few ships in the fleet if intelligently sent to reinforce either side would often be enough to decide who would prevail in a campaign upon which the most serious interests would be hanging. Our position in this respect is an advantageous one. And if we also consider that we can supply useful materials for the military effort in the West Indies, one can readily understand that such a favorable situation puts us in an advantageous bargaining position regarding commercial privileges. There would be value not just in our friendship but also in our neutrality. By steady support for the existence of the Union, we can hope to eventually become the representative of Europe in American, and to be able to manage the interests regarding European competition in this part of the world as our interest might require.
Now if we look at the other side of this possible situation, we can see that the rivalries amongst all of the players in this situation would create checks between the parties and this would dissuade us from taking advantage of the temptations placed within our reach. In this kind of insignificant state our commerce would be subject to the meddling of nations at war with one another, because they would have nothing to fear from us and therefore no scruples about taking our property whenever they might. Neutrality will only be respected when it is defended by an adequate force. Nations that are despicable in their weakness give up even the privilege of being neutral.
By using the natural strength and resources of our country, under a strong national government that is concentrated towards a common interest, we would confuse all of the alliances in Europe who would seek to restrain our growth. Such a situation would even take away the motives of such alliances because it would make the success of restraining our growth impracticable to said alliances. An active commerce, an extensive navigation, and a flourishing navy would be the inevitable result of moral and physical necessity. We might be able to defy the talents of small-minded politicians who seek to control or change the inevitable course of nature.
But if we do not maintain the union, these alliances might not only exist but might operate with success. It would be possible for countries with a powerful maritime tradition to take advantage of our powerlessness and establish the conditions of our political situation. As they have a common interest in being our carriers, and in preventing us from being theirs, they would most likely work together to embarrass our navigation to the point where they will effectively destroy it and confine us to a passive commerce. We would then be forced to have to accept the first price offered for our goods and to see our profits taken from us and used to the advantage of our enemies and persecutors. That superior spirit of business which demonstrates the genius of American merchants and navigators, where we find an unlimited supply of national wealth, would be lost to us, and poverty and disgrace would take over a country which otherwise with wisdom could have made herself the admiration and envy of the world.
There are great opportunities for trade which are the rights of the Union – I speak of the fisheries, the navigation of the lakes, and the Mississippi. Dissolving the Confederacy would allow room for questions regarding the future existence of these rights, which our more powerful partners would no doubt manage to resolve to our disadvantage. Spain’s sights on the Mississippi need no comment. France and Britain look to our fisheries with an eye towards their own interests. They would not for long remain indifferent to enforcing their interests, because experience has shown us that furthering one’s interest in this valuable area of commerce prevents us from being underselling those nations in their own markets. What is more natural that they want to prevent the engagement of dangerous competitors?
This branch of trade should be considered to be more than just a partial benefit. All the navigating States may in different degrees advantageously participate in it, and with greater access to commercial capital they would be more likely to do that. Once the principles of navigation become more established in the several States, then seaman necessary to staff this enterprise will become a universal resource. It is an indispensible resource to the staffing of a navy.
To this great national aim of encouraging and supporting our commercial interests, a navy union will contribute in many ways. All institutions grow and flourish in direct proportion to the amount and the extent of the means concentrated on that institution’s formation and growth. A navy of the United States would require the resources of all of the states and it is a more supportable prospect than is the navy of any single State of partial confederacy, because they would only require the resources of a part of the Union. In fact, there are different portions of a confederated America that each have a particular contribution they can make to the essential establishment of a navy. The Southern States can offer in greater supply certain kinds of naval stores, like tar, pitch and turpentine. Their wood for the construction of ships is of a more solid and long-lasting texture. If composed of Southern wood, the ships would be more durable and this would be advantageous to naval strength and national economy. Some of the Southern States and the Middle States have a greater supply of better quality iron. Seamen must be drawn from the Northern States. There is no need to further clarify about the necessity of naval protection for external or maritime commerce, and the influence of healthy commerce to the prosperity of the navy created to protect that commerce. They are mutually beneficial and promote each other.
Open trade relations between the States themselves will advance the trade of each, not only because of the exchange of their respective resources and products, but also for the benefit of exporting products abroad. Commerce in every part of the Union will be encouraged and will gain additional motion and vigor from the free circulation of the commodities of the whole. Commercial enterprise will better flourish if nourished with the enterprises in the different states. When a staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, that State can call to its aid the staple of another. The value of products is important, but the variety for exportation also contributes to the growth of commerce with foreign countries. Trade can be carried out upon much better terms when there are a large number of materials of a given value than it can be with a smaller number of materials of the same value, and this is because of the rules of competition and the fluctuations of markets. Some things might be of great demand at some times and at other times you can’t sell them; but if there are a variety of articles, it lessens the chance that they will all suffer a lack of demand at the same time. As a result, the merchant will suffer less risk of any considerable problem or lack of income. Savvy traders will be aware of these facts and will realize that the combination of commerce amongst all of the United States will be more favorable than it would be amongst an uncombined thirteen States.
So one might reply that whether the States are united or not, there will still be a close exchange between them that would address the same ends. But this exchange would be restrained, interrupted and narrowed by a variety of causes, which have been amply detailed in the course of these papers. Like a unity of political interests, a unity of commercial interests can only result from a unity of government.
There are other points of view that might be offered here, of a striking and animated kind. But they lead us down a confusing path that takes us too far into future possibility, and involve issues not proper for a newspaper discussion. I will note briefly that our situation invites, and our interests prompt us, to aim highly regarding American affairs. The world may be politically and geographically divided into four parts, each having a separate set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe has by arms and negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia and America have all in time felt her domination. The superiority Europe has enjoyed tempts her to preen herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as great philosophers have directly attributed to the inhabitants of Europe a physical superiority and they have gravely asserted that animals and humans degenerate in America. They even claim that dogs cease to bark after breathing for awhile in our atmosphere.* Facts have too long supported these arrogant beliefs about the Europeans.** It has fallen to us to defend the human race and to teach those brothers who assume superiority humbleness. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will only give them another victim to add to their triumphs. Let Americans refuse to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strong and indestructible Union, agree in building one great American system superior to the control of all of the transatlantic force or influence. Let us be able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and new world!
Publius [Hamilton]
*”Recherches philosophiques sur les Americains.”
** “L’Abbe’ Guillaume Thomas Francois Raynal (1713-96) was the author in 1770 of Recherches Philosophiques les Americains. The original idea of physical degeneration in America is attributed to the naturalist Comete de Buffon (1707-88).
(Footnotes provided by Issac Kramnick, Editor of The Federalist Papers, Penquin Classics, 1987).
Tags: , federalist papers, founding fathers