Need Help Writing an Essay?
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your PAPER.
GET WRITING HELP!In your own words, what is this document saying? What argument is Hamilton trying to make to persuade the people concerning disagreements that may emerge among the states?
The Federalist 6
“Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States”
Hamilton for the Independent Journal.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the
dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and
arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and,
perhaps, still more alarming kind–those which will in all probability flow from
dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and
convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but
they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if
these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial
confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have
frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for
such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men
are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony
between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same
neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to
set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.
The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have
a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of
this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion-the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which
have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their
spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between
commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the
former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments,
enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of
which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a
people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and
assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the
national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.
The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute,[1] at the
expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked,
vanquished, and destroyed the city of the Samnians. The same man, stimulated
by private pique against the Megarensians,[2] another nation of Greece, or to
avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed
theft of the statuary Phidias,[3] or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be
brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of
popularity,[4] or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of
that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of
the Peloponnesian war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and
renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.
The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII., permitting his
vanity to aspire to the triple crown,[5] entertained hopes of succeeding in the
acquisition of that splendid prize by the influence of the Emperor Charles V. To
secure the favor and interest of this enterprising and powerful monarch, he
precipitated England into a war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of
policy, and at the hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom
over which he presided by his counsels, as of Europe in general. For if there ever
was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of universal monarchy, it was the
Emperor Charles V., of whose intrigues Wolsey was at once the instrument and the
dupe.
The influence which the bigotry of one female,[6] the petulance of another,[7] and
the cabals of a third,[8] had in the contemporary policy, ferments, and
pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that have been too often
descanted upon not to be generally known.
To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the production of
great national events, either foreign or domestic, according to their direction, would
be an unnecessary waste of time. Those who have but a superficial acquaintance
with the sources from which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a
variety of instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature
will not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of the reality or
extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference, tending to illustrate the
general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened
among ourselves. If Shays had not been a desperate debtor, it is much to be
doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.
But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there
are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the
paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated
from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of
commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those
inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics,
like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with
each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of
mutual amity and concord.
Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to
cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest,
have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that
momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious
control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility
or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies?
Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not
aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect
nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the
impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent
propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a
few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be
tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto
done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as
domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not
been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the
prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory
or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new
incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the
least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these
inquiries.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and
Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars,
offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta
was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage
and conquest.
Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that
ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and
to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the
territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.
Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an
object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that
formidable league,[9] which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this
haughty republic.
The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a
leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with
England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and
most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.
In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch
of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of
that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in
war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous
instances, proceeded from the people.
There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The
cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various
occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to
their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that
memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses
of Austria and Bourbon, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known
that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or
rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,[10]protracted the war beyond the limits
marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views
of the court.
The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of
commercial considerations,–the desire of supplanting and the fear of being
supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of
trade and navigation.
From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations
have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to
confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and
cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of
separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of
those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the
imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not
time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical
maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other
inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom
and perfect virtue?
Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have
sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of
government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late
menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions
in Massachusetts, declare–!
So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those
who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the
States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of
society become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity or nearness of situation,
constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this
subject to this effect: “neighboring nations (says he) are naturally enemies of
each other unless their common weakness forces them to league in a confederate
republic, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood
occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize
themselves at the expense of their neighbors.”[11] This passage, at the same time,
points out the evil and suggests the remedy.
Publius.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Aspasia, vide Plutarch’s Life of Pericles.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. Phidias was supposed to have stolen some public gold, with the
connivance of Pericles, for the embellishment of the statue of Minerva.
5. P Worn by the popes.
6. Madame de Maintenon.
7. Duchess of Marlborough.
8. Madame de Pompadour.
9. The League of Cambray, comprehending the Emperor, the King of France,
the King of Aragon, and most of the Italian princes and states.
10.The Duke of Marlborough.
11.Vide Principes des Negociations par l’Abbe de Mably.
This was one of the Federalist Papers used to try to persuade the 13 states to ratify
the Constitution, beginning in 1787. Please answer the following questions about
the document:
1. First, in your own words, what is this document saying? What argument is
Hamilton trying to make to persuade the people concerning disagreements
that may emerge among the states?
2. Why does Hamilton mention Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage? Was his
reference drawing a comparison between the United States and them, trying
to point out the differences, or was it a combination of the two?
3. In the beginning, Hamilton specifically mentions New York. Why would he
do that? During the time of the Constitutional Convention, why would New
York be hesitant to ratify the new Constitution?
4. Hamilton makes specific reference to Shays’ Rebellion when he mentions
“the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts”. What was
happening in Massachusetts at that time and why does he think the
Constitution will help?
5. Do you as a group, think his argument was sound or particularly effective?
Do you believe he was correct in his assumptions? Explain.
Pay Someone to Do My Homework – Answer the question – WRITE MY ESSAY FOR ME – Dodo Papers.
