Perspective of a Patriot

With the subject of the dangers of dissension between the states, I was very interested in Federalist No. 6. My interest stems from the fact that we have seen, and continue to see, the results of such dissensions – not as much between the states as between powerful parties and organizations within the nation.

. . . 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.”(Vide “Principes des Negociations” par 1’Abbe de Mably.) This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY. (emphasis original)

There is enough strife, and enough of regional differences to make me question if the system we have has enough force in the built-in mechanisms of self-correction (separation of powers, competitions between overlapping interests different groups and competing interests between various groups of individuals and states) to regain the unity that has previously brought our nation together when we most needed it.

Federalist No. 5 again argues the value of union over confederacies of fully sovereign states. I see no reason to revisit the issue, but I did notice one very accurate prediction:

Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them.

As soon as I read this I saw its fulfillment in the conflict over slavery. One of the things that brought the Southern States to succeed was that President Lincoln was elected entirely on the strength of the Northern voters without ever appearing on the Southern ballots. The North had grown so much more important politically that the South felt compelled to separate themselves.

Federalist No. 3 continues the discussion as to why a unified national government would be better than thirteen sovereign states or any number of weaker confederacies of the states. Once again the logic is sound, but it exposes how we have strayed from the government envisioned by the founders.

It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies.

Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,–especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us. (emphasis mine)

Is there any person in this nation today that would argue that our federal government is efficient in any sense?

Nations and individuals around the world who would fight against us are unlikely to fear a bloated national government that would take the time to bail out a financial investment firm like Bear Stearns when they have not managed to secure our own borders (and I’m not talking about immigration as an economic and social issue here, I’m talking smuggling as a national security issue).

A federal government as confused and confusing as ours has become does not invite the most capable to manage it – instead it invites those most comfortable with the vagaries of the bloated system regardless of their capability to lead and/or manage it.

Such a daunting system does not encourage a society of people who dare to risk and dream, rather it encourages people to seek any kind of personal security that another person is willing to offer them, making them reliant upon and susceptible to those who would take advantage of insecurity.

The federal government has grown large enough that the individual states are no longer cooperating within the federal government, but competing to influence it. It’s time that we worked to return to a more efficient government and remind our citizens that:

. . . a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised . . .