I can hear you, dear reader, asking, “The same subject? Continued? What else can he possibly have to say?” A lot! I might even write a whole other essay on the same subject after this one. Why? Because it’s a darn important subject; without the strength of the Union, nothing else I have to say will matter. So, yes, I will continue with the same subject.
We’ve already seen that the Union protects us when a country comes to war against us for good reasons. But history is proof that countries do not only go to war for good reasons. When you have an absolute monarch (you might use the term “dictator”) running the show, he doesn’t even need a reason to go to war. Maybe he likes the way his soldiers look, marching in their uniforms. Maybe he feels personally insulted by another country. King David used a war to help cover up an affair. It happens No one wants to be a soldier under such a king, sure. But we also don’t want to be the country who that king decides to attack. The kings have their reasons for going to war, however insane they may be. Our job is to make sure we’re not on the receiving end.
Already, we are competing with Britain and France in the fishing industry. We’re competing so well that American fish can sell for cheaper than British or French fish, even when they use subsidies and taxes to try to even out the prices. Do you think they like being undersold? I assure you, they do not.
And we’re not just competing in the fishing industry. We are becoming rivals with almost every European country in the shipping business. As American ships take on more cargo, their ships take on less. Do you think they like losing that business? They don’t.
We’ve started trading with China and India, disrupting the monopoly that other nations once held in those markets. It used to be, if we wanted tea from India, we had to buy it from Britain. We threw that whole idea into the harbor and burned the ship it came on. Now, if we want tea from India, we can go and get it ourselves. And I’ll tell you this: Britain isn’t happy to be cut out as the middleman.
We’re also in the best position of any nation on Earth to do business in the New World. Spain and Britain aren’t going to be happy when we take all their business from Mississippi and Saint Lawrence. But, hey, we’re close and we can sell for cheaper. What’re you gonna do?
We can see from these examples how other nations may start to feel uneasy about our growing power and unity.
As Americans we can see the writing on the wall; all these things we’ve been talking about, and other things we haven’t even considered yet, will tempt other nations to go to war with us. And when the temptation comes, those nations will come up with some reason why war is justified. We are wise to realize that our union and a good federal government will discourage war, rather than invite it. Union is the best situation for defense, and will depend on the government, resources, and arms of the entire country.
The safety of the entire country is the interest of the entire country, and we can’t hope for safety without government, either one or many. So, we need to consider whether this goal of safety for the whole country is most likely to come from a single federal government or any other number of smaller governments. (Spoiler: I am quite convinced that a single federal government is best.)
A single federal government can put the best people in charge, regardless of which state they may live in. It can act as a single body with a single policy, instead of pulling in 13 different directions. It can use the strength of the whole nation to defend any individual part of the Union. If you mess with Delaware, you mess with all of us, so back up.
Imagine if the British Army acted instead as a group of smaller militias. Imagine if the English militia obeyed only the government of England, and the Welsh militia obeyed on the government of Wales, and the Scottish militia obeyed only the government of Scotland. Would they be able to fend off an invasion as well as a unified British Army under a single British government? I doubt they would even be able to agree that they all wanted to fend off the invasion.
The British Navy is renowned and feared throughout the world. Imagine the same number of boats and men, but separated into English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish fleets, controlled by their four respective governments. No one would fear such a disjointed group of ships.
Now put that into context here at home. If we are to divide into 13 distinct states, or even a few independent governments, what armies or navies could we hope to raise (and pay!)? If one state were attacked, would all of the others immediately come to their aid? Would the other states put their blood and dollars on the line to defend their neighbor? If they are independent governments, what stops one state from making a treaty with the country that is attacking their neighbor? Sure, it would be unwise for the states to stab each other in the back like that, but it could happen. Look at the history of Greece, where it happened over and over again.
But let’s assume, fo the sake of argument, that the states would be willing to help each other if one were invaded. How would that even work? Who would be in charge? Who would pay for the arms and armies? Who gets to write out the treaty? Who gets to settle the disputes if the states disagree? I’m not saying these questions don’t have an answer, but that the answer is complicated and more likely to lead to conflict with several separate states than with one united government.
Whether we decide to be united under a single government or separated into several separate state governments, of this you can be certain: the rest of the world will be watching and they will be aware of our choice. They will notice if our national government is functioning like a well-oiled machine. They will notice if our trade is thoughtfully regulated instead of being a corrupt free-for-all. They will notice if our militia is properly organized and disciplined. They will notice if we are wisely using our resources and finances, and we are capable of paying our debts. They will notice the strength of the American people, and it will encourage friendship and cooperation instead of provoking resentment. On the other hand, if we decide we don’t need a strong government, and we split up into several states or confederacies who can’t even get along among themselves (for reasons already outlined, and yet to be discussed), they will notice. If one state favors Britain, another France, and another Spain, they will see that. And they will exploit it! We will look like the backwater mess they already think we are, and they will not respect us. If we divide, we will soon discover, we will divide against ourselves.