It hardly takes a genius to recognize that the citizens of any country (especially a people as intelligent and well-informed as you, my fellow Americans) rarely adopt incorrect opinions about what is good for them—at least not for very long. So, the fact that we have persisted in believing that we should stay united under a single, sufficiently powerful federal government means that it’s probably a good idea.
In fact, the more I look into the reasons for this opinion, the more convinced I am that they are compelling and decisive.
There are lots of different things that a democratic government needs to do, but keeping its citizens safe is paramount. “Safety” means lots of things to different people and in different situations, so it’s important to define what I mean precisely.
For this essay, I am considering safety as it relates to peace from foreign and domestic threats. Let’s start with foreign threats. Is it true that a national government really affords the best security against war with other countries?
Let’s start with the assumption that wars arise from either real or perceived causes. If this is right, then we should think about whether a united America or a divided America is likely to produce more causes for war with other countries. If it turns out that a united America will give fewer causes for war, then a union will be more likely to lead to peace with other nations.
So, what are the just causes for war? They typically come either from broken treaties or direct violence. America has already formed treaties with six countries—and all but Prussia have strong navies (and so they could attack us). We also have lots of trade with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, which all have colonies on our continent.
In order to have peace, we need to be sure to observe international laws and norms with regard to these powerful countries, and this will obviously be easier with a single national government rather than thirteen separate states or a few confederacies.
Once a national government is established, the best people in the country will naturally serve there. Because we can select from the entire country, we will never have the problem that some states have where they can’t really find anyone qualified. Rather, we will see the cream of the crop join the national government. A government made up of out best and brightest will be more wise, well-reasoned, and judicious than any state government could be. Having this group of our best people in charge of our national direction will lead to better relations with other countries, and therefore more safety for us.
Our relationship with these other countries will require making and executing treaties. Can you imagine trying to enforce treaties with thirteen different, independent court systems, with judges appointed by different, independent governments! 🤮 The members of the Constitutional Convention were wise to commit these sorts of questions to a single, national court.
Indeed, sometimes a state might be tempted to gain an advantage by breaking a treaty, bringing war to all of us. With a strong national government, one or two states wouldn’t have enough power to act alone, and so peace will be preserved. Our current trouble with Britain is a perfect example. Despite the very successful negotiation of a nation-wide treaty, some states have refused to restore Loyalist property and one state *cough* Virginia *cough* refuses to pay debts to British creditors, putting our relationship with Britain in danger.
Temptations to do things like break a treaty often arise when a large number of residents of a state could benefit from them. In these cases, it can be hard for the state government to resist. A national government made up of multiple states with different priorities will avoid these temptations and will therefore do better at keeping its treaties.
So, as far as intentional or accidental violation of treaties is a cause for war, a national government will be better at keeping treaties than several smaller governments would be, and will be safer.
When it comes to wars from direct and unlawful attacks, it’s even more obvious that a single national government is vastly more secure.
Wars of aggression are usually caused by the passions of a faction (e.g., one or two states). For example, none of the wars with the American Indians have been the result of aggressions by the federal government. Instead, they started when individual states were either unwilling or unable to punish wrongdoers, causing the slaughter of many innocent American Indians.
This dynamic is most dangerous on our borders with Spanish and British territories. These bordering states might be tempted to lash out after a quarrel or irritation, dragging us into war with one of these powerful nations. Nothing can help to avoid this danger more than a national government, where decisions can be made outside of the context of the passions of the moment.
Not only will a national government give fewer just causes of war, but it will also be better able to settle wars when they do happen. States, like men, are always trying to justify their actions rather than acknowledging and correcting errors or offenses. The national government will not be affected by this pride, but will act in moderation and candor to identify means to avoid and escape from difficulties.
In addition, being united gives us a much stronger bargaining position. For example, in 1685 Louis XIV made Genoa send their chief magistrate and four senators to France to grovel before him. The Genoans had to do it for the sake of peace, but can you imagine Louis XIV demanding (or receiving) this humiliation from a powerful opponent like Spain or Britain?