This is the last one, then I’m moving on to a new subject. I swear!
In 1706, Queen Anne wrote a letter as England and Scotland were first uniting. We can learn a lot from it, but 1706 was a long time ago, so I will paraphrase so the lessons can be more easily understood. She first writes that “the Union will be a foundation for peace, securing religion, liberty and property. You will stop fighting among yourselves and work together instead. It will improve our collective strength, wealth, and trade. If the whole island acts as one, we will be able to effectively resist all our enemies.” That already sounds like a good deal, and then Queen Anne continues: “Keep calm and be wise in this important decision, so that the Union may be formed. This is the only real way to ensure our future happiness. Our enemies don’t want us united, and they will try to delay the Union.”
Since we are most familiar with the history of Great Britain, and it has many useful lessons, we will learn from their experience. Sure beats making all those same mistakes ourselves. Now, it seems so obvious that all of the people of such a small island should be a single nation. Why would they not be? But, for centuries they were divided into three (namely England, Scotland, and Wales), and they were constantly fighting. Now, it would have been in their best interest to be united, especially when it came to dealings with the rest of Europe, but they did not act in their own best interest. Instead, they remained as three distinct nations and got in each others’ ways instead of helping each other. For centuries. Why does this quill not have a face palm emoji?
And do we really want to try that, splitting up into three or four distinct confederacies? Can’t we see that the same thing will happen? Each confederacy would become jealous of the others, and green is not a good color on us (or anyone). The confederacies would have no common purpose and so they would only do what is best for themselves instead of the common good of the whole. We would fight like siblings, as bordering nations always do1.
Even if we were able to set up three or for perfectly equal confederacies, they would stay equal for long. Even the wisest advocates of confederacies must admit this. And when they cease to be equal, and they will, what then? Do we shuffle things up again to try to equalize them? What kind of policies or mechanisms can we possibly put in place that would forever keep them on equal footing. Whether it be richer resources or better governance or sheer dumb luck, the confederacies would not remain equal.
When the scales tip in favor of one confederacy over the others, that is the moment that the envy and fear will begin among the lesser-endowed confederacies. They will not celebrate the success of their neighbor. More likely, they will start looking for ways to bring them down. And when that happens, you better believe that neighbor is going to fight back. Distrust breeds distrust.
Anyone who has actually studied (and understood) history can see that neighboring nations do not feel love and trust for each other. The only thing we would share is jealousy and distrust, and that would put us in precisely the position our enemies want to see: weakened by each other to the point where we our only a threat to ourselves.
Can any proponent of alliances really, truly tell me that alliances will be enough to bring together the resources and necessary to put up a strong defence against any foreign enemy? Look at the independent states of Britain or Spain, before they were united. Were they ever able to successfully combine in such an alliance? The proposed confederacies would be distinct nations with separate governments. They would make their own laws and sign their own treaties. The Southern confederacy might go to war with the very country that is the Northern confederacy primary trade partner. So, instead of an alliance between confederacies, you would see the North allying itself with the enemy of the South.
With the great powers of Europe being so far away, the confederacies would be likely to feel threatened by each other than any foreign nation. So, instead of forming alliances with each other to protect against European influence, the confederacies would invite foreign alliances to protect against each other. And remember, it’s easy to invite a guest over, but it’s much harder to make them leave. Once foreign boats full of foreign troops and foreign guns are in our harbors, we risk losing our hard-won independence. Can you not remember how many nations the Romans conquered by coming in as protectors, then refusing to leave.
Think hard, be wise, and then decide. If we divide America into any number of independent nations, will that keep us more safe from foreign influence and hostilities?