Federalist No. 4

Insights – Federalist No. 4 - Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence (continued) Written by John Jay Independent Journal, November 7, 1787

It can be said unequivocally that supporters of constitutional ratification held some legitimate points of view when it came to the need for a stronger federal government than that provided via the Articles of Confederation. In Federalist No. 4, John Jay makes an excellent point about the dangers of future aggressive behavior against the United States by other countries. In fact, his point is that aggressive behavior would not necessarily be predicated on controversial actions by the United States. In that vein, he offered examples of potential causes of aggression against the states.

…it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war. It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.

…there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances. With France and with Britain we are rivals in the fisheries, and can supply their markets cheaper than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent it by bounties on their own or duties on foreign fish. With them and with most other European nations we are rivals in navigation and the carrying trade; and we shall deceive ourselves if we suppose that any of them will rejoice to see it flourish; for, as our carrying trade cannot increase without in some degree diminishing theirs, it is more their interest, and will be more their policy, to restrain than to promote it.[1]

Jay’s point that monarchs often go to war over mere matters of vanity is a legitimate one. Additionally, he is correct that economics can easily impact international relations even though that may not be the intent. If, over the coming decades and centuries, the United States became as successful and influential as he anticipated, such success would naturally raise economic frustration and even jealousy among other nations. There might also be a sense of envy over the freedoms enjoyed by the people of the United States or the simple idea of self-governance. Needless to say, it would not take much to stir the pot. Then, once jealousy sets in, unsavory actions of other nations, whether economic or otherwise, would naturally follow suit.

According to John Jay, there was no question that a strong federal government would be better-positioned to respond to other nations in a manner that would help maintain peaceful relationships. It would certainly offer a wall of strength that a country divided into thirteen distinct bodies could not provide. His view was actually an early predicate to Ronald Reagan’s peace through strength position that he touted during his presidency in the 1980’s.

One of the reasons John Jay believed a strong federal government could best deal with adversarial activity from other nations was the practicality of pure resources. Unlike the individual states, whose resources and personnel choices would be limited, the federal government could combine resources from all the states and select from the entirety of the nation to build an unmatched military force. A federal government could draw from a much larger pot of individuals to fill necessary positions, selecting the best from each of the individual states.

International relationships are generally built upon treaties and agreements. While an individual state might be able to come to an agreement with another nation, nothing would prevent different states from signing conflicting agreements with the same nation. In fact, they could expect that other nations would be duplicitous in dealing with the states by intentionally making agreements that would result in interstate rivalries and at least a measure of interstate hostilities. After all, a house divided cannot stand. However, this would not happen if a federal government were able to develop agreements that spoke with one voice on behalf of all the states. This approach would surely be more efficacious and expeditious than multiple treaties that emphasized the numerous and disconnected interests of the states.

From these and such like considerations, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it is easy to see that jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we are not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure. The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country. As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.[2]

Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments–what armies could they raise and pay–what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquility and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural.[4]

One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.[3]

Jay continues his thoughts reiterating the point that, were they to remain as thirteen independent units, it would weaken their standing in the world. In fact, even if certain states grouped together forming a united bond among themselves, they could not accomplish what one federal government could provide for thirteen fully united states.

John Jay went on to emphasize other advantages of a single federal government. For instance, in cases of disputes between the states, the federal government could serve as an arbiter and facilitator. The federal government, he stated, would be able to view conflicts, not through the lens of a single state’s interests, but through the lens of what is best for the union as a whole. This, he believed, would ultimately also work out best for the individual states.

Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in case of disputes what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests, and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments, and conduce far more to the safety of the people. But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes![5]

If the states wished to work together in harmony, to John Jay there was only one solution, and that solution rested on the states successfully ratifying the proposed constitution. This alone would provide that strength and unity among the states that would be necessary for the United States to move forward. It would also give the new nation standing in the eyes of other nations that would help maintain peaceful international relations.

________________________

[1] Federalist No. 4

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you enjoyed this article, please encourage your friends to visit us here at constitutionmatters.net where the Constitution really does matter. Also, if you appreciate the articles and insights provided here, feel free to contribute to the cause by clicking below.

This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to visit restoretheword.com

Contact

Questions? Reach out anytime.

Email:

contact@constitutionmatters.net

© 2025. All rights reserved.