Federalist No. 6

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind — those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.[1]

It is curious that Hamilton should focus on the disunion caused by dividing the states into 3 or 4 distinct nations since, in Anti-Federalist No. 4, the author plainly noted that no such suggestion had been made - at least not in the Anti-Federalist Papers. Those who were opposed to the proposed constitution were not seeking to divide the nation. They simply believed the Articles of Confederation were adequate, with minor adjustments, to establish a central government equal to the task of serving the states under a federalist system.

We can only surmise that Jay and Hamilton were not drawing their concerns from the Anti-Federalist Papers. After all, those papers were not the only source of opposition and there may have been considerable conversations in New York and elsewhere where such conversations were taking place. Consequently, Jay and Hamilton may have been addressing concerns voiced in other sectors of the community.

Hamilton continues, making the case that an individual must be out of his mind to overlook the obvious issues a divided America would face. Anyone who doubted that must have overlooked the greed and ambitions that are a part of every nation. The following excerpt explains his concerns.

In the ensuing text of the essay, Hamilton offered what he considered to be prime examples from history of men whose ambitions had brought divisions and violence within nations. One such example was that of Pericles, who crushed the people of the Island of Samos over control of the city of Priene. The same man, via a decree against the Megarensians, arguably initiated the Peloponnesian War. He also drew attention to the ambitions of Charles the V (Roman emperor in the 16th century), whose ambitions brought division and devastation. Whether these examples match up well with the situation in America is questionable, but Hamilton obviously saw some relevance.

Perhaps recognizing that the examples given were too foreign to the readers to be effectively applied to the current state of affairs, Hamilton tried to offer an example that was a little closer to home for his audience. He offered, as an example, Shays Rebellion, which occurred in Massachusetts less than a year earlier over debt collection practices and tax policies. Hamilton believed this was the kind of thing the colonists could anticipate in a divided nation.

Having offered examples of what his readers could expect were the nation to divided into smaller confederacies, Hamilton went on to present what he believed to be the virtues and advantages of a united republic under the proposed constitution.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.[2]

Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other?[4]

The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord. Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit?[3]

Having set the stage with this inspiring depiction of a united republic, Hamilton followed with a barrage of queries, as if riddled from a machine gun, asking his readers if other governments have ever accomplished what they were seeking to accomplish under the proposed constitution.

Recognizing that some might offer a successful rebuttal concerning republics, Hamilton admitted that not every republic was as successful or conflict-free as they hoped for America. Certainly, historical republics like Sparta, Athens, Roma, and Carthage had fallen prey to constant conflict and wars, ending in their demise. The same may be said about nations like France, Spain, England, and others. According to Hamilton, should the states separate into distinct confederacies, history would only repeat itself. Separated, their closeness in vicinity alone, as with other nations, would naturally sow discord.

From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue? Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare –! So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that 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.[5]

An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: (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.” This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.[6]

Hamilton closes his remarks with the following comments, insisting that the only way to avoid the perils experienced by other republics throughout history would be to remain one nation under a single and strong central government that could serve to unite the states.

________________________

[1] Federalist No. 6

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

Insights – Federalist No. 6 - Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States Written by Alexander Hamilton Independent Journal, November 14, 1787

This particular Federalist Paper was penned by Alexander Hamilton who begins by referencing the previous three essays (Federalist Paper No’s 3, 4, and 5), all written by John Jay. His focus here is on something Jay mentioned in his essays. Hamilton’s concern was over the dangers posed to an America that was divided into three or four separate nations as opposed to a united nation formed under a central government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.