Federalist No. 3

The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

John Jay

“A cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad.” In an attempt to illustrate the value of a central national government, Jay first discusses the matter of safety of the citizens of the States.

Jay highlights two instances of just causes of war which arise either from violation of treaty or from direct violence. In the case of treaty violation, Jay argues that the proposed Constitution offers the best protection against violation by establishing a uniformity of treaty application across the 13 States. Without a unifying national government, it would be left to the 13 individual States, or to the three or four Confederacies to negotiate their own agreements with foreign countries and among themselves. These agreements could, and likely would, be inconsistent in some instances.

With respect to direct violence, Jay explains that those involved in direct violence or who instigate direct violence are often those closest to the agitating event. Jay names possible hostilities on the border of several states, and notes that State governments whose passions and interests are directly involved are more prone react with violence.

The remedy to immediate passions and interests, according to Jay, was a national government responsible to the interests of the whole Union. Jay claimed that a national government, whose representatives would be selected from the best each state had to offer, would, “result in the administration, the political counsel, and the judicial decisions of the national government [being] more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of the individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.”

Jay believed that by relying upon a national government, whose power to declare war fell to the people’s representatives, apportioned from the respective States, would temper the willingness to wage war. Allowing for a distance between the agitating event and the decision makers would increase the opportunities for more amicable solutions from more temperate and cool mannered representatives.