Federalist No. 7
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between States
Alexander Hamilton
In the previous paper, Alexander Hamilton discussed the evidence for commerce as a cause for hostilities between the dis-United States. Hamilton was not finished, however, outlining potential causalities of hostility between the States and/or separate confederacies. In Federalist No. 7, territorial disputes, commercial policy, and the public debt are examined as areas of tension.
Territorial disputes were a serious concern for Hamilton.
“We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussion concerning the rights to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution.”
Up until this point, territorial disputes had been handled via the Congress established under the Articles of Confederation. What was being proposed by the anti-Federalists was the dissolution of the United States in favor of 13 independent nations, or some series of Confederacies (3 or 4). Hamilton argued that the territorial disputes, already settled amicably under the Confederate Congress would no longer hold, and the disputes would be rekindled by States or Confederacies that saw an opportunity with old bargains being nullified.
“It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject.”
Looking beyond just the recent territorial disputes, Hamilton highlighted the, “wide field of Western territory,” as yet unsettled and without a grant or specific right to the land delineated, as a fertile ground for territorial tensions to arise. If the Union were to be dissolved, Hamilton stated that the disputes would be, “without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties,” and, “the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences.”
Under the Constitution of the United States, the States could take cases to the federal court system to have the disputes impartially decided, and the continuity brought forward by a continued Federal government of the United States could ensure the resilience of previously decided disputes.
Furthermore, with respect to commercial policy, Hamilton assess that, “each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself.” Hamilton is highlighting the nature of humankind to make decisions in their own best interest. As an example, Hamilton highlighted New York as a hub of commercial imports. New Jersey and Connecticut relied on these imports for their own commercial markets. New York was in a position of power to levy duties on imports, a large share of the cost of those duties would be passed on to the residents of New Jersey and Connecticut in the form of reduced import capacity. Without a central government, charged with setting taxes on imports, New Jersey and Connecticut would have no recourse with which to address the commercial policy of New York.
Finally, Hamilton addresses the public debt. During the Revolution, the Union borrowed money to finance the war effort. These loans were made to the Union, made up of the 13 States. In dissolution of the Union there would be great disagreement over how that public debt should be divided. Further, even if an amicable arrangement for the division of the debt was reached, there was, “great room to suppose that the rule agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some States than upon others.” With the terms agreed upon, and no central government or judicial systems to hear complaints, there was little hope that those faring well would be inclined to revise the agreement which would undoubtedly increase their own burden.
Those States suffering the debt agreement, receiving no indication from the other States that any relief would be considered, would naturally tend toward withholding their payments to the debt. Non-compliance with the public debt agreement, “would be a ground of bitter discussion and altercation.
For Hamilton, it was clear, the States united under one, limited government, stood the best chance of survival against threats from abroad, and from internal dissensions. The central government, to whom the public debt would fall, with whom the authority to mitigate territorial disputes, and by whom interstate commerce would be regulated, gave the States a uniform structure within to operate, and mitigated possibilities of internal altercations.
