FEDERALIST No. 6



Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

For the Independent Journal.

Wednesday, November 14, 1787



HAMILTON



To the People of the State of New York:



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.



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.



The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some

which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective

bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the

desire of pre-eminence and dominion -- the jealousy of power, or the

desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more

circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their

spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between

commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either

of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in

the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading

individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this

class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many

instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext

of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national

tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.



The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a

prostitute,[1] at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his

countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the

SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the

MEGARENSIANS,[2] another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution

with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the

statuary Phidias,[3] or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be

brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the

purchase of popularity,[4] or from a combination of all these causes,

was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in

the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after

various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the

ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.



The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII.,

permitting his vanity to aspire to the triple crown,[5] entertained

hopes of succeeding in the acquisition of that splendid prize by the

influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure the favor and interest of

this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England into a

war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at the

hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over which

he presided by his counsels, as of Europe in general. For if there ever

was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of universal

monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V., of whose intrigues Wolsey was

at once the instrument and the dupe.



The influence which the bigotry of one female,[6] the petulance of

another,[7] and the cabals of a third,[8] had in the contemporary

policy, ferments, and pacifications, of a considerable part of Europe,

are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally

known.



To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the

production of great national events, either foreign or domestic,

according to their direction, would be an unnecessary waste of time.

Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the sources from

which they are to be drawn, will themselves recollect a variety of

instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will

not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of the

reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference, tending

to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a

case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a

DESPERATE DEBTOR, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would

have been plunged into a civil war.



But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this

particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who

stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the

States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. 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? If

this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? 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 as kings? 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? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human

opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.



Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them,

Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often

engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies

of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp;

and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.



Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very

war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into

the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn,

gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a

conquest of the commonwealth.



Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition,

till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II.

found means to accomplish that formidable league,[9] which gave a deadly

blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.



The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes,

took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had

furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were

among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis

XIV.



In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose

one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the

predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have

been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom

has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.



There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal

wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their

representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs

into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and

sometimes contrary to the real interests of the State. In that memorable

struggle for superiority between the rival houses of AUSTRIA and

BOURBON, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the

antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition,

or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,[10] protracted the war beyond

the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in

opposition to the views of the court.



The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure

grown out of commercial considerations, -- the desire of supplanting and

the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic

or in the general advantages of trade and navigation, and sometimes even

the more culpable desire of sharing in the commerce of other nations

without their consent.



The last war but between Britain and Spain sprang from the attempts of

the British merchants to prosecute an illicit trade with the Spanish

main. These unjustifiable practices on their part produced severity on

the part of the Spaniards toward the subjects of Great Britain which

were not more justifiable, because they exceeded the bounds of a just

retaliation and were chargeable with inhumanity and cruelty. Many of the

English who were taken on the Spanish coast were sent to dig in the

mines of Potosi; and by the usual progress of a spirit of resentment,

the innocent were, after a while, confounded with the guilty in

indiscriminate punishment. The complaints of the merchants kindled a

violent flame throughout the nation, which soon after broke out in the

House of Commons, and was communicated from that body to the ministry.

Letters of reprisal were granted, and a war ensued, which in its

consequences overthrew all the alliances that but twenty years before

had been formed with sanguine expectations of the most beneficial

fruits.



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. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject

to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS (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."[11] This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and

suggests the REMEDY.



PUBLIUS



1. Aspasia, vide "Plutarch's Life of Pericles."



2. Ibid.



3. Ibid.



4. Ibid. Phidias was supposed to have stolen some public gold, with the

connivance of Pericles, for the embellishment of the statue of Minerva.



5. Worn by the popes.



6. Madame de Maintenon.



7. Duchess of Marlborough.



8. Madame de Pompadour.



9. The League of Cambray, comprehending the Emperor, the King of France,

the King of Aragon, and most of the Italian princes and states.



10. The Duke of Marlborough.



11. Vide "Principes des Negociations" par l'Abbé de Mably.