Federalist Paper No. 2

As an exegesis of the Federalist Papers, or even just an argument in favor of them, No. 2 isn’t particularly strong. I probably would have gotten marked down for writing something this flimsy in high school. It’s not that Jay doesn’t have good arguments in favor of the Constitution, it’s just that he doesn’t make them. Instead, this Paper consists almost entirely of assumptions, implications, and the reputations of others.

The first 14 Papers generally cover the “Utility of the Union for your political prosperity” (see A Short History of the Federalist Papers). Their argument is that the “Constitution… [is] for the sake of the of the Union, and the Union… [is] for the sake of safety or self-preservation” (Kesler, Introduction, xvii). In this vein, Jay begins with the statement: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government.” This line wouldn’t have been likely to garner much disagreement. The Founding Fathers were working on the shoulders of the philosophers Hobbes and Locke, who argued that humanity existed in a ‘state of nature’ (resulting in a life that was ‘nasty, brutish and short’) without a government to moderate our baser instincts. This is the idea behind the ‘social contract’, which Jay references almost as a sidebar: the people will need to divest some of their natural rights to the government, in order to secure some protection. So far so good. The radicalism of the Constitution wasn’t the creation of a government, per se, but its structure.

The federated unity of the proposed government is the most important part of the Constitution, and the defense. Some had suggested creating several confederacies, each holding the powers suggested for the single national government. Jay dismisses the merits of that suggestion outright. He makes the point that prior to the War, the former colonies had been convinced of the necessity of unity (remember the political cartoon "Join or Die" from elementary school?). Indeed, it was the colonies united efforts which allowed them to win the Revolutionary War.

Still, the supporters of confederacies must have had some reasonable arguments, yes? Well, perhaps. But we’ll never know just from reading this Paper. Jay doesn’t address them. Instead, he paints a picture of a united people occupying a united land. In addition to the emotional response it stirs, it also hints at important economic truths: in a world still dominated by agriculture and horse/wind power, extensive and varied lands for crops/livestock combined with navigable rivers and safe ports produced a powerful economy. But remember also that NJ and NY and Massachusetts used to fight over tariffs, shipping costs, port fees, etc., costing farmers and merchants alike. A unitary and singular trade policy that allowed the free flow of goods between the states, and instead directed all mercantilist policies towards Europe, would yield substantial dividends.

It should be noted, that Jay takes a few rhetorical liberties here. The colonies had never had the same religion: Massachusetts was founded by the Puritans, who were Calvinist; Virginia was founded as a nominally Anglican colony. Even if one was to argue that both colonies were Protestant, don’t forget that Maryland was established as a Catholic colony (and while all are Christian sects, try explaining that to those who feared that the ‘Papists’ would subvert the American traits suspicion of authority and separation of church and state). Still, it’s a very nice paragraph.

Jay then returns to his previous point about how Americans used to believe that we needed to be united to survive. The very best minds had been convinced of it, and the people had believed their leaders. And now the very best have again come together, and produced a unifying Constitution, so the people need to believe their leaders again. Really, this piece is more a defense of the Convention by way of defending the First Continental Congress (Jay’s Congress of 1774). The Congress was formed in response to the Intolerable Acts passed by the British Parliament. Patrick Henry wanted to form a new government, but several conservative members (including Jay) supported a Plan of Union. That Plan was rejected, but the Congress did sign the Articles of Association (AoA) which intended to modify the colonial government, in part through the threat of boycott. In the AoA, the colonies declare their allegiance to the king, but state that Parliament’s actions are unacceptable. They state their grievances, and the consequences of not rectifying those complaints. Most importantly, in the last paragraph, the delegates swear: “And we do solemnly bind ourselves and our constituents”. Union! at least of a sorts. Not long after, the Declaration of Independence is signed, and history is made.

The readers of the Federalist Papers would have been familiar with this background, as it would have been recent events for them, rather than our history. Still, I stand by my original statement: No. 2 is a rather flimsy argument. As far as I can tell, after several re-readings, Jay doesn’t mention the Dangers of Foreign Force and Influence as the title suggests. In fact, he does very little to address the particular merits of either union or confederacy, stating instead: “I am persuaded in my own mind.” There are arguments to be found referenced throughout the text, but they are not explicit. The political nature of the Federalist Papers is made clear here, if it is more understated elsewhere.

Some final points: yes, in the 8^th paragraph, when Jay refers to the institution of a ‘federal government’, he is referring to the Articles of Confederation- clearly not a federal government in our current understanding of the word. Unfortunately for the beginning reader, the authors of the Federalist Papers, were rather casual with their use of ‘federation’ vs. ‘confederation’- the words are used interchangeably. Usually, the context removes any doubts about the intended meaning/current interpretation, but I’ll do my best to catch any occurrences and clarify them. Here, Jay’s point is that the Confederation was flawed and that a less hasty and more deliberate consideration of government has yielded a less flawed proposal.

And just for a bit of fun (a professor of mine used to introduce such tidbits with, ‘historically speaking’), the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention were not ‘cool’ in any sense of the word, except possibly for the terms of some relationships afterwards. They took place in the summer in Philadelphia (a beautiful city, but not the most pleasant in the summer, especially without air conditioning), and most every day that the Convention met featured at least one hot-tempered debate. (For a fascinating retelling of that summer, read the excellent The Great Rehearsal).