Federalist No. 2 - “one united people”

by John Jay

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

Well, it didn’t take long to get to something in the Federalist Papers really worth wrestling with.  Let’s dive right in with this passage from John Jay, where he argues that the young nation’s demographic makeup supports the formation of a union:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Um, what?  Common ancestors, language, religion, manners, and customs?  What is Jay talking about?  In 1781, there were more than half a million Black slaves in the United States (nearly a fifth of the population).  There were tens of thousands of Catholics.  Thousands of Jews.  And with so many first- and second-generation immigrants, early Americans spoke—in addition to English—Dutch, French, German, and a mix of Native American languages. 

Jay wasn’t some insulated northerner who didn’t think much about those who didn’t look or think like him—he was both a slaveowner and an ardent abolitionist.  (I know, I know.  Go read about him.  Like each of us, he contained multitudes.)  The short explanation is, as author and historian Samuel Huntington observed, “the American people who achieved independence in the late eighteenth century were few and homogeneous: overwhelmingly white (thanks to the exclusion of blacks and Indians from citizenship), British, and Protestant.” 

But here, I think, is the most important question for us today:  so what?  Is Jay’s delusional assessment of our homogeneous nation a prerequisite to our union?  Can we “nobly establish general liberty and independence” today, we of so many undeniably different ancestors, religions, manners and customs? 

Yes!  As Professor Ryan Muldoon explains, a nation’s diversity inspires new thoughts. It fosters new ideas. It discourages stagnation.  And democracy complements diversity by allowing people who disagree to share power, giving everyone a mechanism to participate in government.  Columnist Max Boot offers some modern day examples:

Just imagine a country without diversity.  Try North Korea, whose official philosophy revels in the ethnic purity of the Korean race and whose censors block all views that do not treat Kim Jong Un [favorably].  North Korea, one of the least diverse countries on the planet, is also one of the poorest.

The nearby countries of South Korea and Japan are far more open to competing ideas—they are, after all, liberal democracies—but they are also ethnically homogeneous. Their uniformity does lead to a strong sense of national identity, but it also threatens their long-term survival…Both countries desperately need young immigrants but—precisely because they are so ethnically insular—it is hard for them to integrate foreigners.

While we may rightly question the foundation of Jay’s argument in Federalist No. 2, his conclusion is full of hope and inspiration for Americans today:  “it appears as if it was the design of Providence” that “this country and this people seem to have been made for each other”—in all our beautiful messiness.

I hope that’s something we can all agree on.