Federalist No. 7 - “causes of difference”
by Alexander Hamilton
The subject continued, and Particular Causes Enumerated
One thing I’ve experienced reading through the Federalist papers is that often they speak directly and boldly to current events, whether it’s a call for “national divorce,” ideal characteristics of those that lead and represent us, or the dangers of authoritarian leaders and their egos. But sometimes, as is the case with Federalist No. 7, the contemporary application is not as apparent.
(Wait, though—don’t leave yet!)
In Federalist No. 7, Hamilton examines five “causes of difference within our immediate contemplation” should the states not be united as a single nation under the Constitution. The first cause he identified was the likelihood of territorial disputes—a huge problem when you consider the “vast tract of unsettled territory” that existed at the time:
And if you’re wondering what the heck Connecticut is doing way over there under Lake Erie, just know that SO DID PENNSYLVANIA. A number of territorial disagreements then existed between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, the most violent of which was a dispute over the Susquehanna River’s Wyoming Valley known as the Pennamite–Yankee Wars. Fought with ferocity that would make an Eagles fans blush, the conflict was just one of the examples given by Hamilton.
By the way, here’s an 1864 painting of the Wyoming Valley, very much looking like it’s worth fighting over:
Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, by Jasper Francis Cropsey
The second potential area of conflict that Hamilton identifies is competition of commerce. Consider the following (in combination with the geographical position of New York shown in the map above):
New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage…Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative.
Third, there was the immense public debt owed by the states following the war with Great Britain, and how it would be apportioned among the states. Fourth, Hamilton warned about conflict that would result from a divided union where each state made “laws in violation of private contracts,” such as the recent “disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the Legislature of Rhode Island.” Finally, Hamilton cautioned against “the probability of incompatible alliances” with various foreign nations, concluding that “Divide et impera [divide and rule] must be the motto of every nation, that either hates or fears us.”
I know, I know - nobody tweeted divide et impera this week and, while our state legislatures may be doing lots of crazy things, none is exactly “retaliation…in consequences of the enormities perpetrated” by another state. And we can hope that these five specific interstate problems, and resulting national divisions, never happen—at least not in our lifetimes.
But as Mark Twain wryly put it, “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” With that in mind, I urge you to keep Hamilton’s reasoning in Federalist 7 handy for a rainy day.