The Federalist #3 - Any Need for Foreign Relations?

[Sage_Rat]

The Federalist #3

Main Points:

1. The thing for which people are most concerned is their own safety and security.
2. A single United States with a Federal government would be in a better position to see to it that:

• Current treaties are met
• Local interests could be tempered by cooler heads in disinterested areas of the country.
  And thus that there would be less likelihood of angering other nations.

Suggested debate:
In modern day, “Rule of Law”, is pretty much the only thing which necessitates acting in accordance with international treaties and law (by the Sixth Article of the Constitution, treaties are enacted as the supreme law of the land.) While as, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, failure to maintain peaceful relationships with other nations in the world could potentially mean the end of the country.

Can we trust that in the continued absence of a need for the good will of other nations, that the US will continue to see there as being a need to bow to its promises? Would there be any solution, national or global, that would instill a countercheck if this is a worry?

As an example, it’s currently entirely plausible that the US attacked and occupied Iraq without provocation. And yet, outside of some booing, there’s little that the US has to fear from having done this.

---

Series Proposal
Federalist #1
Federalist #2

[Kozmik]

But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

(emphasis mine)
What is the context of what John Jay wrote here?

[Sage_Rat]

Well, for instance, take the later example that he gives:

@John Jay

Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.

So essentially, where the locals might feel that they are justified in feuding with the neighbours, other states wouldn’t have greed or fear or anything goading them on, so representatives from those states would be more likely to resist border wars, and to punish those that happened.

For instance, expansion West was probably already a given at this time, but the way to divide the Western section of the continent was unclear. Canada was still fully a British colony and intended to take as much land as they could, just as the Americans intended to do the same (the US/Canada border wasn’t decided until 1818, and probably we had similar agreements with Spain and Portugal to the South and West.) Without a central government, border states might be more inclined to go grab-happy than is wise, since they would be the ones who benefit from expansion.

[Sage_Rat]

A look at the War of 1812 might also be good to give an idea of the position the US was in at the time.