Federalist No. 6

With the subject of the dangers of dissension between the states, I was very interested in Federalist No. 6. My interest stems from the fact that we have seen, and continue to see, the results of such dissensions – not as much between the states as between powerful parties and organizations within the nation.

. . . 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.”(Vide “Principes des Negociations” par 1’Abbe de Mably.) This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY. (emphasis original)

There is enough strife, and enough of regional differences to make me question if the system we have has enough force in the built-in mechanisms of self-correction (separation of powers, competitions between overlapping interests different groups and competing interests between various groups of individuals and states) to regain the unity that has previously brought our nation together when we most needed it.

About David

David is the father of 8 extremely organized children (4 girls / 4 boys) who is constantly seeking answers to tough questions related to parenting, education and politics while moonlighting for 40 hours each week as a technology professional. He also enjoys cooking, gardening, and sports.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments

2 Responses to Federalist No. 6

  1. Reach Upward says:

    I’m not sure that we actually have a good track record of unity. My reading of U.S. history doesn’t reveal such anyway. The exception would be the few times we have battled foes that have generally been accepted to pose a serious and immediate threat.

  2. David says:

    I did not mean to suggest that we have been generally unified, but rather that we have generally become unified in times of crisis. (Like the first 3 days after 9/11.)

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...