Federalist No. 3 by John Jay (1787)

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State oversight of federal grants
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

Federalist Number (No.) 3 (1787) is an essay by British-American politician John Jay arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. The full title of the essay is "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence." It was written as part of a series of essays collected and published in 1788 as The Federalist and later known as The Federalist Papers. These essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They argued for ratification of the United States Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.

HIGHLIGHTS

Author: John Jay

Source: Originally published in the Independent Journal on November 14, 1787. Republished in 1788 as part of the collection The Federalist, now referred to as The Federalist Papers.

Abstract: John Jay argues for a central government.

Background of the author

John Jay (c. 1745–1829) was a British-American politician, diplomat, and Supreme Court chief justice. He was a supporter of a stronger central government under the U.S. Constitution and is considered a Founding Father of the United States. Below is a summary of Jay's career:

• 1774-1775: Delegate to the Continental Congress from New York
• 1777: Drafted New York's first constitution
• 1778: President of the Continental Congress
• 1779-1782: Diplomat to Spain during the American Revolution
• 1782-1783: Negotiated the Treaty of Paris along with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, formally ending the war
• 1787-1788: Author of five of the 85 essays in The Federalist Papers
• 1789-1795: First chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
• 1795-1801: Governor of New York

Full text of Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence

The full text of Federalist No. 3 reads as follows:

“ To the People of the State of New York: IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive. Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively. At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad. The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations. The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations (*), and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to. It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. Because when once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government,--especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more SAFE with respect to us. Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner,--whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government, cannot be too much commended. Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning. Because, even if the governing party in a State should be disposed to resist such temptations, yet as such temptations may, and commonly do, result from circumstances peculiar to the State, and may affect a great number of the inhabitants, the governing party may not always be able, if willing, to prevent the injustice meditated, or to punish the aggressors. 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. So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford JUST causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the SAFETY of the people. As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter. Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. 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. The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested. But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them. Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power. In the year 1685, the state of Genoa having offended Louis XIV., endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they should send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to FRANCE, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They were obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain, or any other POWERFUL nation? ”

Background of the Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are the 85 articles and essays James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay published arguing for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the full replacement of the Articles of Confederation. All three writers published their papers under the collective pseudonym Publius between 1787-1788.

The Articles of Confederation were an agreement among the original thirteen states in the United States to unite under a central government consisting of the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress proposed the Articles in 1777, and they became effective in March 1781.

The Articles primarily authorized the national government to govern diplomatic foreign relations and regulate and fund the Continental Army. Under the Articles, the Continental Congress lacked the power to levy taxes and could only request funds from the states. The inability of the national government to raise money caused the government to default on pension payments to former Revolutionary War soldiers and other financial obligations, resulting in unrest. Shay's Rebellion was a prominent example of unrest related to the weakness of the central government and the Continental Congress' inability to fulfill its obligations.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened to solve the problems related to the weak national government. Federalists, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, advocated for a completely new government under the United States Constitution. They rejected the Articles of Confederation as a weak governing document that needed fully replaced. The federalists thought the strengthened national government could help protect individual rights from factional conflicts at the state and local levels. They argued the Constitution would strengthen the federal government enough to allow for effective governance but not enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.

Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and George Clinton argued that the national government proposed under the Constitution would be too powerful and would infringe on individual liberties. They thought the Articles of Confederation needed to be amended, not replaced.

Full list of Federalist Papers

The following is a list of individual essays that were collected and published in 1788 as The Federalist and later known as The Federalist Papers. These essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They argued for ratification of the United States Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalist Papers
Number	Subject	Author
No 1	General Introduction	Hamilton
No 2	Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence	Jay
No 3	Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't)	Jay
No 4	Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't)	Jay
No 5	Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't)	Jay
No 6	Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States	Hamilton
No 7	Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States (con't)	Hamilton
No 8	The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States	Hamilton
No 9	The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection	Hamilton
No 10	The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (con't)	Madison
No 11	The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy	Hamilton
No 12	The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue	Hamilton
No 13	Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government	Hamilton
No 14	Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered	Madison
No 15	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union	Hamilton
No 16	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (con't)	Hamilton
No 17	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (con't)	Hamilton
No 18	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 19	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 20	The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 21	Other Defects of the Present Confederation	Hamilton
No 22	Other Defects of the Present Confederation (con't)	Hamilton
No 23	The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union	Hamilton
No 24	The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered	Hamilton
No 25	The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered (con't)	Hamilton
No 26	The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered	Hamilton
No 27	The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (con't)	Hamilton
No 28	The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (con't)	Hamilton
No 29	Concerning the Militia	Hamilton
No 30	Concerning the General Power of Taxation	Hamilton
No 31	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 32	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 33	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 34	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 35	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 36	Concerning the General Power of Taxation (con't)	Hamilton
No 37	Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government	Madison
No 38	The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed	Madison
No 39	The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles	Madison
No 40	The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained	Madison
No 41	General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution	Madison
No 42	The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered	Madison
No 43	The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered (con't)	Madison
No 44	Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States	Madison
No 45	The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered	Madison
No 46	The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared	Madison
No 47	The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts	Madison
No 48	These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other	Madison
No 49	Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government by Appealing to the People Through a Convention	Hamilton and Madison
No 50	Periodical Appeals to the People Considered	Hamilton and Madison
No 51	The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments	Hamilton and Madison
No 52	The House of Representatives	Hamilton and Madison
No 53	The House of Representatives (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 54	The Apportionment of Members Among the States	Hamilton and Madison
No 55	The Total Number of the House of Representatives	Hamilton and Madison
No 56	The Total Number of the House of Representatives (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 57	The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation	Hamilton and Madison
No 58	Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered	Madison
No 59	Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members	Hamilton
No 60	Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members (con't)	Hamilton
No 61	Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members (con't)	Hamilton
No 62	The Senate	Hamilton and Madison
No 63	The Senate (con't)	Hamilton and Madison
No 64	The Powers of the Senate	Jay
No 65	The Powers of the Senate (con't)	Hamilton
No 66	Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered	Hamilton
No 67	The Executive Department	Hamilton
No 68	The Mode of Electing the President	Hamilton
No 69	The Real Character of the Executive	Hamilton
No 70	The Executive Department Further Considered	Hamilton
No 71	The Duration in Office of the Executive	Hamilton
No 72	The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered	Hamilton
No 73	The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power	Hamilton
No 74	The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive	Hamilton
No 75	The Treaty-Making Power of the Executive	Hamilton
No 76	The Appointing Power of the Executive	Hamilton
No 77	The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered	Hamilton
No 78	The Judiciary Department	Hamilton
No 79	The Judiciary (con't)	Hamilton
No 80	The Powers of the Judiciary	Hamilton
No 81	The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority	Hamilton
No 82	The Judiciary Continued	Hamilton
No 83	The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury	Hamilton
No 84	Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered	Hamilton
No 85	Concluding Remarks	Hamilton

See also

• Federalism
• Federalist Papers
• Anti-Federalist papers

External links

• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox