The Federalist Papers · Chapter
VI: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States explained
Hamilton warns that if the states remain disunited or form only partial confederacies, they will inevitably engage in frequent and violent conflicts with each other.
What happens
Hamilton warns that if the states remain disunited or form only partial confederacies, they will inevitably engage in frequent and violent conflicts with each other. He argues that human nature—ambition, vindictiveness, and rapacity—makes such hostilities certain, and he refutes the notion that republics or commercial states are inherently peaceful, citing historical examples from Greece, Rome, Carthage, Venice, Holland, and Britain. He concludes that proximity makes nations natural enemies and that only a strong union can prevent these dangers.
Themes in this chapter
Human Nature and the Capacity for Self-Government
Hamilton argues that human passions—ambition, vindictiveness, rapacity—make conflict inevitable among disunited states, challenging the idea that republics are naturally peaceful.
National Security and Foreign Relations
The chapter focuses on dangers from dissensions between states, which could lead to internal wars and weaken the nation against foreign threats.
Federalism and the Necessity of Union
Hamilton uses historical examples to show that only a strong union can prevent the natural enmity between neighboring states and ensure peace.
Characters to notice
- Publius
Author of the essay, addressing the people of New York to warn of dangers from dissensions between the states.
- Alexander Hamilton
The actual writer of this Federalist Paper, arguing against disunion and partial confederacies.
- Congress
Referenced indirectly as the national legislature under the Articles of Confederation, whose weakness is implied.
- The Judicious Blackstone
Not directly mentioned in this excerpt, but the chapter's legal reasoning echoes principles associated with Blackstone's commentaries.
Key passages
“A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these states should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.”
Only someone lost in unrealistic fantasies would deny that if the states separate or form weak alliances, they will often fight each other fiercely.
Hamilton dismisses the idea that disunion could lead to peace, asserting that conflict is inevitable.
“To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.”
Expecting lasting peace among separate, neighboring states ignores all of history and human experience.
Hamilton appeals to historical evidence to argue that disunity leads to war.
“Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory?”
Commerce has only shifted what nations fight over; the desire for wealth is just as strong as the desire for power or fame.
Hamilton refutes the idea that commercial republics are inherently peaceful.
“Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?”
We must stop believing in a perfect world and accept that we, like all people, are far from achieving ideal wisdom and virtue.
Hamilton urges a realistic view of human nature to guide political decisions.
