User:Andrew-Hartman-1/Federalist No. 6

Alexander Hamilton.jpg, writing under the pseudonym of Publius, just like James Madison and John Jay in the other Federalist Papers. Published on November 14, 1787, this essay argues the significance of a Union between the States and such an effect upon the well-being of Americans at the time. Formally titled "Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States", Federalist No. 6 begins the discussion of the idea that the States, as they stood at the time, would devolve into conflict with each other. This discussion is carried forward into Federalist No. 7 as well, and represents one of the bastions of Federalist thought in their fight against the Anti-Federalists.
 * 315x315px]]

Historical Context
Almost precisely two months before the publication of Federalist No. 6, the Constitutional Convention (or Federal Convention in the vernacular of the day) adjourned and released the document they had drafted out of the public eye. The proposed Constitution was quite unexpected, as the delegates appointed to what is referred to as the Constitutional Convention were appointed for the express purpose of proposing changes to the Articles of Confederation, not to design a new government entirely. As a result, a great controversy arose, both at the national level as those aligning with the title Federalist like Hamilton, Madison, Jay and others fought those with the title of Anti-Federalist like Jefferson, Adams, Smith, Dewitt, and Mason to name a few. These debates and arguments were had in public forums like newspapers and taverns, but also in formal forums like that of state conventions holding rousing debates about what powers a newly formed Federal Government ought to have or nor to have. A marked change in the times is reflected in how the public came to consume the opinions shared by those like Hamilton and his opponents. Such detailed criticism or buttressing performed by Hamilton over the matter of the Constitution made its way to the public in a new form, as the detailed analysis was widely published.

Hamilton's Arguments
Federalist No. 6 notes several republics and 'commercial republics' that experience almost perpetual states of conflict and derision. These previous republics of old include Sparta, Athens, Rome and Carthage. In mentioning such republics of old, Hamilton argues that the current arrangements made in the wake of the American Revolution resemble such systems of government. Hamilton makes clear that he believes that such an arrangement would result in ruin for the new country. In recounting the history of such republics who experienced failure after a time, Hamilton argues that commercial ties between separate republics or States is not enough for stability or cooperation and summarily espouses support for a more extensive Union. Further, he declares that nations who exist as neighbors are natural enemies, and must be brought together by a shared document and shared commercial interests. To drive home Hamilton's argument, he mentions Shays Rebellion; an event that reinforced his beliefs about the volatility of the current States under the Articles of Confederation. It is with these events and the events of the past in mind that Hamilton espouses support for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, in an effort to bind the States together.

Counterarguments
Counterarguments to Hamilton's beliefs come from authors like John Dewitt in his own time. Dewitt, a prominent Anti-Federalist argues directly against the ideas presented in Hamilton's No. 6. In his first Essay, Dewitt criticizes the speed at which some wish the Constitution to be ratified. It is Dewitt's view that the new Constitution will unnaturally bind the States together, in addition to granting the new government powers which Dewitt disagrees with. Dewitt also argues against Hamilton's chosen Constitution as it lacks a Bill of Rights. Additionally, it is Dewitt's view that such a document like the Constitution will be hard to change. Finally, Dewitt strikes out at Hamilton's ideas of a grand Republic that spans the continent and is powerful, instead preferring a content, but more democratic existence with separate states.

Modern Relevance
Federalist No. 6 maintains some relevance in the Twenty-First Century. Federalist No. 6 maintains this relevance in the eyes of some as it, along with Federalist No. 7, deals with the still pertinent issue of whether or not even partial disunion among the states will lead to ruin or to greater heights. Though the Constitution was and is ratified by all states in the United States, Federalism, or the system of dividing powers in America has undergone changes in the time since 1787. Though the Federalists of the period would disagree, modern authors like Daniel Smith argue that the States, as arranged today, are in a state of disunion, and for the better. Scholars like Smith argue in opposition to Hamilton; arguing that states engaging in municipal or public finance in order to pay for the public goods that many citizens take for granted such as roads, bridges, hospitals, et cetera benefit from the disunion of bond markets, and consequently the states themselves. Such disunion allows states to take into account the differing cultures and financial situations that they may have according to Smith. Such a continuing discussion over how best to administrate the powers of government consistently calls in documents like Federalist No. 6 and Federalist No. 7.