It was originally thought that the individual states would act in concert with one another out of good will and patriotism. This expectation was clearly incorrect, as states judge for themselves what is in their best interest. States have been increasingly non-compliant with congressional requests over time.

As a hypothetical situation, examine the possible outcome of the current form of government under the Articles of Confederation. As the states become increasingly less willing to work together, the national government would become less able to accomplish its goals. This would either lead to continuous civil wars between states, or between the national authority and the states or for the national government to raise a standing army to force the states into compliance. This would result in military despotism.

On the other hand, if the laws passed directly from the national government to the people, than states that attempted to disrupt them would be in open violation of national law. An individual that attempted to disrupt national law would be dealt with by regulations already in place to deal with insurrection within the state authority.

Some critics claim that a national government that becomes too powerful threatens to dominate the powers of the state. Matters that are by their very nature local matters will be left to the states. Even if the national government wanted to encroach on state powers, the people remain much more attached to their local government and will not be inclined to allow this to happen.

Commentary

Replacing the confederacy with a republican form of government will allow for a degree of financial prosperity and a competitive edge not possible under the Articles of Confederation.

Not only will the strong central government be better suited to establishing advantageous commerce and providing protection for it through a navy, but it will also lead to a wealthier and more cost-effective nation overall. The solid union of states will prevent illicit trading and force foreign nations into commercial negotiations and beneficial trade policies. The success of the commercial economy in the United States will translate into greater wealth for all areas of the economy, and will lead to increased revenue for the central government. With this increased revenue, the central government will be able to provide further advantages to the country in the form of defense and better roads for transportation. The nation will have to spend less money on the administration of government, because it is more cost-effective to support one strong central government, than to support 13.

Although this federalist essay, like all the rest, is signed Publius, it is clearly the work of Alexander Hamilton, who judged a nation's value on its financial stability and overall worth. The most important trait of a strong central government, according to Hamilton, was the financial advantage gained from a single government authority.

Hamilton later executed many of his beliefs as Secretary of the Treasury when he masterminded plans to pay off the debt of the individual states and the nation, and when he established the Bank of the United States. His actions during George Washington's presidency were contested as being unconstitutional, but he insisted that the establishment of a national bank and the repayment of debts fell under the authority of the central government to regulate commerce.

Hamilton's ideas about the importance of strong national financial stability are mixed with his ideas about the importance of the central government's power resting with the people. Hamilton was a firm believer in a national government, and had even gone so far to propose an elimination of the states altogether when he attended the Constitutional Convention. He argued in favor of a government in which nothing stood between the people and the governing authority.

Viewing the states as an impediment both to good government, and to the security of the people's rights, he envisioned a system of government in which the people would directly empower the central government and the central government would act directly upon the people. In this system, the states would exist as an extension of the national government closest to the people, but would receive their authority from the federal government not from the people themselves.

This thinking clearly opposed the thinking of patriots that met to compose the Articles of Confederation. They believed that the power of the people should stay closest to the people, in the state governments. Hamilton believed that if the people directly empowered the central government, it would provide the strongest protection to their civil rights against state governments that may not be able to act in favor of the common good. Additionally, a government directly empowered by the people would have the authority of acting directly on the people. States that interfered with the actions of the central government on behalf of the people would be clearly interfering with the best interest of the people.

Popular pages: The Federalist Papers (1787-1789)