Federalist No. 7

Federalist No. 7
Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 7

Author	Alexander Hamilton
Original title	The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
Country	United States
Language	English
Series	The Federalist
Publisher	The Independent Journal
Publication date	November 15, 1787
Media type	Newspaper
Preceded by	Federalist No. 6
Followed by	Federalist No. 8

Federalist No. 7, titled "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States", is a political essay by Alexander Hamilton and the seventh of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in the Independent Journal on November 17, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It is one of two essays by Hamilton advocating political union to prevent the states from allowing their natural competition leading to conflict and war. Federalist No. 7 continued the argument Hamilton developed in Federalist No. 6.

Federalist No. 7 provided several contemporaneous examples of disputes between the states that Hamilton argued could cause war between the states unless they unified under a federal government. He presented arguments for why territorial disputes, commercial policy, public debt, and violation of private contracts could cause war between the states.

Summary

Hamilton examined what might bring the states to wage war on one another if they chose several different confederations of states rather than political union. He first addressed territorial disputes. He pointed to large amounts of western territory that had yet to be settled. Competition for these lands was already a source of some tension. The dissolution of the union could lead to the reopening of previous territorial disputes. He pointed to the dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over the Wyoming territories. Under the Articles of Confederation a federal court adjudicated the dispute in favor of Pennsylvania, but Connecticut remained discontented with outcome. Without a federal government, these old disputes were likely to reemerge.

Next he took up competition in commerce. States or confederations of states would naturally seek to exploit their economic advantages. He cited the example of New York, who was in the position to impose duties on its neighbors New Jersey and Connecticut. Without a political union these natural advantages that some states possessed could lead those disadvantaged states to respond with violence.

Finally, he identified the states' collective public debt as a point of dispute. The states had not resolved the issue of apportionment of the debts, or whether paying the debts was an urgent matter. Hamilton felt that any agreement would be considered unfair by some states. Also, some states could pass laws that violated private contracts. All of these would cause conflict that could lead to war. Hamilton concluded that without a political union, the states faced the prospect of internal strife, which America's enemies would likely seek to exploit. For these reasons Hamilton argued that the states should remain unified.

Background and publication

Federalist No. 7 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Hamilton worked with James Madison and John Jay to write a series of essays to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it. They published these essays in New York newspapers under the shared pseudonym Publius.^[1]It was first published in the Independent Journal on November 17, 1787, followed by the Daily Advertiser on November 19 and the New-York Packet on November 20.^[2] Federalist No. 7 directly continues the argument of Federalist No. 6 regarding the likelihood of war between the states should the states not adopt the new U. S. Constitution.^[3]

Analysis

Federalist No. 7 presented arguments in favor of a maintaining the political union under a federal government, describing potential sources of conflict between the states should they choose division into individual states or confederations of multiple states.^[4] Hamilton believed that the states were just as susceptible to engage in conflict as any other nation.^[5] The risk of conflict necessitated the creation of a central government that could resolve future disputes between the states. The proposed federal government would ensure that the same rules of commerce were applied equally to all of the states.^[4] Hamilton warned that should the states fail to maintain a unified government, foreign nations would seek to gain influence over the states by turning them against one another.^[5]

Territorial disputes

Hamilton pointed to the territorial dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut among others that was decided by a federal court under the system in place under the Articles of Confederation. It was decided in Pennsylvania's favor leaving Connecticut dissatisfied. Without some form of federal arbitration, these disputes could easily lead to conflict and war.^[4] Territorial disputes had already become a point of contention between the states by the time Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 7. These included disputes over the Wyoming Valley and the Vermont Republic.^[6] Such cases naturally cause contention and discord.^[3] In the absence of a federal government states would naturally pursue their own interests. Without a federal system there would be no means to ameliorate these conflicts, and potentially lead to violence.

Commercial interests

New York Harbor in 1790: Hamilton feared that New York's location would allow it to impose stronger duties on other states, inviting conflict.

Hamilton believed that a federal commercial policy was necessary to ensure that commerce and duties were uniform between the states so that no state could unilaterally implement a trade policy that harmed another state.^[4] While it was commonly held that mutual economic and commercial interests would prevent conflict, Hamilton countered that the economic competition between states could prompt conflict between them.^[3] He cited the example of New York, which held a geographic advantage that allowed them disproportionate control over interstate trade with its neighbors. It allowed them to engage in practices such as tax exportation.^[3][7] He argued that it would be unreasonable to expect states not to take advantage of their strengths and assets in a manner that would benefit their own citizens at the expense of those in other states, potentially resulting in trade wars that could spill over into violence.

Public debt

The United States accumulated significant public debt during the Revolutionary War. There was disagreement as to how responsibility for paying the debt should be apportioned.^[3] The Articles of Confederation had no mechanism to compel payment by the states. Hamilton expressed concern that should the states not remain politically united, apportionment of those debts would likely be a point of conflict. Attitudes towards the payment of these debts varied. States would naturally seek to minimize their own liabilities but exaggerate that of other states. The payment of these debts would likely be postponed while these conflicts were settled. Some of these debts were to foreign powers who would press for repayment. All this risked "external invasion and internal contention." Hamilton also described the "violation of private contracts" between citizens of separate states as a potential source of conflict.^[6] The proposed constitution offered a solution. Congress was authorized to pay debts. The constitution included an Engagements Clause that affirmed the validity of previously accumulated debts.^[4] While disputes would still arise, there was a method to adjudicate them.

Hamilton feared that the issue of territorial disputes, commercial conflict and public debts could lead in America to the "pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars." He argued that foreign enemies would look to exploit these internal struggles. He ended the essay with "Divide et impera [Divide and rule] must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us."

Legacy

Hamilton described the states as naturally prone to war if there was no moderating federal government. Hamilton's view of human nature and pursuit of self-interest derived from the ideas of Thomas Hobbes.^[6][8] Hobbes was a key representative of state of nature theory. He argued that social order required citizens cede some of their natural freedom to a strong government. Otherwise, self-interest would naturally cause conflict, the "war of all against all." His solution was the "Leviathan state" which would have the power necessary to guarantee security.^[8] Hamilton's solution to potential conflict between states was to maintain a political union, but unlike the one created by the Articles of Confederation, a strong enough federal government to resolve these disputes without resorting to violence. Hamilton's view that commercial interests could lead to war was realized a century later when the southern states seceded from the union over slavery and fought the northern states in the Civil War. In that case the prior political union did not prevent the war.

The dispute over the American frontier was resolved as the states agreed to cede their western territories to the federal government, eventually allowing for the creation of new states.^[8] While disputes remain, in the twenty-first century, warfare between the states is no longer considered likely.^[8]

Impact on Commerce

The system of federalism advocated by Hamilton allowed the states to maintain their own independent economies in conjunction with the national economy, particularly after the ratification of the Tenth Amendment.^[3] The Commerce Clause in the constitution gave power over interstate and foreign commerce to the United States Congress.^[4] This clause has been interpreted as effectively creating a free-trade zone between the states to prevent them from engaging in trade wars.^[8] Advocates of deregulatory policies, such as constitutional law professor Michael Greve and economics professor Daniel L. Smith, have proposed that federalism promotes economic competition between the states to the benefit of the citizens.^[3][8]

Economic competition between the states has remained common throughout American history, though the focus shifted from tariffs to subsidies, federal government spending, and benefits for businesses.^[8] States also frequently collaborate when developing commerce policies to gain mutual benefit. Tax exportation has also become a common practice in domestic American commerce.^[3]

Notes

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Epstein, David F. The Political Theory of The Federalist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0226213002
• Levinson, Sanford. An Argument Open to All: Reading “The Federalist” in the 21st Century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0300199598
• Potter, Kathleen O. The Federalist's Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic New York, New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2002. ISBN 978-1931202442
• Rakove, Jack N., and Colleen A. Sheehan (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN 978-1107136397
• Scott, Kyle. The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. London, U.K.: A&C Black, 2013. ISBN 1441185860
• Smith, Daniel L. "Federalist No. 7: Is Disunion among the States a Hidden Source of Strength?" Public Administration Review 71 (2011) s15–s21
• White, Morton. Philosophy, The Federalist, and the Constitution. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press, 1989. ISBN 978-0195059489

External links

Links retrieved July 29, 2026.

• Full text of Federalist No. 7 at Avalon Project
• Library of Congress, "Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History," U.S. Library of Congress.
• Library of Congress, "Federalist Essays in Historic Newspapers," U.S. Library of Congress.
• The Federalist (Dawson)/7 Wikisource