Federalist No. 8

Federalist No. 8
As published in The Daily Advertiser, alongside Federalist No. 9

Author	Alexander Hamilton
Original title	Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
Country	United States
Language	English
Series	The Federalist
Publisher	New York Packet
Publication date	November 20, 1787
Media type	Newspaper
Preceded by	Federalist No. 7
Followed by	Federalist No. 9

Federalist No. 8, titled "Consequences of Hostilities Between the States", is a political essay by Alexander Hamilton and the eighth of The Federalist Papers. It was first published in the New-York Packet on November 20, 1787, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist Papers were published. It was a response to critics of a national standing army. It examined the consequences of a dissolution of the union, and the potential conflict between the the states leading to the creation of state militias and the potential for military conflict between them.

Federalist No. 8 argued that if the states did not remain unified it would lead to the creation of state militias for the purpose of defense. Smaller states in particular would want to build up militias to protect them from possible encroachment by the larger states. These armies could infringe on the civil liberties of its citizens and increase the potential for despotism on the part of those who wielded them. Hamilton argued instead for maintaining the union under the proposed constitution and for a single standing army. He argued that a national army would be less likely to be used against the citizens and less dangerous for their liberty. The essay describes geography as a factor in the maintenance of an army, saying that the ocean protects the United States from European invasion but would not protect the states from one another.

Summary

Publius argued that if the the states rejected the proposed U. S. Constitution each state would be forced to defend itself. In that case larger states would naturally have geographic and resource advantages over others. The buildup of state militias could ultimately lead to war between the states. He argued that in the European nations war was less likely because they had built defensive infrastructure to protect them from invading armies. The American states lacked these fortifications. Hamilton feared that states would be forced to create state militias and be willing to trade liberty for safety as the executive function would outpace the legislative, representative one. It could lead to the return of the excesses of monarchical system. Hamilton was less concerned about the abuse of a national standing army than those the states would inevitably create. It could enable some state executives to adopt despotic policies like those of their European counterparts.

Hamilton compared the situation of the states with ancient Greek republics, which never had standing armies despite constant wars between them. He explained that modern developments in industry and warfare made the concept of citizen soldiers impractical. He argued that the army of a frequently invaded nation is generally larger but it can lead to militarism which risks infringing on civil liberties. He compared it to the army of an infrequently invaded nation, which can be smaller and less likely to infringe on civil liberties. He then compared the states to Great Britain, which he says avoided despotism because it is separated from Europe by a body of water, It did not need to maintain a large standing army. He argued that the United States could have a similar advantage if the states remained unified, but that they could become rival states if they separated.

Background and publication

Federalist No. 8 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 New-York Packet on November 20, 1787, and then in the Daily Advertiser and the Independent Journal on November 21, 1787.^[2] Federalist No. 8 continued the argument of Federalist No. 7 that union would provide better security for the states than division.^[3] The Federalist Papers had yet to address the issue of a standing army in its first seven essays. Opponents of the proposed constitution feared that a national standing army would pose a danger to the states.^[4][5]

Analysis

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 8

The issues

During Hamilton's lifetime, it was widely accepted in political philosophy that the size and centralization of a government was correlated with increased engagement in war.^[6]Hamilton was concerned that separate states armed with their own army's would lead to war between states.

The idea of unifying under a central government for common defense is essential to the state of nature philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.^[3] Hamilton's description of a "natural course of things" in Federalist No. 8 is reminiscent of the "natural condition of mankind" described by Hobbes. The natural course of things as Hamilton described it would lead to each state arming itself for protection which would lead to a strengthening of the army. In any ensuing war, it would strengthen the position of the state's executive. Hamilton was concerned that the states would repeat the kind of despotism that had inspired the revolution.^[7]

Standing army

Federalist No. 8 was written to refute the position of the Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalists criticized the proposed constitution for allowing the creation of a national standing army.^[6] While he accepted that there were inherent dangers in a standing army,^[7] Hamilton gave little credence to those who objected to the existence of such an army. He believed that the military would be loyal to the people, who would oppose military action against the states. Hamilton presented the issue as one of risk versus one of guaranteed failure.^[4] The risks surrounding a standing army would be even greater if it was not created under a national government.^[5] To appease detractors of standing armies, Hamilton argued that the low odds of an invasion meant that an American army could remain small.^[3]

He warned that a failure to unify would create a constant state of war between the states.^[8] Hamilton believed that war between the states would be especially devastating, as the states had no fortifications or standing armies of their own.^[6] The fear of "plunder and devastation" during times of war would incentivize states to create fortifications and a standing army by each state to prevent invasion by enemy combatants.^[7] These standing armies would then be more entrenched in society than if it had been created as part of a national government, which would be further removed.^[5]

Hamilton compared the nature of contemporary warfare to that of ancient Greece, arguing that the Greeks had no need for a standing army. He explained that the Greeks were able to employ civilian-soldiers, while modern obligations in industry made it difficult for men to give up their occupations to go to war. Advancements in warfare made it difficult for untrained men to become soldiers.^[7] The ancient Greeks also found themselves taken from their trades to serve in armies, while a modern volunteer military allowed professionals to retain their roles.^[7] Federalist No. 8 was the first of The Federalist Papers to reference modern industry as something valuable to society, describing the advancements that have called men to professions other than war.^[8] Conversely, he acknowledged that this expansion of industry is what allowed technological advancements in warfare to develop.^[7]

Geographical advantage

Hamilton made an appeal based on geography in Federalist No. 8 that echoed John Jay's argument in earlier essays.^[5] He believed that the United States had a geographical advantage because it was separated from other nations by a large ocean. He warned that splitting into several small nations would nullify this advantage.^[8] If the states were to be separate they would be no different than the nations of Europe which had a history of conflicts.^[3] Hamilton compared the circumstance of the United States to Great Britain, which as an island nation was able to isolate itself from constant conflict with other European nations. This allowed Great Britain to avoid the entrenchment of a standing army that would curtail liberty.^[5][7] Peace in the British Isles had been a recent development, the result of the union of England and Scotland in 1707 that established the Kingdom of Great Britain.^[6]

Applying this analysis to the United States, Hamilton argued that the states would be isolated from conflict if they were unified but that they would be surrounded by adversaries if they separated, not unlike continental Europe.^[5][7] 19th century political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville made a similar argument about the United States' geographical advantage in his study of the United States.^[8]

Legacy

Hamilton continued his arguments regarding a standing army in Federalist No. 24 through No. 29.^[5] In Federalist No. 41, James Madison repeated Hamilton's argument that geographic isolation was an asset for Great Britain and the United States.^[8] In Federalist No. 51, Madison echoed Hamilton's argument regarding the risk of sacrificing liberty for safety, applying the same reasoning to sacrificing justice for safety.^[8] Shortly after the constitution's ratification, it was amended by the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment guaranteed private citizens the right to bear arms and states the right to form militias, while the Third Amendment forbade the military during times of peace from quartering soldiers in the homes of private citizens without the consent of the owner.^[4]

As Hamilton suggested, the geographic position of the United States kept it from facing direct invasion, excepting the War of 1812. His prediction that disunion between the states could lead to war was realized during the American Civil War.^[3] Public opinion on standing armies has changed since the writing of The Federalist Papers. Despite the concerns of that Anti-federalists that a standing army would endanger civil liberties, military strength has largely come to be seen in the United States as a necessary means for its protection.^[6] Following World War II, the United States established a strong standing army and formed international alliances like NATO and SEATO. The United States has since used its army to engage with opponents in other parts of the world to protect democracy, but also to ensure its own security through mutual defense^[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
• Millican, Edward. One United People: The Federalist Papers and the National Idea. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2014. ISBN 978-0813160337
• Potter, Kathleen O. The Federalist's Vision of Popular Sovereignty in the New American Republic. New York, NY: 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

External links

All links retrieved August 28, 2026.

• Full text of Federalist No. 8 Avalon Project
• "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)/8 Wikisource