DISCLAIMER: I am not a historian nor a political scientist. I do have a fascination and interest in the Constitution and so I started reading the Federalist Papers and posting my interpretation on my own blog. I thought it might be of some interest here. Your interpretations and thoughts are greatly appreciated in the comments!
You can find the Federalist Papers in their entirety at The Library of Congress website.
Federalist No. 9 and links to previous Federalist Papers entries below the fold and previously posted at LiveJournal
Federalist No. 1 here
Federalist No. 2 here
Federalist No. 3 here
Federalist No. 4 here
Federalist No. 5 here
Federalist No. 6 here
Federalist No. 7 here
Federalist No. 8 here
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
For the Independent Journal.
This is another in the continuing arguments for the necessity of a strong union to provide security to the young nation. Hamilton begins with a recounting that the ancient Greek and Roman Republics were often racked with disorder and conflict. He then goes on to state that the opponents of liberty and republican government have used these examples of disorder to argue against civil liberties. But of course, he doesn't agree and thinks that America has the opportunity to prove the critics wrong.
They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.
But why is Hamilton hopeful that American can do what the republics of Greece and Rome could not? Why, progress, of course!
The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times.
We then get into the heart of the discussion - the size of the confederation. Recall that the argument of the day and the one that was at the heart of the disagreement about the Constitution was the size and scope of the new national government. Hamilton argues for a large federal government and uses the thoughts of Montesquieu to make his points in the remainder of the paper. Montesquieu was a French philosopher from the Enlightenment who may be most known for articulating the notion of separation of powers.
Montesquieu argues that size matters and that in the case of government, the smaller the size the better. But Hamilton notes that the size that Montesquieu has in mind is smaller than several of the existing states - Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, Georgia. Further, breaking these states into the requisite size would lead to the very internal squabbles and dissent that it was meant to prevent. And so, even if the sizes of the states were reduced, having a stable, secure nation would REQUIRE a strong, united confederate government.
it would only dictate a reduction of the SIZE of the more considerable MEMBERS of the Union, but would not militate against their being all comprehended in one confederate government. And this is the true question, in the discussion of which we are at present interested.
Hamilton then uses a lengthy quote from Montesquieu to show that smaller states will organize with others until they reach a natural size that will allow for their common security. Montesquieu says that this arrangement based on common security allows for stability since an insurrection of one state would be put down by the other states in order to preserve the security of the whole.
"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies." (Montesquieu)
The paper closes with a discussion on the definition of a Confederacy vs. a loose consolidation. Hamilton argues that the application of such definitions had been arbitrary and then states the definition of a Confederacy for his purposes:
The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy.
Hamilton then goes on to make the very important point that the state governments are NOT abolished in the Constitution but are a part of the sovereign federal government with direct representation in the Senate and powers reserved solely unto them. He then states that this is the very idea of a "federal government"
He closes this paper with an example from Lycia:
a federation of ancient cities in the region and later a province of the Roman Empire. The Lycian League was the first federation in the world with democratic principles which later influenced the American Constitution.
In Lycia, the cities/republics were allotted votes based on size. Montesquieu argued that this was the model for an excellent Confederate Republic. Hamilton of course, strongly disagrees:
Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
I think Hamilton just said he was more enlightened than Montesquieu. I think history might just bear that out.