Peace Pact

1. The American Founding as a Peace Pact to avert civil war.

Seen in this light, the American founding appears as a distinctive and most remarkable attempt to turn back the tide o f war—that is, as a peace pact.

Averting conflict. The American founding, particularly the creation of the Constitution, was fundamentally an effort to prevent internecine warfare among the newly independent states. This "peace pact" aimed to establish a stable system of cooperation, recognizing that disunion would inevitably lead to conflicts mirroring those in Europe. The founders, fearing a descent into chaos, sought a lasting remedy for potential state and sectional differences.

Unprecedented experiment. This endeavor was unique in world history, being the "most self-conscious 'security community' in world history until the eighteenth century." Unlike European peace settlements that followed bloody wars, the American Constitution was forged in anticipation of conflict, a proactive measure to overcome traditional obstacles to interstate cooperation on a continental scale. It was a bold attempt to create a lasting peace before a devastating war.

Founders' dire warnings. Leaders like Benjamin Franklin warned that without a strong union, the states would become "confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats." This stark choice between peace and war underscored the urgency and profound significance of the constitutional project.

2. The Articles of Confederation plunged states into a perilous "critical period."

That the union would not survive these exiguous circumstances was considered highly probable by the diplomatic agents of Britain, France, and Spain.

Confederation's collapse. The Articles of Confederation, the first attempt at a national government, proved "radically vicious and unsound," leading to a period of severe crisis. By 1787, the league of states had lost cohesion, its debts were unpaid, credit nonexistent, and revenue scarce. States nursed grievances, refused requisitions, and failed to execute the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain.

Signs of "imbecility." The confederation's weakness was evident in multiple areas:

• Financial ruin: No money flowed into the treasury, and federal authority was disregarded.
• Foreign policy failures: The 1783 peace treaty with Britain was violated by both sides, and Congress lacked means to enforce American compliance.
• Commercial disarray: States pursued conflicting trade policies, threatening a new dependence on Britain and frustrating eastern commercial interests.
• Sectional tensions: Proposals like John Jay's to surrender Mississippi navigation to Spain ignited powerful sectional suspicions, hinting at continental division.

Prophecies of dissolution. European powers, including Britain, France, and Spain, confidently predicted the dissolution of the American union into separate, rival confederacies. This external skepticism, combined with internal disarray, fueled the widespread belief that the existing system was unsustainable and on the verge of collapse.

3. Founders drew lessons from ancient and modern confederacies' failures.

It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes o f tyranny and anarchy.

Ancient warnings. The founders extensively studied classical history, drawing stark lessons from the fates of ancient Greece and Rome. Greece's city-states, despite moments of glory, ultimately destroyed themselves through internal divisions and anarchy, paving the way for foreign domination. Rome, conversely, succumbed to corruption and despotism through territorial expansion and military conquest, losing its republican liberty.

Modern European parallels. The history of the modern European state system also offered cautionary tales. The balance of power, while preventing universal monarchy, led to "innumerable and fruitless wars" and the rise of standing armies and perpetual taxes, which Montesquieu and Rousseau condemned as leading to "common ruin" and "continual agitation." This system, though designed to preserve liberty, often destroyed it through different means.

Avoiding extremes. For the founders, these historical examples highlighted a fundamental predicament: how to avoid both the "anarchy of states" and the "despotism of consolidated empire." They sought a "via media" that would secure "ordered liberty" over an "imperial" territory, preserving both individual freedom and the "liberty of states" without falling into either historical trap.

4. The British Imperial Precedent served as a template for American federalism.

The American theory o f “the union o f the empire” from which they revolted formed a template of legitimacy by which to assess their own union, but also created expectations that were very difficult to satisfy.

Imperial constitutional crisis. The American Revolution itself was a constitutional crisis within the British Empire, where colonists developed sophisticated arguments about federalism and limited sovereignty. They viewed the empire as a "foederal" relationship between coequal legislative authorities united by a common king, not a centralized entity with parliamentary supremacy.

Key constitutional questions. The decade-long debate with Britain raised fundamental questions that directly prefigured the challenges of forming their own union:

• Sovereignty: Where did ultimate authority reside—in Parliament or colonial assemblies?
• Jurisdiction: What were the authoritative boundaries between "general" (imperial) and "local" (colonial) responsibilities?
• Representation: What constituted legitimate representation for taxation and governance?
• Burden-sharing: How should the costs and benefits of the imperial association be equitably distributed?

Rejection of British solutions. Plans for colonial representation in Parliament or intermediate imperial unions (like the Albany Plan of 1754 or Galloway's Plan of 1774) failed because they either encroached on colonial autonomy or were seen as insufficient to protect American liberties. This experience solidified the colonists' commitment to a decentralized model of union, even as it made future cooperation among themselves difficult.

5. The Articles of Confederation suffered from inherent structural flaws.

The said Colonies unite themselves [into one Body politic] so as never to be divided by any Act whatever [o f the Legislature o f any Colony or Colonies, or o f the Inhabitants thereof] and hereby severally enter into a firm League o f Friendship with each other, for their Common Defence, the Security o f their Liberties, and their mutual & general Wellfare, binding the said Colonies [and all the inhabitants, & their Posterity,] to assist one another . . . against all Force offered to or Attacks made upon them or any o f them, on account o f Religion, Sovereignty, Trade, or any other Pretence whatever [and faithfully to observe an d adhere to all & singular the Articles o f this Confederation.]

A "firm league of friendship." The Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-77, explicitly defined the union as a "firm league of friendship" among sovereign states, rejecting the concept of a single "body politic." This reflected a deep-seated fear of centralized power, born from the struggle against British imperial authority. Each state retained its "sovereignty, freedom, and independence," delegating only expressly defined powers to Congress.

Fatal weaknesses. Despite its aspirations for perpetual union, the Articles suffered from critical structural deficiencies:

• No coercive power: Congress could request funds and troops but could not compel states to comply, leading to chronic underfunding and military weakness.
• Lack of independent revenue: Dependence on state requisitions, often ignored, rendered the national government impotent.
• Absence of executive/judicial branches: Congress functioned as a "deliberating Executive assembly," lacking distinct executive or judicial authority to enforce laws or resolve disputes effectively.
• Unanimity rule for amendments: This requirement made it virtually impossible to adapt the Articles to changing circumstances or address its inherent flaws.

Unresolved conflicts. The drafting process itself revealed profound disagreements over representation, western land claims, and burden-sharing, particularly between large and small states, and between landed and landless states. These "fractures" were embedded in the document, ensuring that the union, though declared "perpetual," was precarious and prone to breakdown.

6. Sectional interests deeply divided states on foreign policy and union.

The great point he contended for in these essays was that the “true interest” o f both America and Europe was that “America should have a free trade with all o f them, and that she should be neutral in all their w ars.”

Aspirations for a new diplomacy. Thomas Paine and John Adams articulated a vision of American foreign policy based on "peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none." This "liberal" approach favored free trade, neutrality in European wars, and avoiding political entanglements, believing America's commercial strength would secure its place in the world.

Reality of European entanglement. Despite these aspirations, the exigencies of the War of Independence forced the United States into a political alliance with France, contradicting the ideal of non-entanglement. The subsequent peace negotiations revealed deep divisions among American commissioners, with John Jay and John Adams distrusting French motives and pursuing a separate peace with Britain.

Sectional foreign policy. The war and its aftermath exacerbated existing sectional rivalries, leading to divergent foreign policy interests:

• New England: Prioritized access to fisheries and trade routes, often aligning with British commercial interests.
• Southern States: Sought to break free from British commercial dependence and expand westward, leading to conflicts over Mississippi navigation and alliances with France or Spain.
• Middle States: Often played a mediating role, but also had their own commercial and territorial ambitions.

These conflicting sectional interests, particularly over trade and western expansion, frequently paralyzed Congress and threatened the very cohesion of the union, making a unified foreign policy elusive.

7. The Constitutional Convention aimed to balance power and prevent disunion.

The great problems that Madison sought to resolve in the “Vices” were not novel. English critics such as Josiah Tucker had observed before the Revolution that republican governments would be incapable o f form ing a durable union and would also end by making citizens less free than subjects.

Addressing the "Vices." James Madison's "Vices of the Political System of the United States" meticulously cataloged the confederation's failures, including states' non-compliance with requisitions, encroachments on federal authority, violations of treaties, trespasses on each other's rights, and lack of concert in common interests. These vices, he argued, demonstrated that the states were effectively in a "state of nature" toward each other.

The Virginia Plan. Edmund Randolph's Virginia Plan, largely shaped by Madison's analysis, proposed a powerful national government with a bicameral legislature, proportional representation, and the authority to "negative all laws passed by the several States" and "call forth the force of the Union" against delinquent members. This plan aimed to establish a "due supremacy of the national authority" to prevent disunion.

Small states' resistance. Smaller states, fearing consolidation and the dominance of larger states, countered with William Paterson's New Jersey Plan, which retained equal state voting in a unicameral Congress but granted it new powers to tax imports, regulate trade, and enforce federal laws. This plan sought to strengthen the union without sacrificing state sovereignty. The clash between these plans highlighted the convention's central dilemma: how to create a strong union without extinguishing the "liberty of states."

8. Key compromises on representation, slavery, and commerce secured the union.

The compromise, though focused on representation, effectively closed the gap between nationalist and federalist perspectives and made it possible to foresee a federal structure in which local and general authorities each hewed to their constitutionally allotted functions.

The Great Compromise. The most contentious issue was representation. Large states demanded proportional representation based on population, while small states insisted on equal representation. The "Great Compromise" of July 16 resolved this by creating a bicameral legislature:

• House of Representatives: Proportional representation based on population (with the three-fifths clause for slaves).
• Senate: Equal representation for each state (two senators per state).
  This compromise, though imperfect, was crucial for preventing the convention's collapse.

Slavery and commerce. Sectional divisions, particularly between North and South, led to further compromises:

• Three-fifths clause: Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for both representation and direct taxation, a concession to the South.
• Slave trade: The importation of slaves was protected until 1808, a demand from the Deep South.
• Export taxes: Prohibited, a concession to southern agricultural interests.
• Navigation acts: Required only a simple majority (not two-thirds) for passage, a win for northern commercial interests.

A Machiavellian bargain. These compromises, particularly those concerning slavery, were "Machiavellian" in nature, involving a "compromise with evil" to secure the union. They reflected the founders' conviction that a union, even one built on moral concessions, was preferable to disunion, which they believed would lead to greater evils like civil war and foreign intervention.

9. The Constitution deliberately left sovereignty ambiguous to avoid conflict.

The more he reflected on the use o f force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy o f it when applied to people collectively and not individually.

Avoiding coercion. The Constitution deliberately omitted any clause authorizing the federal government to use force against states, a provision present in earlier plans. Madison, among others, argued that coercing a state would resemble a "declaration of war" and likely dissolve the union rather than preserve it. This reflected a pragmatic recognition that force against a state was impractical and dangerous.

Sovereignty's new locus. Instead of explicitly locating sovereignty in either the national or state governments, the Constitution placed it in "the people" acting through state conventions. This created a system where both federal and state governments were "supreme in its limited sphere," each deriving authority from the same ultimate source. This "double sleight of hand" allowed for a "feudal system of republics" where power was partitioned rather than consolidated.

Judicial guardianship. The Supreme Court was implicitly tasked with guarding these allocations of authority, declaring acts null and void if they exceeded constitutional bounds. However, Madison himself doubted the judiciary's ability to prevent state encroachments, fearing that a state willing to violate federal law would also defy judicial decrees, potentially necessitating military force—the very evil the Constitution sought to avoid.

10. Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: Anarchy vs. Empire.

Rather than the conflict between aristocracy and democracy, it is the contrast between universal empire and international anarchy (usually rendered as the conflict between centralization and decentralization) that lay at the heart o f the ratification debates.

Core ideological clash. The ratification debates were not primarily a struggle between aristocracy and democracy, but a fundamental clash within the "unionist paradigm." Federalists, like Hamilton and Madison, primarily feared "international anarchy"—the dissolution of the union into warring regional confederacies, leading to foreign intervention and despotism. Anti-Federalists, conversely, dreaded "universal empire" or "despotic centralization"—a consolidated national government that would extinguish state liberties and inevitably become tyrannical.

Conflicting visions of the future.

• Federalist warnings: They painted a grim picture of disunion, predicting a "Europe of America" with standing armies, perpetual taxes, and constant conflict, jeopardizing republican government.
• Anti-Federalist counterarguments: They dismissed these fears as "hobgoblins," arguing that democratic states, bound by commerce, were inherently pacific. They believed a strong central government was unnatural for such an "amazing extent of country" and would lead to tyranny.

The "spirit of amity." Federalists ultimately prevailed by emphasizing the necessity of compromise and the "spirit of amity" that produced the Constitution. They argued that the Anti-Federalists' mutually inconsistent objections demonstrated the impossibility of achieving union if every state insisted on its "favorite conditions." The Constitution, though imperfect, was presented as the only viable path to peace and stability.

11. The Constitution created a unique "feudal system of republics."

It presents the aspect rather o f a feudal system o f republics, if such a phrase may be used, than o f a Confederacy o f independent States.

A novel political edifice. The Constitution established a system "sui generis," a "republic of different republics and a nation of many nations." It blended elements of both a state and a state system, creating a continental order that was unprecedented. This unique federal structure was a pragmatic response to the complex challenge of uniting diverse, sovereign entities.

Domesticating the balance of power. The founders incorporated the concept of the balance of power, traditionally applied to international relations, into the internal structure of the federal government. This was evident in:

• Separation of powers: Checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
• Federal-state division: Each level of government acting as a sentinel against the encroachments of the other.
• Representation compromises: Balancing state and population interests in the bicameral legislature.
• Treaty-making: Requiring a two-thirds Senate vote for treaties, ensuring broad consensus.

Enduring relevance. The "unionist paradigm" and the "Philadelphian System" it produced continue to offer insights into contemporary challenges of world order. The founders grappled with questions of shared sovereignty, equitable burden-sharing, managing diverse interests, and preventing collective violence—problems that remain central to international cooperation today. The Constitution, born from a "Machiavellian moment" requiring compromises with evil, stands as a testament to the enduring quest for peace and power in a world of states.

Last updated: March 4, 2026