The Federalists Reloaded | No. 5

Unity, Foreign Influence, and Influence: The Closing Argument

In the fall of 1787, the ink on the U.S. Constitution was barely dry, and the American experiment was hanging by a thread. The Revolutionary War was over, but the states were squabbling like rival siblings, each protecting its turf, nursing grievances, and flirting with the idea of going their own way. The Articles of Confederation failed miserably, and the proposed Constitution, this bold plan for a stronger federal government, faced stiff opposition.

That’s the backdrop for Federalist No. 5. John Jay, one of the Constitution’s fiercest defenders, took to the press in New York to argue the case for unity. His pitch wasn’t subtle: Without a strong national government, the states would splinter into jealous, rival nations. Foreign powers would exploit the divisions. And the whole grand American experiment would go down in flames before it had a chance to succeed.

Jay had studied the bloody history of Europe. He saw the writing on the wall. Federalist No. 5 wasn’t just a theoretical essay but a wake-up call. And as we’ll see, Jay’s warnings aren’t just historical footnotes. They’re a mirror for the political mess we’re living in today.

Jay put it bluntly:

“Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations... envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection.”

---

A Mirror for Our Time

Let’s cut the nostalgia and look at today’s headlines. We’ve got Texans floating ideas of secession every other news cycle, California talking about going its own way when Supreme Court rulings don’t go its way, and states suing the federal government over everything from immigration policy to environmental regulations. We’re not at literal war with each other yet, but the Nullification Crisis vibes are strong.

Remember when Florida tried to ban federal immigration flights? Or when California declared itself a "sanctuary state," directly defying federal immigration laws? This is the same script Jay warned us about, states acting like little countries, picking and choosing which laws to follow, and daring the federal government to stop them.

And it’s not just immigration. States are drawing battle lines over issues like abortion, gun rights, environmental policy, and even who gets to vote. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, we saw a scramble of state laws—some enacting near-total bans on abortion, others turning into abortion sanctuaries. It’s the exact kind of state-by-state legal patchwork that Jay predicted would tear at the national fabric.

Then there’s climate policy. California wants to ban gas cars by 2035. Other states are suing the EPA to stop climate regulations. Meanwhile, Congress can’t get its act together to create a coherent plan on almost anything.

Voting rights? Red states pass voter ID laws and restrict mail-in ballots, while blue states go the other way, expanding access. It’s a constitutional tug-of-war, with states acting like semi-sovereign entities rather than members of a united whole.

The pattern is the same. States assert themselves against federal authority, each convinced they know best, refusing to compromise, and inching closer to the fractured mess Jay warned about.

And it’s not just theoretical. We’re seeing governors shipping migrants across state lines for political points, lawsuits flying from all directions, and state-level leaders openly defying federal courts. Jay would recognize the playbook in an instant: division, envy, and the slow erosion of trust in the very idea of national unity.

---

The Founders Saw It Coming

Jay wasn’t the only one sounding the alarm. Rufus King, up in Massachusetts, put it as plain as anyone:

“If we are disunited, our commerce must be annihilated, our peace must be interrupted, and we shall be in danger of becoming the prey of foreign powers.”

King wasn’t being dramatic. He knew that a fragmented America, like the proposed confederation, wouldn’t just be weaker but a magnet for foreign exploitation. Trade deals would get cut on uneven terms. Rival powers would play one confederacy off another. Peace wouldn’t last long when every state was chasing its own advantage, and before long, the entire experiment would come crashing down.

Fast forward to the 1830s, and the dangers King and Jay predicted started to materialize in the Nullification Crisis. John C. Calhoun was out there preaching that the states could just pick and choose which federal laws to obey, an idea that would make Jay’s skin crawl. Calhoun’s logic? The Constitution was just a compact between states; the federal government was their agent, not their boss.

Andrew Jackson responded strongly. In his 1832 Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, he didn’t mince words:

“Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on your heads be the consequences. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject—my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution.”

Jackson’s message was clear. Nullification and secession weren’t just bad ideas; they were treasonous acts. He was prepared to use force to ensure the Union’s preservation.

Decades later, the Supreme Court would echo Jackson’s stance. In the landmark case Texas v. White (1869), the Court addressed the legality of secession head-on. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote:

“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union... attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.”

The Court declared that the Constitution established a perpetual union, not a mere agreement among sovereign states. Any acts of secession were “absolutely null” and had no legal standing. This decision reinforced the idea that the Union was indissoluble, aligning with the warnings of both Jay and Jackson.

---

The 10th Amendment Balancing Act

Let’s not get it twisted. The 10th Amendment is real, and it matters. It says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. It is a critical safeguard against federal overreach.

But here’s the key. The 10th Amendment doesn’t mean states can just do whatever they want. It protects state powers within the constitutional system. It doesn’t give states the final say over national questions. As the Supreme Court made clear in Texas v. White, the Constitution isn’t just a contract between states. It is the framework for a unified nation. States can’t pick and choose when they want to be part of the system.

Jay’s critique is a warning against state overreach masquerading as sovereignty. It is the idea that states can nullify federal laws or secede when they don’t get their way. That is the line Calhoun crossed, Jackson pushed back against, and the Court shut down.

So yes, the 10th Amendment preserves state sovereignty, but only within limits. It creates a balance between strong state governments and a national framework. Jay understood that. It’s hard to say if that sentiment is as clear today, but it should be.

---

So What Now?

Jay’s message wasn’t just “Union good, disunion bad.” It was a blueprint for survival.

• First, we need to stop romanticizing secession. Whether it’s the #Texit crowd, Calexit daydreamers, or any other form of political escapism. The Supreme Court has ruled: You don’t get to bail. The Union isn’t optional.

• Second, we have to find ways to cooperate across state lines. That means Congress doing its job, passing laws that respect local needs and protect national interests. It means federal courts holding firm when states try to go rogue. And it means state leaders stepping up as partners in governance, not rivals in a zero-sum game.

• Third, we should expect more legal battles. The friction between federal power and state sovereignty isn’t going away. From climate policy to abortion access to AI regulation, the fights are coming. We should be ready for them, but we should also recognize that the alternative is worse: a country where the states stop being “united” and start acting like hostile neighbors.

• Finally, let’s stop pretending that unity is easy. It’s hard. It requires compromise, patience, and a shared belief that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Jay knew that. Jackson knew that. Lincoln knew that. The question is, do we?

---

The Final Word

John Jay saw the future with frightening clarity. Without a strong, common government, the American experiment would crumble into division, conflict, and vulnerability. History has proven him right, whether it was the Nullification Crisis, the Civil War, or the endless legal fights we still have today.

The lesson of Federalist No. 5 is simple but urgent. Unity isn’t optional. It’s survival. Without it, the very freedoms we cherish will slip through our fingers.

Let’s not blow it.