In
Federalist No. 4, Jay argued that a unified
federal government was necessary to protect the states from foreign conquest. He worried that without union between the states, other nations may be incentivized to wage war, as there would be no federal administration to organize the states and economic advantages would be easier to seize. Jay considered it to be in a state's interest not only to protect its own security, but to protect that of the other states as well. His conception of government in this sense is similar to that of
Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke, identifying it as an alliance of mutual preservation. Throughout the essay, Jay reiterates his support for
centralized government, going so far as to refer to the states as a family. Jay contended that people are naturally prone to conflict. He held a negative opinion of human nature and was frustrated in his belief that
egoism was a driving force in decision making. Jay's focus on self-interested conflict marked a point of divergence from
Federalist No. 3, where Jay considered only just causes for war. Jay argued in
Federalist No. 4 that union was a means of preventing conflict. He suggested that a unified federal government would make foreign powers hesitant to engage with force, and he warned that disunity between the states would invite such conflict. Likewise, he proposed that a united federal government would incentivize foreign nations to develop a better relationship with the United States. This belief was informed both by historical examples and by conflicts from Jay's own lifetime. He supported his argument by describing potential causes for an unjust war against the states, including the whims of absolute monarchs and conflicts surrounding trade rivalries. Should war take place, Jay believed that a federal government would provide advantages over individual state governments. It would have access to a larger population from which to draw leaders, states would be more willing to protect one another, and a federal government would be more inclined to negotiate treaties such that all states benefited. Jay's arguments in this essay may be interpreted as reflecting upon the
American Revolutionary War. In apparent contradiction to his argument, the Revolutionary War provided an example of the thirteen states protecting one another in a military conflict without a federal government. It was also an example, however, of the need for a unified military between the states to protect from "unjust attacks". The risk of conflict with European powers was especially prominent in Jay's time, as the
British Empire and the
Spanish Empire held colonial territories bordering the United States. Jay also compared union in the United States to the
union of Great Britain that the states fought against, arguing that the same principles apply. In this example, he also expressed support for the mercantilist
Navigation Acts. Jay made a strong distinction in
Federalist No. 4 between a federal government and individual state governments, even more so than in the other
Federalist Papers. His depiction of the federal government was one of an ideal government, while he considered the state governments to be lacking accountability and subservient to
great powers such as the Britain, Spain, and France. Jay concluded
Federalist No. 4 with a warning against internal division, assuring that it would lead to failure. By doing so, he stated more explicitly what he had only implied in the previous essay: that he believed confederation was not viable and that it would inevitably cause separation between the states. == Aftermath ==