Happy birthday, John Jay

God’s will be done; to him I resign—in him I confide. Do the like. Any other philosophy applicable to this occasion is delusive. Away with it.

— Letter to his wife, Sally Jay, April 20, 1794

John Jay was born on this day in 1745 into a wealthy New York family – one of a group of families who were descended from French Hugeunots and who were the pillars of society. When Alexander Hamilton came to town, an ambitious but pretty much penniless immigrant, he immediately began to ingratiate himself, through various introductions, to this important inner circle. He knew about power – he knew who had power, and who he had to “suck up” to. His relationship with John Jay would end up being extremely important – not only to each other but to future generations, of course – due to their collaboration on The Federalist Papers. Jay got ill very early on in the writing process – so he only wrote 5 of the papers while Hamilton wrote the majority, and Madison ended up writing the most influential (as well as my personal favorite: Federalist # 10). John Jay’s contribution to the ratification propaganda in terms of the Federalist Papers was his focus on foreign policy.

Like most of our Founding Fathers – his life has so many different chapters it’s rather breath-taking. How can one man have so many different lives? To me, the first thing I think of is his involvement with The Federalist Papers, but that’s just because I’m a Federalist DORK.

Other accomplishments of John Jay:

— major advocate of property rights – one of his most famous quotes is: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

— elected President of the 2nd Continental Congress

— chosen to be a diplomat – went off and negotiated treaties with France and Spain

— became our first Secretary of State – although the job title wasn’t that at the time

— wrote 5 of the Federalist Papers – joining forces with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to convince the people of New York (and, of course, a larger audience) that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to keep the country together.

— in 1789, John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington (just gives you goosebumps, don’t it?)

— he served on the Supreme Court from 1789 to 1794.

— in 1794, Washington sent Jay to England to negotiate with their former enemy – Jay did a good job (at least in diplomatic terms – he got the job done), and came home with a very pro-British treaty which became known as “The Jay Treaty”. He would forever be associated with this treaty – which was pretty much universally despised. Thomas Jefferson was horrified, enraged. Most people were. It was an extremely unpopular treaty (although, in retropsect, very far-sighted). But it made John Jay a hated individual. I love the quote from Jay that after the treaty, he found he could travel at night from Philadelphia to Boston mainly by the light of his own burning effigies. hahaha But Washington signed the treaty.

— he became governor of New York AFTER all of this – and served in that role until 1800

— When John Adams became President, he re-nominated Jay to the Supreme Court – and the nomination was quickly confirmed – but this time Jay turned it down.

— He died in 1829.

Here is an excerpt from Federalist # 4 – (he wrote Federalist #2 – 5, and Federalist #64. Federalist # 2 is basically background, exposition: it describes the “Convention” that just occurred – and how it came out of the basic inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation. But in Federalist # 3 – 5, Jay takes on the inadequacies of the Articles in a larger context – and how the Articles will be insufficient in terms of this country defending itself from foreign powers. It’s his main argument for why we need a central government, a national government, and a Constitution. A loosely connected confederation of states would be far too easy to divide and conquer – Jay champions some level of centralization, especially in terms of defense.) The last essay he wrote in the series was much later in the Publius onslaught – # 64 – and that essay takes on the issue of treaties. Who has the power to make them? But in the beginning – before Jay got ill and backed out of the project – he fired off 4 amazing essays in a row – and probably Federalist # 4 is the most well-known.

Excerpt from Federalist #4:

As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.

One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.

What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?

We have heard much of the fleets of Britain, and the time may come, if we are wise, when the fleets of America may engage attention. But if one national government, had not so regulated the navigation of Britain as to make it a nursery for seamen–if one national government had not called forth all the national means and materials for forming fleets, their prowess and their thunder would never have been celebrated. Let England have its navigation and fleet–let Scotland have its navigation and fleet–let Wales have its navigation and fleet–let Ireland have its navigation and fleet–let those four of the constituent parts of the British empire be be under four independent governments, and it is easy to perceive how soon they would each dwindle into comparative insignificance.

Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments–what armies could they raise and pay–what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.

But admit that they might be willing to help the invaded State or confederacy. How, and when, and in what proportion shall aids of men and money be afforded? Who shall command the allied armies, and from which of them shall he receive his orders? Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in case of disputes what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests, and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments, and conduce far more to the safety of the people.

But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.