Federalist No. 8

In Federalist No. 8, while addressing the people of the State of New York, Hamilton continues his discussion of the insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve the Union by addressing the consequences of hostilities between the states.

Hamilton starts off by noting that war between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. This is because the states would lack the disciplined armies that render sudden conquests impracticable and prevent the rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The fortification they provide tends to mutually obstruct invasion. As a result, in these circumstances, the history of war is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition. But, in America, the scene would be altogether reversed and the populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbours and war, therefore, would be desultory and predatory.

And while standing armies are not provided against in the Constitution being proposed, they must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant
apprehension, which require a state of constant preparation, will infallibly produce them and the States or confederacies that made use of them [would gain] a superiority over their neighbours.

And we also have to consider that there is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal
invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. In the latter, the perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. And when armies become numerous, a continual state of war becomes inevitable.

But, if we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation instead of being prey to the means of defending ourselves against
the ambition and jealousy of each other.

In short, if a Union is not formed, the confederacy will soon fall apart as the smaller States get wiped out by the larger states in war. In other words, division only leads to tension, strife, and inevitably war but union leads to understanding and peace.

 

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

The Other Five Reasons People Resist Change

Change is important, as every Supply Management organization should be constantly improving, and some improvements will require change, which could be significant. But change is not always easy as it is often resisted by individuals who fear the loss of control, excess uncertainty, unfamiliar situations, additional work, and surprise that change represents. This is something we know all too well, and something that has been discussed many times before.

But these are not the only reasons people resist change, and in a recent post over on the HBR Blog Network on “Ten Reasons People Resist Change”, the author does a great job of pointing out the other five reasons, which are often overlooked.

  • loss of face
    Change is a departure from the past, a shift away from the current process or strategy which was created, and instituted, by one or more individuals. As a result, you’re not just moving away from a process or strategy, but from the people who created it, who might get the impression that if there is a need to move on, they must have been wrong. And since they may not be able to accept the stigma of being wrong, they will be forced to defend their process or strategy and resist change, even when it is needed. As a result, a good leader will have to point out that the reason for the change is that the world has changed and the organization needs to keep up. They will have to make it clear that the shift has nothing to do with the process or strategy, which worked well when it was instituted when the world was different, but everything about keeping up with the shifting times.
  • competence concerns
    If the individuals who will be responsible for implementing the change are questioning their ability to do so, they will resist the change (as no one likes to feel incompetent). Unless the leaders provide sufficient education, training, and support, this reason for resistance will be hard to overcome.
  • ripple effects
    Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the effect of a change is never localized. The ripples produced by a change will inevitably affect other processes, departments, and even customers. These people will, in turn, rebel against the change they had nothing to do with that they perceive as interfering with their activities. Unless all stakeholders are included, and a plan collaboratively constructed to minimize their disruption, at some point, significant resistance will spring up seemingly out of nowhere.
  • past resentments
    The ghost of Change-mess past is always lying in wait to haunt us when the next change is introduced. If past errors are not corrected, and past hurts are not healed, they will return to plague our efforts and curse our prosperity.
  • a real threat
    Let’s face it, when new processes and technologies come into play, jobs can be lost, prices can be cut, and investments can be wiped out. Leaders have to make sure to be honest, transparent, fair, and fast to address the issue — and have a plan to retrain and reallocate displaced workers (who are interested in staying with the company).

There’s a reason change management is all the rage. It’s often much tougher than one thinks.

Federalist No. 7

Our last post began our discussion of the dangers from dissensions between the states that is covered by Hamilton in Federalist No. 6 and Federalist No. 7. In that post, we discussed how Hamilton noted that we had no reason to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation given that men are subject to aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions and popular assemblies [are] frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities. This has been proven again and again throughout history as Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics and were as often engaged in wars, both offensive and defensive, as the neighbouring monarchies.

However, if the stats form a union that is a Confederate Republic and their constitution prevents the differences that neighbourhood occasions, it will extinguish that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbours and thereby minimize the dangers of dissension between the states.

In this essay, Hamilton addresses the inducements the States could have, if disunited, to make war upon each other. He starts by noting that territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations and that this cause would exist among us in full force as we have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. And there still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union. … A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject.

In addition, the competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favourably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbours. As a result, each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent.

And this would be amplified by the public debt of the Union [which] would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? And these, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties. But, more importantly, there is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. When all is said and done, we are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes.

When all is said and done, and you add up the chances of territorial disputes, commerce disputes, and debt disputes, you see that the conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars. In other words, if the states do not form a union that is a Confederate Republic, the dangers from dissensions between the states would be very real.

When you put it all together, it truly is a case of united we stand, and divided we fall. And if we don’t work together we divide, and then we fall.

Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.

UPS Knows that Halifax Gets it There!

UPS, with a delivery fleet of 2,500 vehicles in Canada, just opened a multi-million, fifty-thousand (50,000) square foot logistics facility in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada because the area is considered to be a key access point to other major supply chain networks both locally and globally. And as SI pointed out in its recent post on how The Looming Strike Might Cost Billions – But You Don’t Have To Lose a Dime, sitting on the second largest natural harbour in the world, the Port of Halifax can expand to a capacity equal to that of the Port of New York and New Jersey combined.

Two days closer to Europe, a day and a half closer to southeast Asia through the Suez Canal, and only three days to get cargo to Chicago by rail, Halifax is posed to be a key access point in the global supply chain, just as it was once a key player in the global telecommunications marketplace. It was only 110 years ago that the first radio message crossed the Atlantic, originating from Glace Bay, Nova Scotia and terminating in Poldhu, England (South Cornwall) in December 1902.

UPS knows that Halifax is important to your global supply chain. Do you?