➡ John Jay, in Federalist number three, argued that a united national government would be more competent and consistent in foreign affairs than a loose alliance of states. He believed that such a government would be less likely to cause wars and more capable of responding if war becomes unavoidable. Jay also connected this idea to the Second Amendment, stating that an armed citizenry is a critical part of national security. His writings aimed to reassure the public that the proposed Constitution was not a power grab, but a necessary improvement over the Articles of Confederation.
➡ John Jay, in Federalist III, argues that a united, stable republic that respects armed citizens as part of national security is closer to the Founders’ vision. He believes that understanding the founding documents is crucial, as they continue to guide us on maintaining freedom, preventing wars, and avoiding division and dependence. He encourages everyone to learn and share this knowledge, as ignorance of these documents is a threat to our nation.

If you want to understand why the founders believed Americans needed a united government, especially when it comes to war, foreign enemies, and national defense, we’re part of the national defense, you need to read Federalist number three. Because this one is basically John Jay saying, look, if we fracture into competing states and factions, we are going to invite conflict, and we are going to pay for it in blood. And here’s where it gets very relevant today. When people talk about the Second Amendment, they usually jump straight to self-defense or straight to tyranny or crime.

But at the founding, the Second Amendment also lived in the reality of international danger. Hostile powers, raids, frontier conflict, piracy, and the constant fear of war. Now Federalist three is about reducing the odds of war and making us stronger if war comes anyway. So today I’m going to break down what Jay argued and why he argued it, how it connects to the other Federalist papers, and how this ties directly into what the founders believed about the people’s role, armed, prepared, and unwilling to be bullied by threats from outside or within. My series on the Federalist Papers is designed to reconnect Americans with the actual words, warnings, and intentions of the founders at the time when constitutional meaning is routinely distorted or ignored.

These essays were not abstract philosophy. They were written to persuade, to explain limits on power, and to reassure a skeptical public that liberty would only survive if government was carefully restrained. By breaking down these writings in plain language, this series shows why concepts like separation of powers, federalism, and an armed citizenry, as well as checks on centralized authority, were seen as essential safeguards against tyranny. And understanding what the founders wrote and why they wrote it is critical for any American who wants to intelligently defend the Constitution today. Especially as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Republic that they fought and died to establish.

It’s on us. So please share these videos, all of them, to help teach others what the founders so desperately wanted us all to know and understand. Federalist number three was written by John Jay, and it’s early in the series, meaning the mission is simple. To convince skeptical Americans that the proposed Constitution is not a trap. It’s not a monarchy, not a grab at power, but a necessary improvement over the Articles of Confederation. And under the Articles of Confederation, the United States had a weak central government, and states were acting often like separate countries. And coordination was messy back then, and funding was unreliable, foreign policy was inconsistent.

And if you’re trying to avoid war or prepare for it, that’s a big problem. So Jay’s central point here is this. A united national government will be more competent, more consistent, and more legitimate in foreign affairs than a loose alliance of states. And because of that, a united government will be less likely to cause wars, less likely to be manipulated into war, and more capable of responding if war becomes unavoidable. Now Jay frames this as a practical question. Do you want the people managing diplomacy, treaties, and international disputes to be a coherent national authority? Or do you want that chaotic responsibility split among states with competing interests? And he argues the obvious answer is, you want coherence.

You want one group. You want one focused entity. And Jay starts with a premise that should sound very familiar. Nations go to war for reasons. Some legitimate, some stupid, some driven by pride, and some driven by manipulation. He lists common triggers that lead to conflict. Disputes over treaties, disputes over commerce and trade, disputes over territory or borders, disputes over navigation and access to rivers and seas, and the biggest one, national honor. Meaning people take insults, accusations, or incidents and escalate them into war. Jay’s argument is that a single national government is more likely to interpret treaties consistently, respond to foreign disputes with discipline, avoid petty escalations, and to keep policy steady across time.

And that matters because inconsistent policy invites foreign powers to test you. If one state wants peace and another wants retaliation, another wants trade concessions, and another one wants confrontation, what do you think foreign powers do? Now, they divide and exploit. Jay is making a divide and conquer argument, and it’s brutally realistic. He’s telling Americans, if we’re fractured, we’ll be baited into conflict. And he goes even further. If there are multiple semi-independent American nations, then they will likely end up fighting each other too, because borders, tariffs, local disputes, they all become international incidents. So the union isn’t just about resisting Europe, it’s also about preventing Americans from becoming enemies of Americans.

And this is one of the most important ideas in Federalist 3. Jay argues that a national government representing all the states will be more deliberate and less passionate than smaller governments responding to local emotions. Why, though? Well, because local governments are close to local anger. A skirmish at a border, an incident at a port, a dispute with a foreign vessel, those are ships. Those events create outrage, and outrage demands immediate action. Local leaders get pressured to respond with escalation. You’re seeing that in Minnesota, in Oregon, and in any other place where you’re seeing people deported right now.

But a national government with a broader responsibility and broader perspective can slow things down. They can say, let’s determine what happened. Let’s look at the facts. Let’s interpret the treaty. Let’s negotiate. Let’s avoid turning a spark into a war. And Jay’s assumption is not the national leaders or angels. It’s that the structure of national responsibility discourages reckless escalation. And again, he’s talking to Americans who had just fought a war. And they understood that cost, both in money and in blood. Now here’s where we tie this directly to the Second Amendment. Because this is where modern audiences often miss the founder’s full context.

The founding generation did not see defense as only police work or personal defense. They saw threats as layered criminal threats, local threats, government abuse, and foreign threats. And Federalist III is explicitly dealing with foreign threats and war prevention. So how does that correlate to the Second Amendment? Well, number one, the union is the shield and the people are the foundation. Jay argues for a stronger national government to reduce war and to manage diplomacy. But the founders also believe that if war comes, the security of a free country cannot rest solely on a permanent professional army.

The founders repeatedly emphasized that the people organized, trained, armed are a critical part of national security. Even if you don’t quote anybody at length, the theme comes across the era is consistent. A free nation relies on citizens who are capable of defense, not subjects dependent on rulers. That’s exactly why the Second Amendment begins with militia language. It’s not a decorative phrase, guys and gals. It’s the philosophical foundation that the security of a free state depends on a prepared people. So Federalist III supports the need for national unity in foreign policy and the Second Amendment supports the need for national resilience through an armed citizenry.

Those two ideas are not enemies. They are complementary. Now, deterrence works when you can’t be easily pressured. Jay is saying here, don’t be easy to manipulate into war, but deterrence also matters. Foreign powers are less likely to provoke a nation that is unified, organized and capable. A fractured country is easy to intimidate. A unified country is harder to coerce and a country with an armed citizenry is harder to occupy, harder to subdue, harder to treat as a soft target. And one of the founders biggest worries was that a large standing army could become a tool of oppression.

So the American model was supposed to be different. Keep the country unified so foreign policy is stable. Keep the people armed so that defense doesn’t require permanent militarization. And balance power so no single institution becomes the master. Federalist III is about preventing wars through competent union. The Second Amendment supports the deeper principle. Security should never require turning citizens into dependents. Jay essentially asked the audience to run a basic risk analysis. He’s saying, if you have one national government, you get one treaty policy, one negotiating strategy, one consistent diplomatic voice, one set of national interests. But if you have multiple rival authorities, you get contradictions, mixed signals, provocations, competing trade interests, border disputes that escalate, and foreign powers playing favorites.

Jay argues that the first scenario produces fewer wars and fewer excuses for wars. And that’s where Federalist III is very modern. Foreign policy requires consistency. It requires clarity. It requires credibility. When other nations think you can’t control your own internal factions, they treat you as unstable. And Jay is arguing stability is protective here. Federalist III is part of a chain. Jay’s overall theme in his early essays is union reduces foreign manipulation. It reduces war. It makes defense coherent. It makes diplomacy credible. A Federalist IV continues this logic. A Federalist IV, which is another video coming up soon, continues this logic by discussing foreign powers’ incentives to divide the United States.

So Federalist III lays down the foundational claim that a united government is less likely to make reckless decisions that lead to war. And then the series builds upon it. Foreign wars will attempt to exploit disunity, and therefore union is a form of defense. So if you take one big thing from Federalist III, it’s this. John Jay isn’t saying centralized power because power is good. He’s saying if you want peace, stability, and security, and if you want to avoid being dragged into wars by chaos, contradictions, and local passions, then you need a coherent union. And when you tie that into the Second Amendment, the message becomes even clearer.

A stable, united republic is harder to bully. A free people prepared to defend themselves is harder to subdue. And a government that respects the armed citizen as part of a national security is closer to the Founders’ design than one that treats its citizens as liabilities. If you found this breakdown helpful, share it with someone who thinks that the Federalist Papers don’t matter anymore. Because the reality is, the Founders are still arguing with us through these pages. And arguing with us about what keeps a nation free, what prevents wars, and what happens when people become divided, disarmed, and dependent.

Guys, thank you so much for watching this series on the Federalist Papers. I humbly ask that you share it with everyone you know, watch it with your children, and explain it to them. And then have them read the actual documents. Because knowing what made us us is paramount. And so few of us actually know anything about the founding documents anymore. That’s dangerous. So help me, help everybody. Use this as a teaching tool. God bless you. God bless America. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.