DECIDING TO FEDERATE

Why would any human entity, be it an individual or group, decide to federate¹ himself, herself, or itself with other entities? The entity might do so out of a sense of fear over some danger or a sense that a significant opportunity is available; of expecting, by becoming federated, to receive a rich reward or avoid an unwanted development. Historically, we are probably most familiar with the example of the original thirteen colonies coming together to form the origins of our political union. The instruments that bound those thirteen entities into a union also bound all of us into a form of partnership which originally fended off a danger and eventually has been parlayed into an enormous gain.

The decision to unite initially was spurred, among many reasons, by the fear of an impending invasion from what by that time was beginning to be viewed as a foreign force. On July 2-3, 1776, as the Continental Congress was about to announce our national independence, the British Empire was instigating a military presence on our shores of over 30,000 well disciplined regular infantry soldiers. The purpose of the landing force was to quash our attempts to establish ourselves as a self-determining people. They were landing on Long Island, New York and posed a danger to that colony – a danger that that colony could not possibly defeat on its own. But a united effort by all the colonies was seen as the only way to fend off this threat.

Now each of those men who were meeting in Philadelphia to form the covenant we call the Declaration of Independence had to consider the situation very seriously. They were all men of means; they all had a great deal to lose if this venture they were entering were to fail. Yet, on the one hand, they feared a future where they would to some degree be treated as inferiors by their British masters if the colonial arrangement that existed continued. On the other hand, they were in line to lose all their property and likely to have their necks stretched at the end of a rope.² A serious choice, indeed.

Given the options before them, central to their consideration was the strong belief that those with whom they were federating would not find the overall challenge of the coming years too much to bear. The covenant they formed had to be perpetual through the time frame of their challenge. One can question how long they viewed the upcoming struggle, but adding to the pressure they must have felt was the indeterminate nature of what was going to happen in the coming years. Once the covenant was formed, only through mutual agreement could this formulated bond be broken – at least that is what each assumed the others believed – and they were willing to gamble all they had on this assumption.

And in what ways might the bond have been broken? What if, for example, the British made separate deals with one or more of the colonies, offering them special treatment in exchange for their abandonment of the independence movement? Entering into this agreement, each delegation at the Continental Congress had to believe that this would not happen. As it turned out, it didn't happen, but what guarantee was there that all of them would remain loyal to the cause? These were very intelligent men and, given the stakes, I'm sure they each thought of every possible eventuality. Yet they signed the agreement and, as it turns out, they all lived by it.

Of course, this initial promise led, over ten years later, to our present constitutional compact. This was upping the ante, for now the fate in question was not of a group of rich men in a temporal pickle, but of a nation setting about a framework for a perpetual future. Here, as stated above, the union was of independent states and of the citizens of those states. In such an agreement, if you're in, you're in for good. One party or one group within the union could not simply decide to leave the union, not legitimately, anyway. A nation cannot proceed if its parts can just decide they have had enough.³

In everyday life, are there covenanted or compacted agreements to which we can more readily relate? Marriage used to be such a commitment. I say used to be because marriage has evolved into more of a contract than a covenant or compact. Marriages have become easily dis-solvable. Is that good? It is a good question but beyond the purview of this posting. One aspect of this development, though, is a mental approach to family affairs that shortchanges the importance of what is involved, such as the responsibilities of parenting. One should not enter into human arrangements lightheartedly when the potential consequences can be so costly. One should give such decisions much thought. But, from time to time, life calls for commitments of this type in order to avoid serious negative eventualities or to be able to seek highly prized opportunities. Look around; these founders of whom I write, both in 1776 and 1787, sought after a future that we are living today. Our lives would be drastically different today if the founders would not have secured the union we have; instead, we would have been a compilation of small political units competing for the resources of this continent.

1As I am using the term, to federate is to enter into with another party or parties a solemn agreement in which the parties promise to abide by the agreement. This is done through the instrument of a covenant which calls on God to witness the promise or a compact which does not call on God as a witness. The Declaration of Independence was a covenant; the US Constitution is a compact.

2For an account of George Washington's decision to join in this effort see Ellis, J. J. (2004). His excellency: George Washington. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

3Of course, this was the basic issue confronting Abraham Lincoln when the southern states decided to secede.