Politics & Common Sense — Column by John Spencer
In my last three opinion pieces, I walked through three key voices that still shape how Americans think about government. These articles were written because I believe that understanding history is an important part of our future both nationally and most surely locally. This article will focus on another patriot.
To review, Thomas Paine made the case for independence. He argued that self-government was not just possible, but necessary. James Madison followed by designing a system that could manage conflict through checks and balances. Years later, Alexis de Tocqueville studied America in practice and warned that pressure from the majority could slowly weaken freedom.
John Jay is another important figure, but he is often overlooked.
Jay was born in 1745 in New York and educated at what is now Columbia University. He trained as a lawyer and came from a well-connected family. But what defined him was not privilege. It was discipline and a focus on practical results.
Unlike Thomas Paine, Jay was not trying to inspire the public and unlike Madison, he was not designing systems on paper. Jay focused on one question. What would actually hold the country together?
He entered public service early and served in the Continental Congress. At a time when the colonies were still figuring out how to work together, Jay was already thinking about how to keep the colonies united.
During the Revolutionary War, he worked as a diplomat in Europe. He served in Spain and later helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris (1783). That experience shaped how he saw the world.
Jay witnessed how European powers operated. He saw how they competed and how they took advantage of weaker nations. He came to a clear conclusion. If America stayed divided, it would not be left alone. It would be pressured, influenced, and possibly broken apart.
This critical thinking carried into the Federalist Papers, which Jay wrote along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. These essays were meant to convince states to support the Constitution.
Jay’s focus was narrow but critical, and the message was, that without unity, the entire system would fail.
His argument was based on simple reality. Smaller, divided states are easier to influence. Foreign governments can use trade, diplomacy, or pressure to turn one region against another. Division creates openings.
A unified nation is harder to push around. It speaks with one voice. It is more stable. It is better able to avoid conflict both inside and outside its borders.
After the Constitution was adopted, Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States. In that role, he helped establish the authority of the courts and reinforced the idea that law should guide decisions, not political pressure. Later, as governor of New York, he continued to focus on stability and steady reform.
What makes John Jay relevant today is not complexity but clarity. He was less concerned with how liberty functions and more focused on what it takes to preserve it.
Both locally, nationally, we see rising political division, stronger regional identities, and declining trust in institutions. These are the same conditions Jay warned about.
I believe that taken together, Paine, Madison, Tocqueville, and Jay give us a complete picture. Paine explains why we broke away from Britain. Madison explains how the system was built. Tocqueville explains how it can weaken over time. Jay explains what could cause it to fail altogether.
History points out, that the American system was built with risk in mind and Jay identified one of the most serious risks. Clearly stated, Freedom depends not just on ideas and institutions, but on a nation strong enough to hold together.
It is my opinion that when a divided republic becomes vulnerable, competing factions stop seeing each other as part of the same system and start acting like enemies. That action weakens the country. It also creates opportunities for outside actors to step in and take advantage.
Here in North Idaho, this is not just theory. It applies at the local level. Disagreement is normal. But when it turns into division between cities, counties, or groups, the system starts to weaken.
To me, the lesson is clear. Keep disagreements inside the system. Work through them. Maintain cooperation even when views differ. Trust in institutions matters, even when decisions are contested.
Once a community starts acting like separate camps instead of one system, it becomes harder to govern, easier to influence, and less able to protect the freedom it depends on.
