The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 17:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

One argument against giving too much power to the national government is that it could take away powers from the states. Even under the reasonable assumption that people love power, I am at a loss to imagine what temptation a federal bureaucrat would have to usurp powers from the states. Things like regulating police does not seem to be a major allurement. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to be only real objects of desire for the ambitious, and these are exactly the powers that ought be federalized anyways. Civil justice proceedings, agriculture, and similar items provided by local legislation are just not desirable powers at higher levels. It is improbable that a federal government would want to usurp those powers because they are troublesome and don’t add to the prestige of the offices.

• Discussion: What do you make of Hamilton’s assumption that federal offices would not be motivated to take police, agriculture, and civil powers from the states?

Even if the national government wanted to take power away from the states, it would be difficult for them to do so. It is easier for the state governments to take power from the national government. This is because prudent state governments have greater influence over the people. This shows that federal systems, like the one in America, are weak and need to be carefully organized to protect people’s freedom.

The superiority of state influence is partly because of the diffusive construction of the national government, but mostly due to the type of policy items states attend to.

• Discussion: The first paragraph stated that federal offices don’t care about state governments powers. But if state governments’s influence is superior from their certain areas, how can the federal government not care about those areas?

People tend to be more attached to things that are closer to them. This means that people usually feel more connected to their state government than to the government of the whole country, unless the government of the whole country is really good.

• Discussion: Are people’s political affections most related to physical closeness? Or other factors (ideology, power, etc.)?

There are a lot of small things that the local governments will be responsible for, and these will have a big influence on all parts of the community. But it would take too long to explain all of these, so it’s not worth it.

State governments have an important advantage: the everyday management of criminal and civil justice. This is the most powerful and attractive source of people’s loyalty to the government. It helps people respect and appreciate the government by making them feel secure in their lives and property. This cement of society will be administered almost wholly by the states, assuring a sovereignty over their citizens powerful enough to rival the power of the union.

The operations of the national government are less seen by regular people. Most people would not notice the benefits from it. It does not usually affect people’s feelings and so people will not usually feel an obligation or loyalty for it. This has been seen in all federal governments we know and ones that are similar.

The old feudal systems were like confederacies. They had a leader, ruler, or king that was in charge of the whole country with a lot of subordinates controlling large pieces of land. The higher level subordinates had their own sovereign power within their domain. As a result, they often challenged the king and fought each other. The king was not strong enough to stop them and it was a time of chaos.

When the king was strong and good at ruling, he would have more authority. But usually the nobles had more power than him. In some cases, the king’s rule was completely thrown away and the nobles became like their own rulers. In other cases, the king was able to take back his power because the nobles were so tyrannous over their followers. If the nobles had been more kind and just, they would usually have beaten the king.

This statement is not based on guesses or guesses. Scotland is an example that shows this is true. In Scotland, early on, the nobles were connected to their followers like family. The aristocracy was too powerful for the king until Scotland and England joined together. This union made the nobles obey laws like England did, which had laws about how people had to act.

The state governments in a confederacy can be compared to feudal baronies. This is good, because the people trust and support the state governments. That support helps the states oppose any attempts of the national government to encroach on their power. However, it would be good if they are not able to counteract its legitimate and necessary authority. There is a rivalry balancing power between individuals and political bodies.

A look back at what has happened with confederate governments will show us the importance of this idea. We have made a lot of mistakes by not paying attention to it and our distrust has been in the wrong place. In the following papers we will discuss this in more detail.

The Federalist 18:

Written by James Madison

The most important of ancient confederacies was the union of the Greek city-states joined together under the Amphyctionic council. It poses an instructive example for the present confederation of the American states.

These city-states were all independent and had equal votes, and the council made decisions for the good of all. The council had the power to go to war, to settle disagreements between the states, to fine the aggressing parties, to employ the whole force of the group against the disobedient, and to admit new members. The Amphyctionic council also acted as the guardians of religion and the riches of temple of Delphos, where they had the right to decide disputes involving the temple’s occupants and its visitors. The council members swore to protect and defend the united cities, punish those who broke this promise, and take revenge on those who stole from the temple.

In theory, the powers of the Amphyctionic council seemed strong enough to handle most things. In some ways, they even had more power than what was listed in the agreement that brought the city-states together. The council had control over religion, which was centrally important to maintaining governing power. They also had the right to force cities to obey and were sworn to do so if needed.

In practice, however, the council did not work well. The people who were sent to represent the city-states on the council were chosen by the cities and ultimately held the power. This caused problems, and the council ended up falling apart. The stronger city-states tyrannized over the others. Athens ruled for 73 years, Sparta ruled for 29 years, and Thebes also had a turn ruling.

According to Plutarch, the representatives from the stronger city-states would often intimidate or bribe the representatives from the weaker city-states, and the stronger city-states would usually win.

Even when they were at war with other countries like Persia and Macedon, the city-states did not work together and were often tricked or paid off by the enemy. During times of peace, there were often conflicts and violence within the city-states.

After the war with Xerxes, Sparta wanted to kick some of the city-states out of the council because they had not been loyal. Athens opposed this because they would lose more supporters than Sparta and Sparta would become more powerful. This shows that the council was not effective, the stronger city-states were ambitious and jealous, and the weaker city-states were dependent and weak. In theory, all the city-states were supposed to be equal, but in reality, the weak states became subordinate to stronger ones.

If the Greeks had been as smart as they were brave, they would have learned from their mistakes and used the peace after their victory over Persia to fix the council. Instead, Athens and Sparta were too proud of their victories and became rivals and then enemies. They caused more problems for each other than they had suffered at the hands of Xerxes. Their jealousy, fear, hatred, and injuries led to the Peloponnesian war, which ended with the defeat and slavery of the Athenians, who had begun it.

A weak government is troubled by internal disagreements, and these disagreements often lead to more problems from outside. The Phocians were fined by the council for digging up sacred ground that belonged to the temple of Apollo. The Phocians, with the support of Athens and Sparta, refused to accept the punishment. Thebans and some other city-states tried to uphold the authority of the council and protect the temple. Since they were weaker, they asked for help from Philip of Macedon, who had secretly been trying to take over Greece. Philip used his influence and money to win over leaders in some cities, and he used their support to join the council. He used his tricks and military power to take control of the council.

The principle on which the council was founded caused these problems. A wise person said that if Greece had a stronger council and stayed united, they would not have been conquered by Macedon and could have stopped the expansion of Rome.

The Achaean league was another group of Greek city-states that make a valuable example.

It was better organized than the Amphyctionic council. Although it suffered a similar fate, it did not equally deserve it.

The cities in the league kept their own local governments, chose their own officials, and were equal to each other. The council that represented the cities had the sole power to make peace and war, to send and receive ambassadors, to make agreements with other countries, and to choose a leader to command their armies. With the advice and consent of ten of the senators, this leader also administered the government in recess of the senate and was a primary actor when in session. At first, there were two pretors, but after experimentation they decided to only have one.

It seems that the cities in the league had the same laws, customs, weights and measures, and money. It is not clear how much of this was due to the council. It is more certain, however, that the cities were compelled to follow the same laws and customs. When Sparta joined the league, it had to give up its own laws and adopt those of the Achaeans. The previous Amphyctionic council allowed Sparta to keep its own government and laws. This shows a material difference between the two council systems.

It is unfortunate that there is not more information about this political group. If we knew more about how it worked, it might teach us more about how federal governments should work than any other system with which we are familiar.

All the historians who wrote about the Achaean league agree that its government was more fair and just and there was less violence and unrest among the people than in the cities that were independent. The democracy in the cities of the league did not cause problems because it was balanced by the authority and laws of the council.

We should not assume that there were no conflicts within the individual cities or that everything was perfectly orderly within the council. Actually, the council went through many changes and eventually failed.

The Achaean league was not as important as the Amphyctionic council when both were still active. When the Amphyctionic council was defeated by Macedon, the Achaean league was spared. Later, the cities in the Achaean league were divided and some were controlled by Macedonian garrisons or local rulers. A few cities reunited and freed themselves from their rulers, and soon most of the Peloponnesus was part of the league. Macedon was unable to stop the league’s growth due to its own conflicts. The league almost united all of Greece, but Sparta and Athens were jealous of its success and caused the plan to fail. The league then sought help from the kings of Egypt and Syria against Macedon, but they were betrayed by Cleomenes, the king of Sparta, who wanted to attack the Achaean cities himself. His relationship with the Egyptian and Syrian princes allowed him to breach their engagements with the league. The Achaeans were forced to submit to either Cleomenes or to Macedon. They chose the latter; Macedon defeated Cleomenes and the Achaeans accepted Macedonian control. The Achaeans learned that a victorious and powerful ally is just another name for a master. Eventually, they asked the Romans for help and together conquered Macedon. But the Romans then caused conflicts within the league and convinced the cities to leave the league by promising them their independence. The league fell apart and the Romans easily defeated the weakened cities. The Achaeans were defeated and Achaia was conquered and is still under Roman control.

I hav summarized this important history because it teaches multiple lessons from the Achaean council. It also shows that federal groups are more likely to cause chaos among the member cities than to create tyranny in the governing body itself.

• Discussion: How does the American system compare to the Amphyctionic council and the Achaean league?

The Federalist 19:

Written by James Madison

In the last paper, we learned from ancient confederacies, but there are other similar groups worth paying attention to. One of which is the Germanic body.

In the early days of Christianity, Germany was made up of seven different groups of people who didn’t have a leader they all followed. The Franks won a war against the Gauls and started the kingdom that took their name. In the ninth century, its warlike monarch Charlemagne conquered many lands to include Germany. When it split off under his sons, it became its own independent empire. But as its vassals become more powerful they threw off the yoke of imperial power and established their own sovereignty. This led to a lot of fighting and chaos in the empire, and the person in charge, the emperor, couldn’t keep everything under control. Over time, the emperor became less and less powerful until there was almost no order in the empire. This lasted until the first Austrian emperor took charge. In the eleventh century, the emperors had a lot of power; by the fifteenth they only had a few symbolic privileges.

Out of this feudal system, which itself had many important features of a confederacy, has grown the federal system of the Germanic empire. It’s powers are vested in representatives called the diet, in the emperor who acts as the executive to and maintains veto power over the diet, and in two courts that handle controversies concerning the empire or conflicts between its members.

The diet has the power to make laws, start wars, make peace, form alliances, set rules for the military, build fortresses, control money, and admit new members to the empire, and to ban disobedient members. The different parts of Germany are not allowed to do things that might hurt the country, like charging taxes on each other, changing the value of money, harming each other, or granting refuge to criminals. If they break these rules, they can be punished by being banned from the country. The diet and the emperor have the power to judge the members, and the courts can judge the people in their private capacities.

The emperor of Germany has many consequential duties, most important of which is his exclusive right to make proposals to the diet, to negate its resolutions, to name ambassadors, to confer titles, to fill vacant electorates, to found universities, to delegate power, to collect and spent public funds, and to generally watch over public safety. Sometimes, the electors give him advice. The emperor doesn’t own any land in Germany or get paid for his work as emperor, but he does have a lot of wealth and power from these other sources.

Because of all the constitutional powers in the representatives and the leader, one would assume that it must be an exception to the general problems of similar systems. But nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamental principle, of a community of sovereigns represented by a diet, with the laws addressed to those sovereigns, renders the empire incapable of regulating its own members against external dangers.

• Discussion: How important do you think federal power to punish or regulate constituent states is? Ethically, does the voluntary submission of a sovereign to a union at one time imply interminable subjugation to a union’s will?

There are always fights between the German emperor and the other leaders, and between the leaders and their own states. The government has a hard time getting people to follow its rules and protect the country, and there is a lot of chaos and suffering.

In the sixteenth century, the emperor of Germany fought against some of the other leaders of the country. In one conflict, the emperor was almost captured by the elector of Saxony. The king of Prussia also fought against the emperor and often won. There were so many wars between the different parts of Germany that they fill the history books. Before the peace of Westphalia, Germany was desolated by war for thirty years where the emperor and some of the country were on one side and Sweden and the rest of the country were on the other side. Finally, other countries helped make peace and fundamentally contributed to Germany’s constitution.

If Germany ever needs to defend its whole self, it’s difficult because all the different parts of the country have to talk and argue a lot before they can agree on a plan. This takes a long time and by the time the diet is ready, the enemy has already started fighting.

Even in times of peace, Germany doesn’t have a strong military because the soldiers are poorly trained, and paid.

The government of Germany tried to fix the problems by dividing the country into smaller parts and giving them the power to enforce the laws. Each smaller part was just a miniature picture of the deformities of the larger political monster. The smaller parts either didn’t fulfill their duties or fought each other like in a civil war. Sometimes, whole parts of the country didn’t follow the rules and just made things worse.

An example proves illustrative. In the city of Donawerth, some public outrages were committed upon the one of its prominent figures. As a result, the city was banned from the Empire and the Duke of Bavaria was given the job of enforcing the punishment. He came to the city with ten thousand soldiers and took control of the city, punishing the people, and claiming the city as part of his own domain.

There are several reasons why this group of people and cities has not completely fallen apart. Most of the members are too weak to stand on their own against foreign powers. Also, the emperor is incentivized to protect his hereditary domain, family pride, and power as a leader in Europe. But these are weak binding forces and create a precarious union, and the repellent forces of self-sovereignty prevent any reform. Other countries also have an interest in preventing this reform because they have their own interests in mind.

If the German examples were not enough, Poland is a good example of the problems that come with having a group of local leaders who are not really in charge. The country has been weak and easily controlled by other countries.

Even the Swiss cantons, which are sometimes seen as a successful coalition, are not really connected in a strong confederacy.

They don’t share a treasury, troops (even in war), money, a judiciary, or any other common mark of sovereignty.

The Swiss cantons are held together by their unique location, by their individual weakness, by the fear of stronger neighbors who formerly ruled them. They don’t have many problems with each other because they have similar cultures, they share some possessions, and they need each other’s help to keep the peace. They also have a system for settling disputes between cantons, which involves choosing neutral judges and an umpire to make a final decision in disagreements. All the cantons are bound by this group’s definitive sentence. There are examples of mediators willing to employ force against parties that defect from this agreement.

The Swiss cantons are similar to the United States in some ways, but they have also had problems with their union. Even if it held together in normal cases, if there were major differences, it failed. There have been violent arguments over religion that have caused the cantons to split ways. There are now Protestant and Catholic diets that govern themselves and leave the general diet with little to do.

These separations had another consequence, between the sub-coalitions and foreign governments.

• Discussion: How do you think the problems with the Swiss cantons would or would not be mirrored if modern American states seceded?

The Federalist 20:

Written by James Madison

The United Netherlands is a confederacy that confirms the lessons we’ve just reviewed.

It is composed of seven co-equal and sovereign states, each of which is composed of equal and independent cities. In all important decisions, not only the states, but also the cities, must be unanimous.

The union is represented by the states-general, consisting of about fifty representatives appointed by the states. The states themselves determine the length of their appointed representatives.

The states-general have the power to manage treaties and alliances, military matters, and trade, but they need the agreement of all the provinces to do so. The states-general also appoints ambassadors, manages existing alliances, collects duties on imports and exports, and regulate the mint. The states are not allowed to make their own agreements with other countries or set unfair taxes without the agreement of the rest of the country. Additional administrative groups help execute the federal duties.

The leader of the union is called the stadtholder, who is now a hereditary prince. The stadtholder has a lot of power because of his title, his wealth, and his connections with other important people in Europe. Perhaps most importantly, as stadholder over the states, he is in charge of appointing certain town mayors, executing provincial decrees, presiding over state courts, and has the power to pardon.

In his role as the stadtholder over the whole union, he also has considerable powers.

In his political capacity, he is responsible for solving disputes between the states, meeting with foreign ambassadors, and appointing representatives to other countries.

In his military role, he is commander-in-chief, provides for forts, and generally regulates military affairs. He appoints officers from colonels to ensigns, as well as the governments of military bases.

In his role related to the navy, he is the top admiral, and similarly controls the naval forces and appointments. He can establish war councils and has final say on execution of their plans.

The stadtholder has an annual income of 300,000 florins and commands an army of around 40,000 people.

However, the government of the United Netherlands has been weak and there have been conflicts between the states, as well as interference from other countries. The country has had difficulties in times of peace and has suffered during times of war.

It has been noted that the United Netherlands has been able to avoid collapse despite its constitution only because its people’s united hatred of Austria.

In theory the union gives the states-general enough power to secure peace, but the infighting of the states yields quite a different result in practice.

The states-general also is empowered to levy taxes from each state, but this never could be executed because the poorest states cannot pay their equal share.

It is practice to waive these articles of the constitution. The danger of delaying funds obliges the consenting richer provinces to pay and then attempt to collect reimbursement as they can.

This has sometimes led to the use of force to collect the money, which is scary when one member may be stronger than all the rest, but even more impracticable when several of the states are of equal power and will defend against each other.

In addition, foreign countries have been able to interfere in the country’s decisions by speaking to the states and cities directly, and there have been many examples of this behavior.

In times of crisis, the states-general of the United Netherlands sometimes violate the constitution. For example, in 1688, they signed a treaty even though it was against the law. The treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which recognized the independence of the United Netherlands, was also made without the agreement of one of the states. Even in a recent treaty with Great Britain they ignored the principle of unanimity. A weak constitution will either transgress its boundaries to generate its necessary power, or it will dissolve. If its dissolution goes to a dangerous extreme depends on the situation. Tyranny may grow more often out of defective constitutions than out of the full exercise of larger constitutional powers.

• Discussion: What do you make of the argument that tyranny arises from disempowered governments more than from powerful governments? Why might this be?

Despite the problems caused by the stadtholder, it has been suggested that the country would have fallen apart already if it wasn’t for his influence in the states. The wealthy and influential state of Holland has also kept the country together when the stadtholder was not in power.

These are not the only circumstances which contributed to chaos and the breakdown of the government. Other countries played a role by trying to influence the political system in ways that harm unity.

The true patriots have tried at least four times to create special assemblies to remedy the broken system; they have found it impossible to unite the public councils in reforming the known problems of the existing constitution. Let us pause to mourn this precautionary tale of history, and be sad for the calamities brought to mankind by its differing opinions and selfish passions.

There was also a plan to create a national tax, but this faced opposition and failed.

The unhappy people are suffering from uprisings, interstate fights, foreign invasions, and a crisis of destiny. People around the world are watching the spectacle. We hope that these challenges will lead to changes in their government that will bring them closer together and create a peaceful, free, and happy country.

I will not apologize for spending so much time on all of these historical precedents. Experience exposes truth, and we must respect the patterns that continually arise. The important truth revealed here is that a sovereignty over sovereigns as distinguished from individuals is a mistake in theory and in practice. It subverts the order and goals of politics by substituting violence in place of law.

• Discussion: How do you think the insights of these past historical examples would inform the separation of powers between a country and its states in an ideal system? What powers belong at what level to maintain peace and order?

---