Federalist #18

The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union (cont.)  (Hamilton & Madison) 

In Federalist Paper #18, Hamilton and Madison put forth lessons derived from the governments of ancient Greece and suggest their applicability to the confederation of American states.  More particularly, Hamilton and Madison cite specific examples of historic Grecian governmental undertakings and demonstrate the various manners in which they were undone.  The main thrust of the paper is to decipher and analyze the essential origins of the failures of two exact forms of Greek government experiments.  Their equal intent is to employ the lessons from these failures as a historical template for effective construction of the new enterprise of American government.

Hamilton and Madison begin their examination with a study of the Amphictyonic council.  They contend its structure closely resembled that of the current American confederation of states.  In actual practice, however, there were substantive differences.  The Amphictyons embraced authority to use coercion against wayward cities and, eventually, the more powerful members began to exercise tyranny over the weaker ones.  Weakness and disorder ensued, members failed - even in wartime - to act in concert, and the end result was the dissolution of the confederation.  This historic example proved the inefficiency of this particular union and it showed how the unconstrained exercise of power by the stronger members over the weaker members led to catastrophic national consequences.  Hamilton and Madison also contend that such a weak central government is constantly besieged by internal dissensions and such can lead to overtures by the weaker members for foreign assistance and intervention.  Such an overture is specifically what led to the intervention in Grecian affairs by Philip of Macedon.  Macedonian control of the Amphictyonic confederation was the eventual outcome.

The Achaen league (comprised only of the "less important cities" while the Amphictyonic confederacy continued to exist) was another society of Grecian republics and it is the next to be examined by Hamilton and Madison.  They describe the union of the Achaen league as far more intimate and much better organized than the foregoing Amphictyonic confederacy.  Here, the member cities retained their municipal jurisdiction and maintained a perfect equality among themselves.  While acknowledging that a considerable amount of historical fact is absent, it is stated that the Achaen experience brought greater governmental moderation and justice and saw less violence and sedition in the member citizenry.

When the Amphictyonic confederacy was conquered by Macedonia, the Achaen league was initially allowed to continue to function in its current state.  As the Achaens gained ascendancy, however, the envy of Sparta and Athens increased and the Achaen League sought support from the foreign kings of Egypt and Syria.  Sparta then attacked the Achaens and the Achaens were forced into the untenable situation of seeking out protection from the Macedonians.   The Achaens then soon thereafter found themselves under the direction and control of Philip of Macedon.  The Achaens subsequently sought protection from the Romans who gladly intervened and then proceeded to take steps that encouraged and led to discord and disorder among Achaen league members.  Like the Amphictyonic confederacy, the Achaen league then came apart under the destructive effects of dissension and disharmony.  The overarching historical point made here by Hamilton and Madison is that federal enterprises are predominantly at risk from the anarchy of its own members.

Hamilton and Madison will continue this topical discussion in Federalist Paper #19.