Enlightenment Hearing—European Philosophy and the American Constitution Courtney Ferrari, Valley Catholic Middle School, Beaverton, OR [email protected]

In this week-long activity, students of American history and government learn how the nation’s founders were influenced by the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the culminating activity, three of America’s founding fathers hold a hearing to consider options for the new United States government. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson1 have invited supporters of four English and French philosophers to offer their ideas. Each group will try to make the case that their philosopher’s ideas should be adopted by America’s founders and used to write the new Constitution. Background Students will understand that, although the American Revolution was the first successful rebellion against a European monarchy, it was shaped by the context of European thought and history. The founders lived in the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason. Intellectuals of the day believed that science could reveal not only the physical laws of the universe, but the laws governing human activity in civil society. In the century before the American Revolution, many philosophers offered competing ideas about the most rational and natural government for human society. Thomas Hobbes in the mid 17th century offered a very pessimistic view of human nature and determined that a strong central authority was needed to maintain order. John Locke tempered that message later in the 1600s by emphasizing the ruling capability of the educated and propertied classes, but also laying the groundwork for societal compromise with the social contract. In the mid 18th century, Baron de Montesquieu determined that each society is unique because of historical and geographic circumstances, but concluded that in most cases a separation of powers into three branches of government would be most effective. Finally, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that most romantic of Enlightenment philosophers, believed in the inherent goodness of mankind. Rousseau saw historical societies as corrupting of that original goodness and thought the social contract could be used to protect individuals against that corruption. All four philosophers made meaningful contributions to the American Constitution. Hobbes’ idea of a strong executive was recognized as necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation and was promoted especially by those who doubted the political competence of the masses. Locke’s idea of representative government—particularly if those representatives are the nation’s elite— reinforced the earlier institutions of Roman republic, Parliament, and colonial congresses. His assertion that the social contract gave people the right to overthrow a corrupt government                                                                                                                         1  While Hamilton & Madison attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Jefferson was on diplomatic duty in France. However, I have included him because his ideas on the nature of America’s government were formative and in some significant ways, contradict those of Hamilton and Madison.  

 

1  

validated the very idea of the American Revolution. Montesquieu’s plan for three separated powers is perhaps the most direct and concrete connection to the American form of government, but Rousseau’s emphasis on small, rural communities in particular, and direct democracy in general have always tempered America’s commitment to an organized representative government. Day 1—Teacher introduction to the Enlightenment The teacher should build upon students’ knowledge of the American Revolution, particularly the roles played by Virginians James Madison & Thomas Jefferson and New Yorker Alexander Hamilton. Explain that these men made claims against the English king and Parliament that were grounded in an understanding of Enlightened political thinking. Give students an overview of the Enlightenment, its connection to scientific, or rational, thought, and the belief that this type of thought applied to human behavior as well as physical laws. In your lecture, include a brief introduction to the four philosophers in this activity: Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. This is also an appropriate time to explain that newspapers in late 18th century America were largely responsible for disseminating political ideas and current information to the public. Day 2—Describe hearing, assign roles, hand out readings & worksheet Explain the format and procedure of the hearing (on day 4), in which three founding fathers will hold a hearing to decide on the best type of government for the new nation. They will invite supporters of four philosophers to share their ideas. Journalists will also be present to report on the proceedings and share those with the American public. Before assigning parts or asking for volunteers, make sure students understand expectations for each role (see attached document). Divide students into the following groups: • • • • • •

Founders (Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson)—3 students Hobbes supporters— 4-6 students Locke supporters— 4-6 students Montesquieu supporters—4-6 students Rousseau supporters— 4-6 students Reporters—3-4 students

Once roles are assigned, give each group several readings and a worksheet (see attached documents) for each student to complete. Because students are using different readings but the worksheet is the same, individuals may not be able to answer every question fully, but particularly in the philosopher groups, students can collaborate to find all the answers. Students should use the rest of the class period to read their document and begin their worksheet. Assign additional time with the reading and worksheet as homework.

 

2  

Day 3—Student work When students return to school on day 3, some will be quite confused. This day is work time. with the teacher circulating to assist individuals and groups. Reporters will compare their answers on how to be a good reporter for only a short time. Give these students guidance at the beginning of class, because for the rest of the class period, they will circulate and listen to the other groups debate. Philosopher groups should meet and organize their ideas, trying to answer the questions on the worksheet and collectively working to understand the philosopher’s ideas as they might apply to the US. By the end of the class period, they should have the basics of an argument to make at the hearing. Founders may need some individual help on their character’s beliefs. The teacher can help by clarifying each founder’s personality. Once they are clear on their characters, the founders should work to plan the next day’s hearing. These students (not the teacher!) will run the meeting. They should decide the time allowed to each speaker, establish rules for debate, and choose which founder will start the hearing, moderate debate, and close the hearing. Each founder should prepare a brief self-introduction at the beginning of the hearing & be prepared to make a statement at the end identifying the philosopher he agrees with most. Day 4—Hearing on the best form of government for the United States Founders will make the final schedule, but here is a sample. The total time is less than a typical class period, but it allows for time to get started and for groups that go over their allotted time. •

2-4 minutes: One founder will make an opening statement introducing philosopher groups, clarifying the purpose of the hearing, and laying out ground rules. Each founder should introduce himself.

•

28 minutes: Each philosopher group will have 7 minutes of total time, both to present their ideas and to answer questions and criticisms by the founders or other groups. One founder will be responsible for timekeeping and for cutting off discussion if necessary. Another should moderate debate. 6 minutes: After philosopher presentations, each founder should respond for no more than 2 minutes, summarizing the points he found most convincing and acknowledging the sources of those suggestions.

•

After the hearing, only the reporters have homework (this compensates for the lighter load they had on days 2 & 3). By the next class period, the reporters will be responsible for writing a summary of the proceedings and reading it before the class.

 

3  

Day 5 (approx. 15 minutes)—Report by journalists After the reporters read aloud their summary of the hearing, ask the founders & philosophers if they feel that their ideas were fairly represented. Teachers can use this time to address ways in which journalists address bias in politics, how to represent conflicting views equally and fairly, and the value of journalism to a civic society.  

Role Founders: Hamilton Madison Jefferson

Philosophers: Hobbes Locke Montesquieu Rousseau

Student Expectations

Readings

Founders mostly work individually in the preparation time, and they will be responsible for running the hearing. The three students who assume these roles should be academically strong, comfortable with public speaking, and have the respect of their peers.

Offer biographic articles from online or print encyclopedias or age-appropriate books from your school library. Make sure the article includes the founder’s political ideas. You may wish to include short samples of their writing as well.

Philosopher group members will work together to understand the ideas of one philosopher. These are complicated ideas, which, with group cooperation and teacher assistance, can be understood by a middle school or high school audience. Students can rely upon each other for support, but must be willing to make a strong case, and defend it against attack by other participants.

Choose 2-4 articles of different reading levels for each group. Begin with biographic articles from online encyclopedias. Look also in those sources for headings, such as “political theory”, “Enlightenment”, and “political philosophy”. For higher level, search these sites by philosopher’s last name: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/

Reporters

Reporters will have simpler readings, take notes on the other characters as they prepare, and only ask questions during the hearing. After the hearing, they will collaborate on a report of the hearing to be read aloud to the class. Student reporters tend to be those who shy away from argumentation. However, they must still speak publicly in the presentation of the report.

 

 

4  

Take excerpts from the websites below to show the role of the press in American history and in promoting democracy. Illinois First Amendment Center http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.c om/freedom_press_history.php Student Press Law Center http://www.splc.org/presentations/pppressf reedom.pdf (pp. 6-8)

Bibliography For articles in packet, composed by Courtney Ferrari Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. The Spirit of Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1914. Public domain. http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.htm Bertram, Christopher, "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .

Edition),

Bok, Hilary, "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . The Horizon Book of Makers of Modern Thought. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1972. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philopsophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1945. Uzgalis, William, "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .

Additional articles used at NCSS and to write the original articles handed out. These articles are not distributed at NCSS due to copyright protections. However, these documents may be used in your classroom if accessed online directly by the teacher or student. For encyclopedia articles, I have included the recommended section in parentheses at the end of the citations. Alexander Hamilton "Hamilton, Alexander." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. (Early Political Activities) . Thomas Jefferson "Jefferson, Thomas." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. (Declaring Independence) . James Madison "Madison, James." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. (Father of the Constitution) . Thomas Hobbes "Hobbes, Thomas ." Compton's by Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. . "Hobbes, Thomas." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. (Political Philosophy) .

 

5  

Lloyd, Sharon A. and Sreedhar, Susanne, "Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . John Locke "Locke, John ." Compton's by Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. . "Locke, John." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. (Political Philosophy) . Tuckness, Alex, "Locke's Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Baron de Montesquieu Bok, Hilary, "Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . "Montesquieu ." Compton's by Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. (Political Philosophy) . “Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. . Jean Jacques Rousseau Bertram, Christopher, "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), . "Rousseau, Jean-Jacques ." Compton's by Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. . "Rousseau, Jean-Jacques ." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2012. Web. 12 Sept. 2012. (Political Philosophy) . Freedom of the Press “First Amendment Research Information.” Illinois Press Association Guide to First Amendment and Access Laws (1995)Illinois First Amendment Center. Web. http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/freedom_press_history.php “Press Freedom.” SPLC Media Law Presentation. Student Press Law Center. 2006. Web. http://www.splc.org/presentations/pppressfreedom.pdf

 

 

 

6  

Illinois

Reading Questions for Founders Founder______________________________ What historical events does the founder consider in analyzing a government?

What part of government or action of government does this founder emphasize? What does he say about it? Why does he think it’s important?

What in the founder’s background may have led to his political ideas?

Why might this form of government work in the United States in the 1780s?

What problems do you see with the founder’s views?

 

7  

Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) Hamilton was born in 1757 on the island of Nevis, in the British West Indies. He was not an American, except by adoption, and could never have become president although he was eminently qualified. He was born out of wedlock, deserted by a no-good father, and left an orphan at 13 by the death of his mother. Friends and relatives helped the bright boy find his way to New York, and in 1773, Hamilton entered King's College (later Columbia University), but the Revolution interrupted his studies. Although not yet 20 years of age, in 1774-75 Hamilton wrote several widely read pamphlets criticizing the Tory government in Britain and its policies in America. Right after the war broke out, he fought in the principal campaigns of 1776-77. In the latter year, winning the rank of lieutenant colonel, he joined the staff of General Washington and soon became his close confidant as well. In 1781, Hamilton took a command position under Lafayette in the Yorktown campaign. He saw more military action than any other of the great Constitution-makers. In 1780 Hamilton wed New Yorker Elizabeth Schuyler, whose family was rich and politically powerful. After the war Hamilton quickly entered legal practice, but public service soon attracted him. He was elected to the Continental Congress in 1782-83. In the latter year, he established a law office in New York City. Because of his interest in strengthening the central government, Hamilton was the force behind constitutional reform. In 1787 Hamilton served in the legislature, which appointed him as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He played a surprisingly small part in the debates, apparently because he was frequently absent on legal business. His extreme nationalism put him at odds with most of the delegates, and he was frustrated by the conservative views of his two fellow delegates from New York. Hamilton was a disciple not so much of Locke as of Hobbes, a man who believed that society was inherently chaotic and in need of a strong leader to “keep them all in awe”. He did, however, sit on the Committee of Style, and he was the only one of the three delegates from his state who signed the Constitution. Hamilton's part in New York's ratification the next year was substantial, though he felt the Constitution was flawed in many respects. He was in the forefront of those demanding a stronger national government. Against determined opposition, he waged a strenuous and successful campaign, including collaboration with John Jay and James Madison in writing “The Federalist”. Most of the Constitution’s authors were planters, landowners or merchants, but perhaps the most important single element were the lawyers, like Hamilton. Hamilton argued that unlike the other professions, lawyers had no vested economic interest to advance in the formation of the government and so formed a natural ruling elite and ought to form the bedrock of public life. Hamilton agreed with

 

8  

Madison, who thought the states should represent local interests while the federal government and Congress would represent the national or public interest, and would mediate between them. Once the Constitution was sent to states for approval, a huge public debate began over the role of a government in the new nation. Hamilton said that this process and the ultimate vote to ratify (approve the constitution) or not would determine “whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government by reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.” Hamilton and other Federalists presumed that individual rights existed in nature, and that a formal, legal statement of them might imply the extension of government into spheres in which it did not and should not operate. Thus, they initially opposed calls for a bill of rights to be added to the Constitution. When the new government got under way in 1789, Hamilton won the position of Secretary of the Treasury. He began at once to place the nation's disorganized finances on a sound footing. In a series of reports (1790-91), he presented a program not only to stabilize national finances but also to shape the future of the country as a powerful, industrial nation. He proposed establishment of a national bank, funding of the national debt, assumption of state war debts, and the encouragement of manufacturing. Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison. Their disputes with him over his pro-business economic program, sympathies for Great Britain, disdain for the common man, and opposition to the principles and excesses of the French revolution contributed to the formation of the first U.S. party system. It pitted Hamilton and the Federalists against Jefferson and Madison and the Democratic-Republicans. During most of the Washington administration, Hamilton's views usually prevailed with the President, especially after 1793 when Jefferson left the government. While gaining stature in the law, Hamilton continued to exert a powerful impact on New York and national politics. Always an opponent of fellow-Federalist John Adams, he sought to prevent his election to the presidency in 1796. When that failed, he continued to use his influence secretly within Adams' cabinet. The bitterness between the two men became public knowledge in 1800 when Hamilton denounced Adams in a letter that was published through the efforts of the Democratic-Republicans. Meanwhile, when Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in Presidential electoral votes in 1800, Hamilton threw valuable support to Jefferson. In 1804, when Burr sought the governorship of New York, Hamilton again managed to defeat him. That same year, Burr, taking offense at remarks he believed to have originated with Hamilton, challenged him to a duel, which took place at present Weehawken, NJ, on July 11. Mortally wounded, Hamilton died the next day. He was in his late forties at death. He was buried in Trinity Churchyard in New York City.

 

9  

Political Writings of Alexander Hamilton Excerpts from the Federalist Papers Federalist No. 69 March 14, 1788   The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York. … The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one [the President] would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other [the king of Great Britain] is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism. Federalist No. 70 March 18, 1788 Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome. There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government….  

10  

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature. They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification of the former, and have regarded this as most applicable to power in a single hand, while they have, with equal propriety, considered the latter as best adapted to deliberation and wisdom, and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people and to secure their privileges and interests. That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished. This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him…. Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion....Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy. Federalist No. 73 The propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments, has been already suggested and repeated; the insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries of each, has also been remarked upon; and the necessity of furnishing each with constitutional arms for its own defense, has been inferred and proved. From these clear and indubitable principles results the propriety of a negative [veto], either absolute or qualified, in the Executive, upon the acts of the legislative branches. Without the one or the other, the former would be absolutely unable to defend himself against the depredations of the latter. He might gradually be stripped of his authorities by successive resolutions, or annihilated by a single vote. And in the one mode or the other, the legislative and executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands. …. The primary inducement to conferring the power in question [the veto] upon the Executive is, to enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design. …It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of lawmaking, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones…. It is evident that there would be greater danger of his not using his power when necessary, than of his using it too often, or too much.

 

11  

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Jefferson did not consider himself a professional politician. Instead, he regarded himself as a public-spirited citizen and a broad-minded, practical thinker. He preferred his family, his books, and his farms to public life. But he spent most of his career in public office and made his greatest contribution to his country in the field of politics. The tall, red-haired Virginian believed that "those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God." His ideal society was a nation of landowning farmers living under as little government as possible. The term Jeffersonian democracy refers to such an ideal and was based on Jefferson's faith in selfgovernment. He trusted the majority of people to govern themselves and wanted to keep the government simple and free of waste. Jefferson loved liberty in every form, and he worked for freedom of speech, press, religion, and other civil liberties. Jefferson strongly supported the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson molded the American spirit and mind. Every later generation has turned to him for inspiration. Through about 40 years of public service, he remained faithful to his vow of "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." A man of contradictions •

He thought slavery was an evil, which corrupted the master even more than it oppressed the slave. But he owned, bought, sold, and bred slaves all his adult life.

•

He was a deist, but also a “closet theologian” who read daily from the New Testament.

•

He was an elitist in education, but also complained bitterly of people who contrived to put themselves in positions of power and profit.

•

He was a democrat who valued election by the people, but thought that the Senate should not be directly elected because “a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom.”

•

He could be an extremist glorifying the violence of revolution: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Yet he admired Washington’s “moderation and virtue” which prevented this revolution from destroying the liberty on which it was based. His lifelong passion was books, and it his collection which, thanks to lifelong debt, make up the

core of the Library of Congress. He admired Patrick Henry, who, unlike Jefferson, possessed the gift of

 

12  

oration. Henry was a passionate firebrand. Whereas Henry could rouse men’s passions with the spoken word, Jefferson depended on his pen. Jefferson had a more important quality: the power to analyze a historic situation in depth, to propose a course of conduct, and present it in such a way as to shape the minds of a deliberative assembly. In 1774, he encapsulated the entire debate over constitutional solutions to American’s dilemma with Britain into a masterful document, Summary View of the Rights of British America. He relied heavily on Locke’s Second Treatise, which enumerates the virtues of a meritocracy based in part on the ownership of property. Jefferson argued that the British Parliament had no control over the American Colonies. He declared that when the original settlers came to America, they had used their "natural rights" to emigrate. Jefferson claimed the colonies still owed allegiance only to the king, to whom the original settlers had freely chosen to remain loyal. Jefferson said the first English settlers in America were like the first Saxons who had settled in England hundreds of years before. The Saxons had come from the area of present-day Germany. Jefferson claimed the British Parliament had no more right to govern America than the German rulers had to govern England. Most Virginians at the convention found Jefferson's views too extreme.

The Declaration of Independence Jefferson took a leading part in the Continental Congress. After the Revolutionary War began, he was asked to draft a "Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms." The Congress found this declaration "too strong." The more moderate John Dickinson drafted a substitute, which included much of Jefferson's original version. The Declaration of Independence states three basic ideas: (1) God made all men equal and gave them the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (instead of Locke's “pursuit of property”); (2) the main business of government is to protect these rights; (3) if a government tries to withhold these rights, the people are free to revolt and to set up a new government.

 

13  

Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson Letters to James Madison, Edward Carrington and Samuel Kercheval Excerpt from a Letter To James Madison Thomas Jefferson (Oct. 28, 1785) ...The property of [France] is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after these comes them most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state. Letter to Edward Carrington Thomas Jefferson (Jan. 16. 1787) DEAR SIR, -- ... I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by  

14  

enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. Letter to Samuel Kercheval Thomas Jefferson (July 12, 1816) SIR, -- …The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature to a convenient number for full, but orderly discussion. Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election…. The organization of our county administrations may be thought more difficult. But follow principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their wards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves, in each, a constable, a military company, a patrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their own portion of the public roads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the delivery, within their own wards, of their own votes for all elective officers of higher sphere, will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican constitution.… These wards, called townships in New England, are the vital principle of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for its preservation. We should thus marshal our government into, 1, the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2, that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3, the county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4, the ward republics, for the small, and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs. … The [people] alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves. But how collect their voice? This is the real difficulty. If invited by private authority, or county or district meetings, these divisions are so large that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely pronounced. Here, then, would be one of the advantages of the ward divisions I have proposed. The mayor of every ward, on a question like the present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea or nay of its members, convey these to the county court, who would hand on those of all its wards to the proper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be thus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the society. If this avenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation, again; and so on forever. These, Sir, are my opinions of the governments we see among men, and of the principles by which alone we may prevent our own from falling into the same dreadful track.

 

15  

James Madison (1751-1836) The oldest of 10 children and a member of the planter aristocracy, Madison was born in Port Conway, Virginia. He received his early education from his mother, from tutors, and at a private school. An excellent scholar, though frail and sickly in his youth, in 1771 he graduated from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), where he demonstrated special interest in government and the law. Considering the ministry for a career, he stayed on for a year of postgraduate study in theology. After completing his studies, Madison soon embraced the patriot cause, and state and local politics absorbed much of his time. He served on the Orange County Committee of Safety and at the Virginia Convention. It was there that he supported various Revolutionary steps and framed the Virginia constitution. His ill health meant he could not serve in the military. In 1780 Madison was chosen to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress (1780-83 and 1786-88). Although originally the youngest delegate, he played a major role in the deliberations of that body. He had written extensively about deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation and was instrumental in the convening of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Chosen to represent Virginia in shaping the constitution, Madison was clearly the preeminent figure at the convention. Madison can be called the constitutionalist of the Revolution, for he did more than Jefferson or even Hamilton to ensure that the United States got a workable system of government. Madison saw the opportunity to establish a wise and happy government as “a period glorious for our country and, more than any preceding one, likely to improve the condition of man.” Starting with his work on the Virginia state constitution, Madison made the important distinction between “toleration of religion” to “the free exercise of religion.” This had important consequences for the new nation’s approach to religion. Some of the delegates favored an authoritarian central government; others, supported state sovereignty and a weak central government. Most delegates were somewhere between these two extremes. Madison tirelessly advocated a strong government, though many of his proposals were rejected. Madison provided the agenda for the Constitutional Convention by presenting the Virginia Plan. The Virginia Plan was a radical departure from the stated intentions of the convention. It called for a strong central government "consisting of a supreme Legislature, Executive, & Judiciary." It provided for a national legislature consisting of two houses: one elected directly by the people, the other appointed by the first from a body of nominees submitted by state legislatures. Representation in these bodies would be based on the population of the states. It provided for an Executive to be elected by this national legislature. It also defined a national judiciary and a "Council of Revision" charged with reviewing the constitutionality of legislation.

 

16  

Although Madison prevailed on the structure of the new federal government, he could not quell the concerns of the smaller (or less populated) states. There was a general concern that the more populous Virginia would be able to dictate to the other states under a system of proportional representation. Debate on this issue was fierce, but finally a compromise was reached: referred to ever since as the Grand Compromise. The upper house (the Senate) would feature equal representation for each of the states. The lower house would be based on proportional representation. The formula called for one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants of a state. The compromise on this point was that slaves, who were not otherwise considered, would count as three fifths of a freeman. This restored some advantage to the southern states. With these allowances the convention was able to continue. Despite his poor speaking capabilities, Madison took the floor more than 150 times, third only after Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson. Madison was also a member of numerous committees. His journal of the convention is the best single record of the event. He also played a key part in guiding the Constitution through the Continental Congress. Playing a lead in the ratification process, too, Madison defended the document against such powerful opponents as Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee. In New York, where Madison was serving in the Continental Congress, he collaborated with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in a series of essays that in 1787-88 appeared in the newspapers and were soon published in book form as The Federalist (1788). This set of essays is a classic of political theory and a brilliant defense of the republican principles that dominated the framing of the Constitution. In the U.S. House of Representatives (1789-97), Madison helped frame and ensure passage of the Bill of Rights. He also assisted in organizing the executive department and creating a system of federal taxation. As leaders of the opposition to Hamilton's economic policies, he and Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party. In 1809 Madison succeeded Jefferson as President of the United States. Like the first three presidents, Madison was caught up in the American consequences of European wars. Diplomacy had failed to prevent the seizure of U.S. ships, goods, and men on the high seas, and a depression wracked the country. Madison continued to apply diplomatic techniques and economic sanctions, eventually effective to some degree against France. But continued British interference with shipping, as well as other grievances, led to the War of 1812. Although a slaveholder all his life, he was active during his later years in the American Colonization Society, whose mission was the resettlement of slaves in Africa. Madison died at the age of 85 in 1836, survived by his wife and stepson.

 

17  

Political Writings of James Madison Excerpts from the Federalist Papers Federalist No. 39 January 16, 1788 If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior. Federalist No. 47 February 1, 1788 The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny…. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind…. … it may clearly be inferred that, in saying "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," [Montesquieu] did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative  

18  

function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR. " Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author. Federalist No. 48 February 1, 1788 IT WAS shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained. It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. … In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.  

 

 

19  

Reading Questions for Philosophers Philosopher ______________________________ What is the philosopher’s view of human nature? (Are people inherently good or bad? Peaceful or violent? Cooperative or stubborn?

What historical or imagined events does the philosopher use to explain human government.

What does the philosopher believe is the best form of government? Why does he support this form? What does he see as its advantages?

What in the philosopher’s background may have led to his political ideas?

Why might this form of government work in the United States in the 1780s?

What problems do you see with this type of government?

How might the philosopher respond to your criticisms?

 

20  

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Thomas Hobbes lived through a tumultuous age in English history. The Protestant Reformation had led to religious conflict and attempts by different groups to control political power. A civil war in the 1640s ended with the execution of King Charles I and ten years of parliamentary rule. Even after the monarchy was restored in 1660, the new king—Charles II—faced conflict with Parliament and from abroad. This chaos led Hobbes to write in his book “Leviathan” about the merits of an absolute monarchy. He believed that the best type of government was one in which people were obedient to a ruler with complete power who could provide security and stability.

In this state of nature, where there were no limits to individual freedom, the life of man would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” This would, in effect, be anarchy— chaos resulting from a lack of authority. Do you agree that people without a government would be selfish of their property and aggressive in trying to take the property of others?  

Hobbes believed humans were self-serving,   and that their highest goal was selfpreservation. One means of ensuring   security is dominating others. Another approach is to reach agreement with others — ‘I won’t kill you or take your property if you agree to do the same.’ Hobbes called this a covenant. Later writers, such as John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau, would call it a social contract. However, the contract needed to be enforced. In the Hobbesian contract, people agreed to submit to the authority of one person or a group who would rule over them.

Although Hobbes was writing political philosophy, he was a product of the scientific revolution. He lived in the time of Kepler, Galileo and Newton. The scientific method—in which the process of thought is as important as the outcome—guided Hobbes’ way of thinking. He therefore offered a detailed argument that he hoped would convince his readers of the rightness of his theory. Hobbes began by imagining how people lived before government, what drove them to form governments, and how they formed the first governments.

“Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Locke and Rousseau later used the social contract to introduce participatory types of government, but Hobbes didn’t think democracies or republics were feasible. Hobbes believed that because of competition, fear and ego, people would never be able to cooperate in government, and so thought it was better to give a monarch absolute power.

Hobbes was among the first modern writers to describe a hypothetical ‘state of nature’— a world in which people exist without government. While Hobbes believed that people were inherently equal, he thought that they would inevitably come into conflict for three main reasons: competition for resources, fear for their safety and security, and the quest for glory.

 

21  

Because the role of government is to make laws which citizens are then bound to follow, liberty is necessarily limited. In Hobbes’ view, the most effective government was one that gave complete liberty only to the leader. In Hobbes’ contract, once citizens accepted the monarch’s leadership, they gave up all other rights. The leader therefore has power to tax, to censor, to control education, and to control the people. The citizens have no right to vote, to make laws, or to judge others.

In what way is anarchy a greater threat than despotism? In what way is despotism a greater threat than anarchy?

“They that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another man.” Hobbes did not recognize the right of rebellion by the people, because the people had agreed to obey the ruler, and they could not break this covenant. The ruler, however, has complete power and is not bound by any contract. Hobbes believed that as long as the end result was the security of the people, any means used by the ruler to achieve that peace were permissible. One question Hobbes faced was about the selection of the ruler’s successor. Hobbes did not recognize the right of the people to vote a new ruler into office, but that the monarch should be able to choose his successor. Hobbes realized that the monarch would probably choose his own son, and so hereditary rule was almost inevitable. Hobbes believed that the power of the monarch should be undivided as well as unlimited. According to Hobbes, all branches of the government should be under the control of the monarch or the assembly to avoid divisiveness and war. Hobbes recognized that a leader with this much power could become despotic, but he believed it was preferable to anarchy.  

22  

John Locke (1632-1704) John Locke lived through a tumultuous age in English history. The Protestant Reformation had led to religious conflict and attempts by different groups to control political power. A civil war in the 1640s ended with the execution of King Charles I and ten years of parliamentary rule. Even after the monarchy was restored in 1660, the new kings—Charles II, then James II— faced conflict with Parliament and from abroad. Finally, in 1688, Parliament prevailed in what is known as the Glorious Revolution. At this time, Protestant Queen Mary and her Dutch husband, William of Orange, came to the throne, but gave more power to the legislative branch. These events influenced John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, in which he criticized hereditary monarchy, analyzed natural and human laws, and suggested an alternative form of government.

to organize human societies under peaceful and just governments. Monarchs ruled all the major European countries in the 17th century. A number of these claimed to rule through the divine right of kings, the idea that God gave them their authority. Prior to the Reformation, this authority was given to kings through the Catholic Church, but as Protestants threw off papal power, they also challenged the basis for royal power. Locke, in particular, claimed that heredity was not a valid basis for political succession. To identify the type of government that would serve society better than monarchy, Locke imagined how people lived before government, what drove them to form governments, and how they formed the first governments. Locke was not the first to use this approach. Thomas Hobbes had written in the 1650s about these same questions, but in support of absolute monarchy.

Locke was raised in a Puritan family, and was firm in his religious views. However, he approached arguments with enough doubt to allow for alternatives. Like other Enlightenment philosophers, Locke worked to apply a scientific understanding of the world to human affairs. His political ideas were not always logical, but he believed in balancing reason with experience and common sense to find practical solutions to problems.

Both Hobbes and Locke used the idea of a ‘state of nature’ to describe how people lived before government. Whereas Hobbes described a hypothetical state of nature that was competitive and warlike, Locke implied that his state of nature was historically true and described it as relatively peaceful. In Locke’s state of nature, people were equal and free to do as they pleased, but they generally followed reason and natural laws. Locke described natural laws as the most basic rules for human conduct; laws seen as divinely given and accepted by everyone, such as “thou shalt not kill.”

Given the turmoil in Europe at the time, the problem Locke and other political philosophers wanted to solve was how best

 

23  

The complete freedom that existed in the state of nature allowed a person to do anything he or she wanted. Occasionally one person acting out of self-interest, would hurt another person or take another’s property. In the state of nature, the one who was threatened had to defend himself; he couldn’t rely on society to help or protect him. Therefore, according to Locke, people formed governments to share responsibility for security of life, liberty, and property. “The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”

“Political power I take to be the right of making laws, with penalty of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.” It is worth noting here that the citizens described by Locke are men of property. He did not accept the right of women or the poor—those without property—to take part in the making of government of to possess the rights of citizenship.

Enlightenment thinkers used the idea of a ‘social contract’ to explain how people formed a government. Thomas Hobbes’ social contract was an agreement between citizens who agreed to give up their rights to a monarch. The monarch, in turn, would protect them, but was not bound by the contract. Under Locke, the social contract was an agreement between the citizens and the government. This crucial difference meant that Locke’s government was beholden to the citizens. If the government violated the contract—if it failed to protect their life, liberty and property—then the contract was broken and the citizens could form a new government.

In describing the best form of government, Locke only discusses the legislative and executive branches. He doesn’t mention the judiciary, even though its powers were hotly contested during the English Civil War. Locke asserts that the legislative branch and executive branch must be separate from each other, but he doesn’t explain what should be done when they come into conflict. He condemns the use of force except when opposing injustice, but doesn’t acknowledge that the two sides may have different views of what is just.

The government then created rules or laws, which required individuals to act in a certain way or face a punishment. Once a government was instituted, however, individuals gave up the right to defend themselves against violators, ceding that right to the government.

 

24  

Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu was born into a noble family in the French region of Bordeaux. At the time, France’s king held absolute power and had not called the country’s legislative body—the Estates General—to meet for decades. Montesquieu studied law, and after coming into his inheritance, served as a judge and administrator in his region’s government. He was also active in Bordeaux’ scientific academy, reading and publishing papers. After retiring his political position, the baron traveled in Germany, Italy and Austria, and lived for two years in England, where he was impressed with its parliamentary system. Montesquieu was therefore well acquainted with the functioning of several European governments before writing his own views on political systems.

This perspective meant that, unlike Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau—who advocated specific types of government—Montesquieu recognized that there were several types of government, each with its own merits and pitfalls—republican, monarchical, and despotic. Montesquieu described republics as taking one of two forms—democratic or aristocratic. Democracy—based on patriotism Democracies depend on "the love of the laws and of our country" and so people in a democracy must be willing to give up some of their personal interest for the good of the community. This requires education and active participation, and according to Montesquieu, runs counter to human nature. To make this work, a democracy should first of all be small, increasing the chances that people will identify national interests with their own. It should avoid lavish expense so people don’t see the government as a source of their own enrichment. Finally, it should encourage relative economic equality so that one group doesn’t come to have significantly more wealth and power than another.

As a trained lawyer and scientist, Montesquieu was concerned with human laws and whether they could be categorized and analyzed in the way that physical laws could be understood. The baron believed that laws and the governments that generate them are products of specific conditions, such as geography, religion and economy. That is, laws should and usually do reflect the climate, land, professions and beliefs of the people for whom they are made. If seen in this light, rules that might otherwise seem unnecessary or irrational, actually are well suited to the people in question. If laws fail to meet this test, then they should be discarded or reformed.  

Montesquieu believed that democracies could be brought down by one of two extremes: too little equality or too much of it. In the former case, great differences in economic power would lead to one group having political power over another. In the latter case, people want to be completely

25  

equal and so limit others’ freedom. This requires a level of micromanagement by the government that Montesquieu believed would lead to despotism.

are like slaves. They are kept in this position through fear because the despot can punish their misdeeds any way he likes. Despotism is by its very nature corrupt. Because the despot can act on whim, he has no need to plan, deliberate or improve. Because he can seize people’s land, goods or labor at any time, trade cannot prosper and the economy suffers. Because he rules through fear, the despot can trust no one, and so even he is insecure.

Aristocracy—based on moderation As an aristocrat himself, Montesquieu could understand the pros and cons of rule by the nobility. He recognized that an aristocratic government had would be more efficient than a democratic one because fewer people were involved in the making of laws. However, he feared that three things could bring down an aristocracy and lead to despotism: excessive power of the nobility over the people, a sense of resentment by the people toward the nobility, and competition among the nobility themselves. Montesquieu believed that laws would have to be made limiting the nobles’ power over the people.

Liberty and the separation of powers While liberty is equated with freedom, Montesquieu saw true liberty as being limited. He understood that if all people had complete liberty, they would be in danger of suffering at the hands of others. (If I have the liberty to kill, then so do you.) Instead, Montesquieu’s idea of civil liberty involved obedience to laws for protection while guaranteeing enough freedom for people to live our lives as we choose.

Monarchy—based on honor Montesquieu’s monarch does not have absolute power, for that would be despotism. Instead, the monarch rules through lower institutions, such as the nobility and judges. To avoid despotism, the monarch must guarantee the rights of these other institutions, which then keep the monarch from acting unilaterally. Montesquieu asserts that the guiding principle of a monarchy is honor—a virtue more natural to people than the self-sacrifice required of democracy or the moderation required of aristocracy.

Montesquieu worried that corrupt or despotic governments would take advantage of their power and limit people’s freedom. To avoid this, he recommended separating the different arms of government—the executive, the legislative and the judicial. By limiting the power of each of these branches, no one group would be able to oppress its subjects. He suggested that each branch have a power that the other does not, for example he thought the legislative branch alone should have the power to tax so it could withhold funds from a power-hungry executive. He thought the executive should have the authority to wage wars, and that the judiciary should be careful to judge offenses in a way that was clear and regulated.

Despotism—based on fear A despot has complete power; complete freedom to do as he wants for whatever reason. His subjects are at his mercy and so  

26  

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Jean Jacques Rousseau was a born in the Calvinist city-state of Geneva, lived most of his life in France, but also lived in exile in Germany and England. Although known for his political ideas, he was first and foremost the father of the social movement known as romanticism. The 18th century in which Rousseau lived is known as the Enlightenment, a time when reason and scientific thought were applied to all areas of human knowledge. Romantics rejected this emphasis on reason, and instead focused on what the French called ‘sensibility’. Romantics favored emotion over rational thought and aesthetic beauty over practical use. This showed in romantic literature and painting with depictions of wild landscapes, impoverished rural life and tragic love.

government or society was formed. Rousseau, like Hobbes, didn’t claim that this state of nature had really existed, but believed it was necessary to imagine in order to better understand the current state of mankind. Rousseau believed that individuals have different strengths and attributes which might give them advantages over each other, such as youth, strength and cleverness, but that they were otherwise equal. Rousseau’s inhabitant of the state of nature—his noble savage—was naturally kind, unselfish and loving to his family. As in Hobbes & Locke, the absolute freedom of Rousseau’s state of nature meant that people could do anything they wanted. However, Rousseau pointed out that with complete freedom came complete independence, which was not necessarily desirable. Rousseau thought that people in the state of nature would come to depend on each other to satisfy their needs for food, shelter and protection, for example. As people became dependent on each other and worked together, they would need an authority figure or government to regulate disputes between them.

Romantics tended to reject convention and the tastes of their elders, so it is no surprise that Rousseau challenged the cultural, political and social norms of his day. He condemned all aspects of civilization (art, literature, science, math) as being inferior to the life of the “noble savage”—his idealized man who lived in a pure, uneducated state. Rousseau believed that “man is naturally good, and only by institutions is he made bad”

Rousseau looked on private property as being the source of inequality that made later society so

“Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains”. Like Hobbes and Locke before him, Rousseau used the idea of a ‘state of nature’ to describe how people lived before

 

terrible in his eyes. Once a person claimed property as belonging only to him and out of reach of others, that person created 27  

competition and unhappiness between people. Following his condemnation of private property, Rousseau said that any new government that emerged from this new interdependence would favor those with property and so would introduce or reinforce inequality. It would, in effect, become a government that limited people’s freedom and diminished their equality. Rousseau thought the poor would accept this inferior situation because they feared war more than the loss of freedom or equity.

Even in a small city-state, obstacles stood in the way of success. Rousseau believed that for this type of society to function, all members must be virtuous and have at heart the general welfare. Rousseau was not convinced that this was possible, and thought that individuals might refuse to limit their personal freedom by obeying the laws that were intended to benefit the group as a whole. Citizens might object to the loss of their natural freedoms, but Rousseau believed these were balanced out by what he called civil freedoms—those that are shared equally by all members of the society.

Although Rousseau’s tale of the state of nature predicts a negative outcome, his later work, The Social Contract, presented an alternative society. Rousseau’s argument is multifaceted and sometimes contradictory, leading some to conclude that Rousseau himself saw this alternative society as an ideal—one which could never be realized by a legitimate state.

Rousseau rejected all forms of representative government. He claimed that allowing others to make laws on behalf of the people constituted a type of slavery. In spite of this, Rousseau acknowledged that a medium-size state would best be ruled by an aristocracy, and a large state by a monarch.

Rousseau asserted that the only type of society that could offer both maximum liberty and equality was one in which the general will of the people is law. Rousseau said that the general will must truly reflect the sentiments of the whole group and must apply to the whole group; that is, laws can’t be made that only benefit small interest groups. For this to work, the community must be small and relatively homogenous. Rousseau’s philosophy showed a preference for a pure democracy, like that of the Greek city states. Rousseau concluded that it would be impossible to assess the general will in a medium or large nation where there were many different groups and classes of citizens.

 

28  

Reading Questions for Reporters What are some of the skills necessary for a good reporter?

How does freedom of the press aid democracy? Give some examples from American history.

What do your readers need to know about this debate and why?

How should you report different political viewpoints?

While philosopher groups and founders are working on their presentations, reporters should circulate and listen to discussions, occasionally asking questions. This will give you the background to understand tomorrow’s hearing. Take notes on each of the following figures on a separate sheet of paper: Philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau Baron de Montesquieu John Locke Thomas Hobbes  

 

Founders James Madison Alexander Hamilton Thomas Jefferson

29