The Constitution of Massachusetts influenced the national Constitution

“We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

– Preamble to the original Constitution of Massachusetts (ratified 1780), as written by John Adams

The Constitution of Massachusetts was originally written by John Adams …

In 1787, John Adams was serving as the American ambassador to Britain. Thus, he was not present at the (federal) Constitutional Convention, which was held that year. But he had more influence upon the federal Constitution than one might be tempted to conclude from this. This is because, eight years earlier, he had attended the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention held in 1779. Thus, he was the principal author of the Constitution of Massachusetts. This is among the oldest written constitutions to remain in effect today. It was also the first constitution anywhere in the world to be “created by a convention called for that purpose, rather than by a legislative body” (as one source puts it).

John Adams, the principal author of the Constitution of Massachusetts

… and remained unchanged until the 1820s, long after the founding era

This constitution remained unchanged until the Second Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. This latter convention was held from 1820 to 1821. At this time, the first nine amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution were all passed simultaneously. Thus, all of the amendments to that constitution were well after the founding era. I will be focusing here on how the Massachusetts Constitution influenced the federal Constitution. Thus, all of the amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution (even the very first one) are too late to be relevant to our present subject. Thus, I will be focusing here on the original text of the Massachusetts Constitution – as drafted in 1779, and presented and ratified in 1780. This will showcase the ideas of John Adams, and how they influenced our federal Constitution.

The title page of the first published edition of the original 1780 Massachusetts Constitution

Influences on the Constitution

Introduction: The document that changed everything in America …

When the Constitution was written, there was a lot going on at that time! The questions of this series. My aims in this series.

Interior of Independence Hall

Influences on the Constitution

How different was the Constitution from the “Articles of Confederation”?

“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.”

– Article I of the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union”

First of all, what is a “Confederation”; and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”?

So what is a “confederation,” and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”? The website of Princeton University defines both “confederation” and “confederacy” as “a union of political organizations” (see entry on “confederation” and entry on “confederacy”). There are other definitions for each word, but this is the one that applies here. Another meaning of a “confederacy,” noted by their website, is that of “the southern states that seceded from the United States in 1861” (see entry on “confederacy”), which is defined as synonymous in this context with the “Confederate States of America.” It is important to understand this point: This is not the meaning that applies here. However, the similarity between these two words was not a coincidence, as the Confederates chose this name carefully. The southern states intended their “Confederacy” to be a union of independent nations with strong “states' rights,” as you may know. The Southern states rejected the idea of a “powerful federal government” with strong central control, and preferred that each state retain its “independence” and “sovereignty.” This may have contributed to their eventual downfall in the American Civil War, as the squabbling between the states proved to be catastrophic for them (but good for the country that they were trying to dissolve). The lack of centralized control was then believed to be a virtue, but it ultimately seems to have proved something of a weakness. The “Articles of Confederation” shared many of these same weaknesses, I am sad to say. It may have been more like the “United Nations” than the United States of America.

Interior of Independence Hall

The Declaration of Independence created thirteen “independent states” …

However, the Articles of Confederation actually started out: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.” (Source: Article I) The Articles of Confederation was not the first official document to use the phrase “United States of America,” because the operative paragraph of the Declaration of Independence had a sentence that began: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled … ” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) The idea that the thirteen states would be united together into a “confederacy” was an idea new to the Articles of Confederation in 1781, and was probably a step in the right direction. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence had said that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) Unfortunately, each of the thirteen states still possessed most of these powers for themselves under the Articles of Confederation. But by saying that “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America',” the Articles of Confederation was trying to unite the thirteen states together into a “perpetual Union” (in the words of the Preamble to the Articles).

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” may be the world’s first written constitution

“I pass over the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they were formed prior to the Revolution, and even before the principle under examination had become an object of political attention.”

– James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 47)

Some consider this document to be the world’s first written constitution

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution for an entire nation. But there were actually several state constitutions that came before it, which were mostly found in the thirteen colonies that became the early United States. They already had functioning democracies by the time they declared their independence in 1776, and had more than a century of democratic experience by this time. Although the writers of the Constitution would also draw upon the experiences of Greece and Rome (not to mention Great Britain), they would also be drawing upon their own experience as well, and upon the constitutions of their own states. Some would consider the world’s first “constitution” (in the modern Western sense of that word) to be the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” a document that was written in 1639 – nearly a century and a half before the United States Constitution was written in 1787. Some would dispute the claim that the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were truly the world’s first constitution, I should note here, and I suppose it depends somewhat upon how you define this word. But however you define it, it would nonetheless seem fair to say that the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” were groundbreaking; and that they were a considerable influence on the United States Constitution.

The British Parliament was the main model for the United States Congress

“It will be the business of this chapter to consider the British parliament; in which the legislative power, and (of course) the supreme and absolute authority of the state, is vested by our constitution.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

The “supreme and absolute authority of the state” was in the legislature

William Blackstone once said that the British Constitution vests the “supreme and absolute authority of the state” in the Parliament. Like Montesquieu before him, Blackstone was a believer in separation of powers (more on that subject here). He believed that the Parliament should be a separate branch of government from the executive authority – which, at that time, was the monarchy. “In all tyrannical governments,” Blackstone also said, “the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Wherever these two powers are united together, he said, “there can be no public liberty … [for] The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) The magistrate “is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But, where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands,” he continued, “the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) This, he believed, would happen if there were not a Parliament to check the power of the king.

Sir William Blackstone

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

How did the Massachusetts Body of Liberties influence the Bill of Rights?

“No man shall be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses or that which is equivalent thereunto.”

– The Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), Section 47

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties codified many of the basic rights and privileges that we enjoy today. It had an early form of freedom of speech, and a right to petition the government with a “complaint.” It listed several rights of the accused; such as a protection from double jeopardy, a protection from forced confessions, and a protection from excessive bail. It gave them rights to a trial in criminal cases, and the right to an attorney to represent them in these trials. It gave them protections of life and property (as well as the right to challenge jurors), and some potent protections against any “inhumane Barbarous or cruel” bodily punishments. All of these things influenced the United States Bill of Rights, and it is hard to imagine life in this country without them. Our country would be in a much worse shape, if we didn't have these things. Thus, an examination of these rights would seem to be appropriate here. (I have decided to preserve the original spellings of its passages when quoting them, to give the reader something of their style and flavor.)

David Hume criticized social contract theory severely …

“My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only pretend, that it has very seldom had place in any degree, and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.”

– David Hume's “Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary” (1752), Part II, Essay XII (entitled “Of the Original Contract”)

Do governments require the “consent of the people”? If you think they do, you might be a believer in social contract theory, even if you don’t realize it yet. The idea that governments have actual duties to their people, and not just people having one-way duties to their governments, is at the foundation of every democracy; and is at the heart of social contract theory in every way.

United States Capitol

What is social contract theory, and why is it important?

In a nutshell, this social contract theory is basically the idea that there is an agreement between government and the people, which believers in this theory may or may not believe to have been written down on paper. In this agreement, it is held that governments agree to do certain things for their people, and that the people agree to do certain things for their society. These would include obeying the laws that their governments are actually authorized to make under this agreement – although not all laws would be authorized by these agreements, since some of these laws might be considered “unconstitutional” under its terms. (More on that later in this post – for now, I will just explain what social contract theory is at its most basic level.) What exactly the duties of each party might be is a matter of some controversy, I should acknowledge here, even among social contract theorists. Thus, I will not attempt here to specify numerous details of the duties owed by either side in this agreement. This would be too long a task for a single blog post, in fact, and would be beyond the scope of a blog like mine. Rather, I will attempt to show how social contract theory influenced the United States Constitution (since I am an American), and show how our own Constitution owes much to the English philosopher John Locke in this regard, since he was a great social contract theorist in a previous century. (For more on the basics of this theory, I will refer interested readers to another of my blog posts, which I link to here. This post will focus more on how this theory has been applied in actual practice, at least in my own country.)

Thomas Hobbes

How did Locke’s social contract theory influence the Constitution?

“Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

– James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 44)

David Hume criticized the idea that all governments began by a “social contract” …

The philosopher David Hume once criticized social contract theory for saying that all governments began by an actual social contract (see my previous blog post for the details of this quote). In his “Essays, Moral, Political, Literary,” for example, he said that this account was “not justified by history or experience, in any age or country of the world.”  (Source: Part II, Essay XII – entitled “Of the Original Contract”) Some of Hume's criticisms of the theory of social contracts may be valid (including this one), and the idea that all governments actually began in this way is indeed unsupported by the historical evidence, as Hume said. Many social contract theorists have actually agreed with this much, and have modified their theories accordingly to accommodate this criticism. They say that the “social contract theory” is still a workable model even without this claim that governments actually began in this way.

David Hume

… but the Constitution is itself a “social contract”

But regardless of the historical origins of government (which I have discussed earlier), one might note with some satisfaction that some “social contracts” really have been enacted between government and their people, and that the Constitution itself was one of these “social contracts” (even if it was after Hume’s time, which it was). People agreed to obey the laws by creating a government that had the power to make them, and which had the power to punish violations of those laws via some particular clauses in the document. The people also agreed to pay taxes, and to do a few other things which I will not elaborate upon in this post. In return, the government agreed (not always very truthfully) to refrain from doing certain things, and to consider itself in violation of these laws anytime that it did them anyway. (Even government is not above the laws, as the Founding Fathers made clear.) Our Constitution was thus an application of social contract theory, which came from the writings of people like John Locke.

John Locke

Some have questioned whether Locke was an influence on the Constitution …

Some have questioned today whether John Locke had much of an influence on the Constitution. The political scientist Donald Lutz, for example, said that “Locke is profound when it comes to the bases for establishing a government and for opposing tyranny, but has little to say about institutional design. Therefore his influence most properly lies in justifying the revolution and the right of Americans to write their own constitutions rather than in the design of any constitution, state or national. Locke's influence has been exaggerated in the latter regard, and finding him hidden in passages of the U.S. Constitution is an exercise that requires more evidence than has hitherto ever been provided.”(Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 192-193) I have a lot of respect for Donald Lutz, I should make clear, and have actually quoted him elsewhere in this series as an authority on what influenced the Founding Fathers. But I nonetheless must disagree with him on this particular point, and hold that Locke influenced particular passages in the Constitution. In fairness to Mr. Lutz, I should acknowledge that he did not question that Locke was influential on the Founding Fathers, even in this quote – indeed, he believed that Locke was quoted by the Founding Fathers more than any other thinker, besides Montesquieu or William Blackstone. But I will endeavor to show some evidence here that Locke influenced our Constitution, and that his influence can be found in particular passages within the document.

John Locke

When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta

How did the Virginia Declaration of Rights influence the Bill of Rights?

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety … That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”

– George Mason, in the “Virginia Declaration of Rights,” Sections I and II

George Mason actually refused to sign the Constitution of the United States …

George Mason was present at the Constitutional Convention, but he refused to sign the finished document. When the final draft was approved, he said that he “would sooner chop off [his] right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.” Why, you might be wondering? Because the original Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights; and having authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights earlier on in his career, he knew the importance of a Bill of Rights in a country's constitution.

George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights

He wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in May 1776 (ratified June 1776)

Specifically, he had authored the “Virginia Declaration of Rights” in May 1776 – a document that was later approved in June 1776. It not only influenced the United States Declaration of Independence (passed in July 1776), but the United States Bill of Rights (which was passed in 1791). It drew upon influences from both American and British history, but it also made some original contributions of its own, as well as some improvements on previous ideas. It was also amended somewhat by Robert C. Nicholas and James Madison.

James Madison

It influenced our federal Bill of Rights in many ways, as I will show with some relevant quotes

The Virginia Declaration of Rights influenced 7 out of the 10 amendments in the United States Bill of Rights (which is 70% of them), and was thus a major influence on our Constitution. This post will show the most influential parts of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the parts of the United States Constitution that they influenced as well.

United States Bill of Rights

The Petition of Right influenced the United States Bill of Rights

“The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them.”

– John Jay, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 5)

It sounds ironic to say it now, but a number of the Founding Fathers of the United States were actually against including a “Bill of Rights” within our Constitution. Some of them thought that it would be dangerous to do so, because they argued that any right not listed there would be construed “not to be protected” by the Constitution. They were partially wrong on this score, of course, and it would fall to other Founding Fathers to make sure that a “Bill of Rights” was later passed. But this early objection to the “Bill of Rights” may have been the reason that it eventually included a Ninth Amendment when it was passed, which said that “The enumeration [or “listing”] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (In other words, rights may not be withheld merely because they aren't listed in the Constitution.) This addressed the concern of those Founding Fathers who had objected to a bill of rights because of this.

Parliament of England

Some Founding Fathers were against having a “bill of rights” in the Constitution …

Nonetheless, when Alexander Hamilton listed examples of a “bill of rights” in one of the Federalist Papers, he was not endorsing them, but slamming them. He was holding them up as bad examples which should be avoided to avert danger from having a “comprehensive” list. Specifically, Hamilton said that “It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” (Source: Federalist No. 84)

Alexander Hamilton

… while others were for it

Other Founding Fathers disagreed, and held them up as models of good laws that should be emulated to protect rights. Because of their well-deserved popularity, these laws had a great influence on the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the amendments that later became known as our “Bill of Rights”). They are thus deserving of our attention despite Hamilton's objections to them, and were positive influences on our Constitution once the “Bill of Rights” was passed. I plan to cover all of these documents in this series (plus a few others); but in this post, I shall focus exclusively on the “Petition of Right,” written by Sir Edward Coke. Two decades before King Charles the First was beheaded in the English Civil War, he was forced to sign this document. (And he wasn't too happy about signing it … )

Petition of Right, 1628

Some of the credit for “separation of powers” should go to Polybius

“It is well known that in the Roman republic the legislative authority, in the last resort, resided for ages in two different political bodies not as branches of the same legislature, but as distinct and independent legislatures, in each of which an opposite interest prevailed: in one the patrician; in the other, the plebian. Many arguments might have been adduced to prove the unfitness of two such seemingly contradictory authorities, each having power to ANNUL or REPEAL the acts of the other. … And yet these two legislatures coexisted for ages, and the Roman republic attained to the utmost height of human greatness.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 34)

In the second century BC, there was an armed uprising against the rule of the “Roman Republic,” by an alliance of Greek states known as the “Achaean League.” There had been close military and religious ties between the two groups before this time; but they were soon cast aside in a conflict known as the “Achaean War.” This was a bitter conflict, in which the Romans quickly crushed the Achaean League; to make sure that all of Greece would soon be under their control. Greece was quickly annexed by the Roman Republic in 146 BC, the same year that Rome was laying siege to the city of Carthage in faraway North Africa. When the city of Carthage was finally sacked in the spring of that same year (after three long years of siege), the last of the three Roman wars with Carthage finally ended. The Roman Republic now controlled much of the Mediterranean.

Roman villas built on the site of Carthage

Polybius was present at the Fall of Carthage in 146 BC

One of the men present at the Sack of Carthage was a Greek historian named Polybius, who would later write an influential work called the Ἱστορίαι (“Historiai”), or “The Histories.” This famous work would cover the history of the Roman Republic from 264 BC to 146 BC, and conclude with his eyewitness account of the fall of Carthage in 146 BC. This work was originally written in his native Koine Greek as 40 different “books,” but only the first five of these “books” have survived in their entirety. The rest of these books survive only in bits and pieces, and it is the surviving portion of the sixth book that I will be focusing on today. (This is the book in which he talked about separation of powers in the Roman Republic.) His analysis of checks and balances in this republic that had conquered his homeland would have a powerful influence on men like Montesquieu and Madison. By extension, it would thus eventually influence the United States Constitution as well.

Polybius

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

"The political liberty of the [citizen] is a tranquillity of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another."

- Baron de Montesquieu's "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") [published 1748], Book XI, Chapter 6

Montesquieu had some important ideas about how to prevent tyranny (and they're still relevant today)

The U. S. Declaration of Independence owed much to the work of John Locke, the English political philosopher. But the political scientist Donald Lutz said that "If there was one man read and reacted to by American political writers of all factions during all the stages of the founding era, it was probably not Locke but Montesquieu." (Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 190) This is not to deny the importance of Locke, as he was also an enormous influence on the Founding Fathers (see my blog post for evidence of this). Nonetheless, Montesquieu is definitely the author that had the greatest influence on both sides of the ratification debates, and perhaps even on the finished product of the United States Constitution itself. He's almost like a Founding Grandfather of the United States, his influence is so strong. This is why I recently finished reading his most famous work "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") in the original French. He was a Frenchman, who wrote his most famous work in 1748 - a book written over a quarter of a century before the American Revolution. This book was one of the most important influences on the Founding Fathers.

Baron de Montesquieu

How to prevent bad government: Keep any one group from getting too much power

Montesquieu is probably best known today for his important theory of a separation of powers in government. Put briefly, this theory is the idea that bad government is best prevented by keeping any one group from getting too much power over the others. James Madison referenced this danger in the Federalist Papers by saying that "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." (Source: Federalist No. 47) Hence, the need for a system of government that divides up these powers as much as possible. This is something that the United States Constitution does by dividing up this power into three branches of government - the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary branch judges and interprets the laws, with as little overlap between these three kinds of power as possible. (More on that in a separate post - for now, I will confine myself to talking about the specifics of the theory, at least in basic form.)

What's the difference between a “democracy” and a “republic”?

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government ... "

- Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution

Is there a difference between a "democracy" and a "republic"?

The meaning of words tends to change over time, and the words "democracy" and "republic" are no different in this respect. For example, if you were to ask Americans on the streets today whether there's a difference between the two words, many would reply that they are the same (or, at least, close to the same), and some dictionaries even define them as synonymous today. Among them is the website of Princeton University, which offers multiple definitions for each word. One of these definitions is even the same for both words, and their website lists the two words as accepted synonyms for each other in this context. Their shared definition, in case you're wondering, is that they are "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (Source: entry on "democracy" and entry on "republic") The contemporary use of these words is thus somewhat interchangeable, and the common meaning of these words would admit few (if any) distinctions between them.

James Madison

The Founding Fathers thought there actually was ...

Yet there is a historical distinction between the two that our Founding Fathers recognized. One of them even offered these definitions explicitly in the Federalist Papers. These definitions show a distinction between the two in the mind of this particular Founding Father. This distinction existed in his mind long before the Constitutional Convention, even if he had not yet included it in the Federalist Papers. The Founding Father was James Madison, and he essentially said that a democracy was a direct democracy - or in other words, where people vote on everything directly in person. His phrase for a direct democracy was a "pure democracy," and he defined it as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" (Source: Federalist No. 10). A good example of this system might be Ancient Athens, the most successful city-state within the lost world of Ancient Greece. Madison's definition of a republic, by contrast, was that it was "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place" (Source: Federalist No. 10). In other words, he said, the definition of a republic is where the people elect others to make those decisions for them. Which is better, you might ask? Are there greater dangers in delegating these powers to our elected representatives, or do the greatest dangers come from other sources, like the "tyranny of the majority"?

James Madison

“Publius”: The secret pen name of three Founding Fathers

"As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side or the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, without an unmeaning compliment, I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as the Production of your Triumvirate. When the transient circumstances & fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society."

- George Washington, in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (August 28, 1788)

It was common at this time for Americans to write under pen names named after great Romans

During the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution, authors on both sides of the debate wrote a series of anonymous "letters to the editor[s]" of newspapers under various pen names. There were advantages to writing these articles anonymously, of course, when one wished to say controversial things in these debates that could offend one's friends if they were known publicly. Among these authors were many who had actually named their alter egos after people in Roman history, whose accomplishments they thus wished to invoke in their arguments. The Constitution's opponents, for example, included "Brutus" (possibly Melancton Smith or Robert Yates or even John Williams), and "Cato" (possibly New York governor George Clinton). These were both names of people who had opposed the Roman monarchy (or at least, a particular manifestation of that monarchy). Thus, this would imply that they were opposed to a repeat of such monarchy in America.

George Clinton, a possible identity of the author that called himself "Cato"

Alexander Hamilton considered Gouverneur Morris and William Duer to write as "Publius"

The Constitution's supporters wrote under classical pen names, too; and theirs were equally indebted to Greek and Roman history. Alexander Hamilton made the unfortunate mistake once of using the pen name "Caesar." The condescending tone that he used when writing under this pen name made him almost as many enemies as the ill-chosen pen name itself. When he finally learned his lesson (and it fortunately didn't take him long to learn it), he returned to another pen name that he had used before, which was the pen name of "Publius." (Hamilton's prior use of this pen name, incidentally, was to attack fellow Federalist Samuel Chase for using some inside knowledge from Congress to try and dominate the flour market. Specifically, Hamilton used three letters under this name to question Chase's patriotism in 1778.) When he began recruiting collaborators for the now-famous Federalist Papers in 1787, Hamilton apparently approached Gouverneur Morris and William Duer about becoming contributors, before finally settling on James Madison and John Jay instead. Gouverneur Morris apparently turned down the invitation to work on the "Publius" papers, and Hamilton actually rejected three essays later written by William Duer, despite having invited him to participate in the first place. (William Duer would later write under the alternative pen name of "Philo-Publius," or "Friend of Publius," instead.)

Gouverneur Morris, who turned down the opportunity to write a portion of the Federalist Papers

William Duer, who wrote three essays that Hamilton later rejected as part of the Federalist Papers

Actually, John Locke DID influence the U. S. Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 (first paragraph)

Some have claimed that John Locke didn't have much influence on the Founding Fathers ...

John Locke once wrote an eloquent defense of private property, which liberals enchanted with socialist ideas have long resented. Perhaps because of this, there have been some who have claimed that he did not really have much influence on the Founding Fathers of the United States, who are still quite popular in my American homeland.

John Locke

... so it might be helpful to correct the record

Because of this, it seems like it would be worthwhile now to correct the record; and give the evidence that Mr. Locke - along with others, like Algernon Sidney - did indeed have an influence on the Founding Fathers. Most notably, Locke had a great influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence; and it can be shown that some of the language within it (not to mention the ideas) are a direct borrowing from John Locke.

Thomas Jefferson

Specifically, he influenced the Declaration of Independence, as these quotes will show ...

I will now present the quotes from the Declaration of Independence (which are well-known), followed by the quotes from John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" (which are lesser-known). These will help to show that not only are the ideas the same, but in some cases, the language is as well.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

How the Constitution was almost not ratified

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

- Article 7 of the United States Constitution

The Constitutional Convention

Our national debate over the Constitution is as old as the Constitution itself, with origins to be found in the events of the Constitutional Convention, where its particulars were first debated by the men present at the convention. The framers of the Constitution disagreed with each other vehemently on exactly what the document should say and do, and how it should say and do it. Moreover, a number of the men present at the convention refused to even sign the document after the debates at the convention. As many of them well knew, though, the national debate over what they had written was just beginning. With the strict secrecy of the convention's proceedings at the time that it was still going on, the nation didn't know what was in the document until after the finished product of the convention was presented to the nation. Many of them weren't all that happy over the things they found in it, to put it mildly.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

Why did so many people suspect the Constitution was "dangerous"?

Part of this may have been that they got all their surprises about the document at virtually the same time. They had not been witness to the deals and compromises that had taken place so gradually during the events of the convention. A gradual revelation of the document's contents thus was simply not possible after the nation's curiosity had been whetted by the "secrecy rule." (Which is not a criticism of the "secrecy rule," I should make clear; but it was only natural for the people to wonder about it. Many of them assumed that the convention had something to hide in this regard, after the secret proceedings had been continuing for some four months without news.) The supporters of the Constitution all knew that they faced an uphill battle when they presented the final document to the people. This uphill battle is today known as the debates over ratification (or the ratification debates) - arguably the most important debates in the nation's history, because of the sheer number of issues that it affected, then and now. If I might point this out, it affected the very same democratic process by which all future political issues would be debated in America - and by extension, in a number of other places as well.

Newspaper advertisement for the Federalist Papers, 1787 (a part of the ratification debates)

In defense of John Locke: The need for private property

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

- Karl Marx, in "The Communist Manifesto," Chapter II

Communists believe in "abolition of private property," and Locke debunked this claim ...

Karl Marx once wrote that "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." (Source: The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II) Much has been said for and against this theory, some of it interesting and some of it rather dull. But one of the most interesting things - for me, at least - was written by the English philosopher John Locke, over a century and a half before.

The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of War, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

- Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" (1651), Part I, Chapter XIII, section entitled "The incommodites of such a war" (with spelling modernized)

The Founding Fathers never tried to "reinvent the wheel"

The Constitution was not created in a vacuum - it did not "appear out of nowhere" in 1787 as if there had never been anything before it that was worthwhile. We may sometimes think that we have to credit the Founding Fathers with every good idea that ever arose in politics, as if it would be an insult to them not to do so. But the fact is that there were other smart people before they arrived on the scene; and the Founding Fathers had the "intellectual humility," if you will - not to mention the scholarship - to recognize the wisdom of these prior ages. Indeed, it is a testament to their genius that they listened to these prior philosophers carefully and with an open mind. Our heartfelt respect for our Founding Fathers does not mean that we have to discount everything else that has ever happened. If the Founding Fathers, after all, did not dismiss or ignore these prior philosophers, it would seem that there is no reason for us to do so (if I may be so bold). Even the greatest minds of our country's founding felt the need to listen to other opinions from other ages, and avoid wasting time in a fruitless effort to "reinvent the wheel."

Alexander Hamilton

They used the good ideas of those that came before, and then added their own improvements

Indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States were - almost without exception - a smart bunch. Many were quite brilliant, and some were very original thinkers. But like any group of smart men, they used the good ideas of those that came before them; often improving on them, the way an inventor improves on previous technology. The list of philosophers that influenced the Founding Fathers is a long one; as they were influenced even by the ones they disagreed with, and many were quite familiar with the "wisdom of the ages." But besides the French philosopher Montesquieu, and the English jurist William Blackstone, the two philosophers that influenced them the most may have been Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: the two that I will focus on here. (For more about Montesquieu's ideas, click here; and for more about Blackstone's ideas, click here. I'll focus this post instead on Hobbes and Locke.) There was much about Thomas Hobbes that our Founding Fathers disagreed with; but there were some important ideas original to him that they agreed with, and that influenced their thinking in the most profound of ways.