Sparks Commentary: How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

But king could declare war, while president could not (Hamilton cited Blackstone on this)

At this time, the king had the power to declare war; whereas the Constitution instead vested this power in the Congress (and not in the president). Hamilton thus commented that “The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1” (Source: Federalist No. 69) The number “1” in this quote – which I have transcribed here in a smaller font – is a reference to Hamilton's source in the footnote. This “Footnote 1” said that “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY, has asserted that the king of Great Britain owes his prerogative as commander-in-chief to an annual mutiny bill. The truth is, on the contrary, that his prerogative, in this respect, is immemorial, and was only disputed, 'contrary to all reason and precedent,' as Blackstone vol. i., page 262, expresses it, by the Long Parliament of Charles I. but by the statute the 13th of Charles II., chap. 6, it was declared to be in the king alone, for that the sole supreme government and command of the militia within his Majesty's realms and dominions, and of all forces by sea and land, and of all forts and places of strength, EVER WAS AND IS the undoubted right of his Majesty and his royal predecessors, kings and queens of England, and that both or either house of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same.” (Source: Federalist No. 69) Thus Hamilton cited Blackstone in the footnote, to bolster his case that the king was more powerful than any president would be. This is some of the clearest evidence for Blackstone's influence on the Founding Fathers.

Sir William Blackstone

King could also make treaties alone (Hamilton cited Blackstone on this as well) …

At this time, the king also had the power to make treaties, without the consent of any part of the Parliament. This is another area where Hamilton used Blackstone's “Commentaries” as a source in the Federalist Papers. Here is the relevant quote: “The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description. It has been insinuated, that his authority in this respect is not conclusive, and that his conventions with foreign powers are subject to the revision, and stand in need of the ratification of Parliament. But I believe this doctrine was never heard of, until it was broached upon the present occasion.” (Source: Federalist No. 69) Hamilton used Blackstone as a source in the next sentence, by saying that “Every jurist2 of that kingdom, and every other man acquainted with its Constitution, knows, as an established fact, that the prerogative of making treaties exists in the crown in its utmost plenitude; and that the compacts entered into by the royal authority have the most complete legal validity and perfection, independent of any other sanction.” (Source: Federalist No. 69) The number "2" in this quote – which I have transcribed here in a smaller font – is a reference to Hamilton's source in the footnote again. This "Footnote 2" says "Vide Blackstone's 'Commentaries,' vol. i., p. 257" (Source: Federalist No. 69). Thus Hamilton again cited Blackstone to bolster his case, about how the king was more powerful than the president would be.

Sir William Blackstone

… but the president could not (since the Senate had to confirm the treaties of the president)

Expounding on this point, Hamilton also noted that “The Parliament, it is true, is sometimes seen employing itself in altering the existing laws to conform them to the stipulations in a new treaty; and this may have possibly given birth to the imagination, that its co-operation was necessary to the obligatory efficacy of the treaty. But this parliamentary interposition proceeds from a different cause: from the necessity of adjusting a most artificial and intricate system of revenue and commercial laws, to the changes made in them by the operation of the treaty; and of adapting new provisions and precautions to the new state of things, to keep the machine from running into disorder. In this respect, therefore, there is no comparison between the intended power of the President and the actual power of the British sovereign. The one can perform alone what the other can do only with the concurrence of a branch of the legislature.” (Source: Federalist No. 69) Thus Hamilton concluded the point, that he had earlier cited Blackstone to support.

Alexander Hamilton

One similarity: The king had to agree to a “social contract” in the coronation oath …

One similarity between the king and the president was the idea of a “social contract” between the executive branch and the people. Even in Europe, this vision of kingship was somewhat unusual; and it was only in places like Great Britain that it prevailed at all. In prior centuries, the British had disagreed strongly about the exact content of this “social contract”; so this confusion was addressed via the coronation oath. On this subject, Blackstone said that “as to the terms of the original contract between king and people, there I apprehend to be now couched in the coronation oath, which by the statute 1 W. & M. st. 1. c. 6. is to be administered to every king and queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of these realms, by one of the archbishops or bishops of the realm, in the presence of all the people; who on their parts do reciprocally take the oath of allegiance to the crown.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 6) See the footnote to this blog post for a portion of the text of this oath, as reported by Blackstone.

King George III of the United Kingdom

… and the president has to agree to a “social contract” in the inauguration oath

The President of the United States also must swear an oath before taking office. In the words of the Constitution, “Before he [the president] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7) Another part of the Constitution says that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Source: Article 2, Section 3). Thus, the president's oath is (at least partially) to “take care” that this happens, among other things. This may be the most important duty of the president – and the king as well, in Blackstone's time at least.

George Washington takes the oath of office for his first term, 1789

Conclusion: As the Hamilton citations show, Blackstone influenced our Founding Fathers

Thus the “Commentaries” exerted an influence on the Founding Fathers. A few aspects of the royal power were mirrored in the new executive branch of the Constitution, while others were discarded completely. Even when the Founding Fathers disagreed with Blackstone about whether a particular power ought to belong to the executive branch or not, they would still sometimes use him as a source anyway; to show that the king did, in fact, have these particular powers in practice. For example, Blackstone thought it perfectly reasonable that the executive should have the power of declaring war and making treaties. Obviously, the Founding Fathers disagreed with him about these things; so it may have been somewhat ironic that Hamilton would still use Blackstone as a source on these particular subjects. Nonetheless, as these citations show, the Americans still looked on Blackstone as something of an authority about how the British government actually worked; even when they disagreed with him about how it ought to work. As the modern political scientist Donald Lutz put it, “The prominence of Blackstone would come as a surprise to many, and he is the prime candidate for the writer most likely to be left out in any list of influential European thinkers. His work is not readily available in inexpensive form, but like Montesquieu he was cited frequently by all sides. A trenchant reference to Blackstone could quickly end an argument. Such a respected writer deserves a much closer look by those studying American political thought.” (Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 195-196)

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

Coronation oath

I mentioned earlier how Blackstone reported the full text of the coronation oath. Here are a few portions:

“This coronation oath is conceived in the following terms: … The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same? --- The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do. … Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? --- King or queen. I will.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 6)

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy

Hamilton quoted from Blackstone when discussing the Habeas Corpus Act

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights

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

5 surprising ways that the Congress was modeled on the British Parliament

Part of a series about

Sir William Blackstone

An overview of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights
Hamilton quoted from Blackstone when discussing the Habeas Corpus Act

Wikipedia has some bad information about William Blackstone

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights