Sparks Commentary: Did the Iroquois Confederacy influence the Constitution?

“Helvetius and Rousseau preached to the French nation liberty, till they made them the most mechanical slaves; equality till they destroyed all equity; humanity till they became weasels, and Affrican panthers; and fraternity till they cutt one anothers throats like Roman gladiators.”

– John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (21 May 1821)

I turn now to some hypothesized “influences” upon the United States Constitution

On this blog, I have extensively discussed the influences on the Constitution – such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume. Many of these influences are well-attested by evidence. Here, I turn to some other “influences” upon the Constitution which are merely hypothesized. These include the Greek philosopher Plato, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Iroquois Confederacy – a historical group of Native American tribes. There are popular theories in some quarters that they “influenced” the United States Constitution to a significant degree. Thus, I plan here to examine some of the debates regarding these theories, and inquire into the evidence for them.

Plato

The Founding Fathers admired some of Plato’s work, but slammed his book “Republic”

First, let me discuss Plato and Rousseau. In fairness, there is some evidence that Plato influenced the Founding Fathers in at least some ways. In 1775, writing under the pen name of “Novanglus,” John Adams once said that “These are what are called revolution-principles. They are the principles of Aristotle and Plato, of Livy and Cicero, of Sydney, Harrington and Lock[e].—The principles of nature and eternal reason.—The principles on which the whole government over us, now stands.” (Source: His letter “To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, 23 January 1775”) Thus, John Adams credited Plato with “revolution-principles” in 1775. However, multiple Founding Fathers were critical of Plato’s work entitled “Republic,” a work in which Plato proposed an absolute monarch called the “philosopher-king.” Thomas Jefferson actually called this work “nonsense” in July 1814, and John Adams said in that same month that his “disgust was shocking” regarding the work. (See this blog post for the details of these quotations, and for relevant sources.) Nonetheless, John Adams acknowledged that “Some parts of some of [Plato’s] dialogues are entertaining, like the writings of Rousseau: but his Laws and his Republick from which I expected most, disappointed me most. I could scarcely exclude the suspicion that he intended the latter as a bitter satire upon all republican government,[footnote] as Xenophon undoubtedly designed by his Essay on Democracy, to ridicule that species of republick … Yet, in what, are the writings of Rousseau and Helvetius wiser than those of Plato?” (Source: Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 16 July 1814)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

John Adams also slammed Rousseau, for making the French people into “slaves”

Thus, Plato’s “Laws” and “Republick,” from which Adams “expected most, disappointed [him] most.” After reading such statements, it seems quite clear that neither Adams nor Jefferson endorsed the “philosopher-king” described in Plato’s “Republic.” This also casts doubt on the oft-repeated (but poorly-supported) claim that Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an “influence” upon our Founding Fathers. It’s true that Adams here referred to the writings of Rousseau as “entertaining,” but he also asked (at least rhetorically) the following question: “in what, are the writings of Rousseau and Helvetius wiser than those of Plato?” (as cited above). This was right after he had questioned the merits of some of Plato’s core political ideas in “The Republic,” as shown in the full text of that letter. Adams thus seems to be saying that the “writings of Rousseau” are even worse than Plato’s “Republic,” and he was a wise man to say this. Rousseau’s political ideas would reach even greater heights of “nonsense,” topping Plato in their irrationality and sheer disregard of reality. (But that’s a rant for other posts.) Here, suffice it to say that there are many quotations where the Founding Fathers (John Adams in particular) criticized Rousseau. For example, there’s the quotation at the beginning of this blog post where John Adams says that “Helvetius and Rousseau preached to the French nation liberty, till they made them the most mechanical slaves” (see the quotation at the beginning of this blog post for the full citation). Several other Founding Father quotes slamming Jean-Jacques Rousseau are available here, for anyone who is interested. I’ve also never seen any hard evidence that Rousseau’s political ideas influenced the Founding Fathers – and I’ve looked for this evidence diligently, in many seemingly-promising places.

Claude Adrien Helvétius, another French philosopher referenced above

Did the Native American tribes called the “Iroquois Confederacy” influence the Constitution?

Now, let us turn to the hypothesized “influence” of the Iroquois Confederacy. There is a popular theory that the Iroquois Confederacy had an influence upon our Constitution. For example, a PBS documentary called “Native America” made this claim. In this film, PBS essentially claimed that there was a sort of Iroquois Constitution, which influenced that of the United States. For example, they said that it involved a federal model that balanced central control with the rights of member tribes, which may be partially true. They also say that it had representative democracy and elections, which seems to have applied only to the Iroquois Confederacy’s leaders, and not to the chieftains of individual tribes. I acknowledge the possibility that such a Constitution may have existed, even if it was not codified in a physical document as our own Constitution later was. I cannot now remember if PBS showed any document that contains it; but if memory serves, they claimed that it was inscribed on a “belt” that their tribe used (or some other such object). How they’re supposed to have fit an entire constitution onto a “belt” with the technology of the time is beyond me, but that’s essentially the claim that they’re making there. The Federalist Papers are filled with acknowledgements of Greek and Roman influences (as I will show in another post) – not to mention the influence of the English jurist William Blackstone and the French philosopher Montesquieu (as I will show in some other upcoming posts of this series). But nothing in the Federalist Papers suggests that the Founding Fathers were influenced by any Native American tribes, Iroquois or otherwise.

Iroquois painting of Tadodaho receiving two Mohawk chiefs

John Adams recognized some degree of separation of powers among the “modern Indians” …

However, the defenders of this theory point to a passage from the work of John Adams. This was a three-volume work entitled “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.” These quotations come from the preface to Volume 1 of the work, written on the 1st of January 1787. In this preface, John Adams said that “It would have been much to the purpose, to have inserted a more accurate investigation of the form of government of the ancient Germans and modern Indians; in both, the existence of the three divisions of power is marked with a precision that excludes all controversy. The democratical branch, especially, is so determined, that the real sovereignty resided in the body of the people, and was exercised in the assembly of king, nobles, and commons together. These institutions really collected all authority into one centre of kings, nobles, and people. But, small as their numbers and narrow as their territories were, the consequence was confusion; each part believed it governed the whole; the chiefs thought they were sovereigns; the nobles believed the power to be in their hands; and the people flattered themselves that all depended upon them. Their purposes were well enough answered, without coming to an explanation, so long as they were few in number, and had no property; but when spread over large provinces of the Roman empire, now the great kingdoms of Europe, and grown populous and rich, they found the inconvenience of each not knowing its place. Kings, nobles, and people claimed the government in turn; and after all the turbulence, wars, and revolutions, which compose the history of Europe for so many ages, we find simple monarchies established everywhere. Whether the system will now become stationary, and last forever, by means of a few further improvements in monarchical government, we know not; or whether still further revolutions are to come. The most probable, or rather the only probable change, is the introduction of democratical branches into those governments. If the people should ever aim at more, they will defeat themselves; as they will, indeed, if they aim at this by any other than gentle means and by gradual advances, by improvements in general education, and by informing the public mind.” (Source: Preface to Volume 1 of the work)

The Mahican and three “Mohawk Kings” who travelled to London in 1710

… but also said that their dignities were “more often hereditary,” and never mentioned the Iroquois specifically

At most, this passage shows a separation of powers among the Native American tribes that John Adams recognized. It does not show their influence upon the Founding Fathers. Indeed, it seems to be a passing reference, in a paragraph that then mentions the “Roman Empire” and the “great kingdoms of Europe” (as cited above) But, later in that same preface, John Adams added the following: “Robertson, David Hume, and Gibbon have given such admirable accounts of the feudal institutions and their consequences, that it would have been, perhaps, more discreet to have referred to them, without saying any thing more upon the subject. To collect together the legislation of the Indians would take up much room, but would be well worth the pains. The sovereignty is in the nation, it is true, but the three powers are strong in every tribe; and their royal and aristocratical dignities are much more generally hereditary, from the popular partiality to particular families, and the superstitious opinion that such are favorites of the God of War, than late writers upon this subject have allowed.” (Source: Preface to Volume 1 of the work) Again, there is recognition of the separation of powers, but there is also recognition that their royal and aristocratical dignities were “much more generally hereditary” (as cited above). Thus, these passages seem to do very little (if anything) to advance their hypothesis. For example, there is no specific mention of the Iroquois, or of any Native American “influence” upon the Constitution.

Lithograph of the great Mohawk leader Thayendanegea, who helped the British in the American Revolution

Defenders of this theory also point to a Thomas Jefferson letter …

However, the defenders of this theory also point to a letter from Thomas Jefferson in August 1787. During America’s Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter from Paris, which was way across the Atlantic Ocean from the Constitutional Convention then going on in America – which Jefferson thus missed, incidentally. Specifically, Jefferson said in this letter: “And we think our’s a bad government. The only condition on earth to be compared with ours, in my opinion, is that of the Indians, where they have still less law than we. The European, are governments of kites over pidgeons. The best schools for republicanism are London, Versailles, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin &c.” (Source: Letter to John Rutledge, 6 August 1787) Commenting on this letter, Wikipedia claims that “In that same letter Jefferson maintained that American government with its Native American features marked a great improvement over the European models.” (Source: Their page on the “Constitution of the United States,” section on “Influences”) But, in fact, Thomas Jefferson never said anything of the kind in that letter – as you can see if you examine its brief text here. And specifically, he never said that that American government had any “Native American features” at all. He just said that “The only condition on earth to be compared with ours, in my opinion, is that of the Indians, where they have still less law than we” (as cited above). And Jefferson followed this up by saying that “The best schools for republicanism are London, Versailles, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin &c.” – not the Native American tribes. That is, the Native American tribes were not the best “schools for republicanism.” Thus, the evidence for this thesis seems rather thin here.

Unnamed Iroquois chief, early 18th century

… and a Benjamin Franklin letter, neither of which really supports their case

But defenders of this theory also point to a letter by Benjamin Franklin in 1751. Specifically, in this letter, Benjamin Franklin wrote that “It would be a very strange thing, if six nations of ignorant savages [his words, not mine] should be capable of forming a scheme for such an union, and be able to execute it in such a manner, as that it has subsisted ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal understanding of their interests.” (Source: Letter to James Parker, 20 March 1751) But given how many other unions were cited by the Founding Fathers (including the Dutch union), this doesn’t seem all that convincing. Moreover, it would seem that Franklin would not have referred to the Iroquois as “ignorant” and so forth, if he were indeed holding them up as “models to be emulated,” in the way that this argument requires. And Franklin didn’t have that much influence on the final text of the Constitution anyway, although he did play a vital role in fostering agreement among the delegates – which was an important role in a very contentious convention. Thus, the evidence for this theory seems rather thin, and this theory seems to be poorly argued.

Iroquois engaging in trade with Europeans, 1722

Conclusion: None of these things actually influenced the United States Constitution

That is why I refer to these as merely “hypothesized influences” upon the United States Constitution – one might almost say “fantasized influences.” I remain skeptical of the idea that either Plato or Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced the United States Constitution to any significant degree (or at all, for that matter). And I’m skeptical of the idea that the Iroquois Confederacy influenced the Constitution at all. Furthermore, there seem to be some contradictions in the arguments of those that defend this strange thesis. For example, “The Iroquois Confederacy influenced the Constitution, so it’s good. But the Constitution was just written by a bunch of dead white guys, so it’s bad.” If so, why lionize the political structure of the Iroquois Confederacy, and credit it with “influencing” the Constitution? They also seem to be saying that “Jean-Jacques Rousseau influenced the Constitution, so he’s good. But the Constitution was just written by a bunch of racist slaveholders, so it’s bad.” If so, why should Jean-Jacques Rousseau be credited with “influencing” them?

Thus, I freely admit that I’m having some trouble following this logic, and remain skeptical of the theory that this “influence” ever existed in the first place.

Would criticizing the Constitution make you an anti-Iroquois (that is, anti-Native-American) “racist”?

Some may still want to defend the Iroquois influence hypothesis, even after reading all of these arguments. If so, then I leave them with one final thought. That is, if the Iroquois argument is correct, then anyone who criticizes the Constitution would have to be an anti-Iroquois “racist” – that is to say, an anti-Native-American “racist.” After all, one can’t criticize a document that the Iroquois supposedly “influenced” without being “racist” against their Native American culture. Most of the Constitution’s critics seem to be on the left, so there would have to be some widespread “racism” on the leftist side if this were true. Indeed, the people that condemn the Constitution as “racist” would have to be “racist” themselves for saying so, since they are condemning Iroquois culture as being itself “racist” – rather an unpopular conclusion in some leftist circles, to say the least.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A few problems with Plato’s “Republic” (and his ideal state)

The Founding Fathers strongly criticized Plato’s “Republic” (and for good reason)

A few problems with Machiavelli and Rousseau’s praise of the Spartans

Actually, Machiavelli was pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

Machiavelli argued that Cesare Borgia was a good ruler. (Was he?)

Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” was long on detail, but short on evidence …

A few problems with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

Actually, Rousseau did not influence the Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)

A review of the History Channel’s “The French Revolution” (inspired by Rousseau)

A review of PBS’s “Native America” (a film making this same Iroquois argument)

Part of a series about the