Montesquieu and the Roots of the American Republic

Christian Jax Murray

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Introduction

There are certain names which get tossed around when discussing the philosophical roots of the American republic. Some of these include John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or even Voltaire. While these thinkers have certainly contributed much, one name that is often underappreciated is Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu. Even though Montesquieu's name has slipped from today's public consciousness, his name at the time of the framing was quite popular and his influence was felt throughout the continent. During the Constitutional Convention, a group of the framers embarked in a public debate in the form of the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers. In this debate, Montesquieu was a name they both certainly appealed to.

In Federalist No. 9, a response to Cato/George Clinton, Alexander Hamilton discusses some of Montesquieu's ideas that were brought forth in the debates and their applications.

He states, "The opponents of the PLAN proposed have with great assiduity cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government. But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe, with such ready acquiescence." Hamilton not only describes Montesquieu as "that great man" in Federalist No. 9 but goes into lengths to provide passages from Montesquieu's work to clarify Montesquieu's ideas and how they are relatable to the American experiment. It is no coincidence that Federalist No. 9 over Montesquieu's work was used as a springboard for Madison's essential Federalist No. 10 on factions and competing interests.

It should now be evident that Montesquieu was certainly influential to the framers in some way, shape, or form. I will argue that Montesquieu is just as influential as any of the philosophers listed above, if not more so, to the framers of the American Constitution. We will see Montesquieu's influence in two ways. First, the mechanics and functionality of his ideas and second, the philosophical and historical lenses he produced for the framers. Let's begin with his mechanics and functionality.

Three Species of Governments

The most influential piece, probably, that Montesquieu wrote and provided the mechanics and functionality for the framers was the Spirit of the Laws. In this piece of literature, Montesquieu studied the nature of laws which govern the world and asked: what is the best way to use these laws to our advantage and organize government? In order to answer this question, Montesquieu had to study history, especially ancient history, to see how governments have been organized over the millennia. He organized his findings into three categories or "species" of governments. These species are Despotisms, Monarchies, and Republics. Each one of these categories has a motivating force behind it which Montesquieu called a "spring," as in the internal workings of a wind-up clock.

Despotic Governments

Montesquieu defined despotic government as "that in which a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice." Despots were prevalent in the ancient world and Islamic countries, according to Montesquieu. Despots relied on the motivating forces of pleasure and fear. He wrote "As virtue is necessary in a republic, and in a monarchy honour, so fear is necessary in a despotic government: with regard to virtue, there is no occasion for it, and honour would be extremely dangerous." (SL3:43) This mechanism took place in the physical realm. A despot motivated his subjects in the same way that they themselves were motivated. "A man whom his senses continually inform that he himself is everything and that his subjects are nothing, is naturally lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant." (SL2:34) They rewarded subjects with the pleasures of this world, and because the subjects were nothing to him, he may have even tortured and killed them to achieve his goals.