U.S. HistoryF R O M R E C O N S T R U C T I O N T O T H E C I V I L

R I G H T S M O V E M E N T

C H A P T E R 1

Historical Foundations

Where did ideas about rights and responsibilities come from?

What rights have been most important to people throughout history?

How can a survey of ancient history help us understand the Constitution?

When the men of the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia in 1789 to create a new form of gov-ernment, they brought many ideas about how a nation should be organized. Among the old ideas were concepts about citizenship, and human rights that had their roots in the ancient cultures of Babylon, Greece, and Rome. Other old ideas came from the Middle East, and the religious teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 

The framers of the Constitution were also influenced by more modern philosophers and writers from England, France, Germany, and the American colonies. The Renaissance and the Reformation in Europe had opened people's minds to concepts such as equality, liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Across Europe, people challenged the idea of the “divine right of kings” and the total power it gave to rulers. By the 18th century, many monarchs had been forced to give up some of their power to the citizens of their coun-tries, and colonists around the world were rebelling against royal authority. 

The leaders of the American Revolution were committed to creating a nation that was ruled by the people, not by a monarch. When the war was over, they organized a group of representatives from across the colonies to define how the new country would be governed. The Constitution became a model for a new age of democracy and inspired other independence movements around the world. It is important to recognize, however, that the con-cepts it describes had been evolving for many centuries. Before we begin our study of 19th and 20th century America, we will review some of the historical sources of our political and legal system. 

1

S E C T I O N 1

Ancient Ideas About RightsArchaeologists and historians have found evidence of laws, governments, and social values in cultures dating back to the earliest days of human civilization. To begin our study of American rights and responsibilities, we will look back at these historic sources and focus on a few questions that are still important today in our study of human society:

How were these societies organized?

Who were the most and least important people?

What did the societies value? 

How were these values reflected in the laws of the societies?

The Ancient Middle East: The Code of Hammurabi

Who was Hammurabi?

Hammurabi was the sixth king to rule the Babylonian empire, which covered much of the land of present-day Iraq. During Hammurabi’s time (1792-1750 BCE), the kingdom stretched westward on both sides of the Euphrates River from the Persian Gulf to what is now northern Syria. The Babylonians were descendants of earlier Mesopotamian nomads who lived in the Middle East more than 5,000 years ago. They built a culture that depended on agriculture, trade, and military power.Hammurabi inherited the throne from his father. During his reign, he directed building projects, expanded the irrigation system, built canals, government buildings, and elaborate temples to the gods. As a ruler, Hammurabi wanted to make life better for his subjects. The laws in his code seem quite harsh, but they also give some rights to women and protect some innocent people.

Selections from the Code of Hammurabi(there are 282 laws in the full code).

Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, lord of Heaven and Earth …called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince…to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give protection of right tot the land, I did right and righteousness… and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he sha!, if a capital of-fense be charged, be put to death.

2

Map of the Babylonian Empire from Project Gutenberg's The Rand-McNally Bible Atlas, by Jesse L. Hurlbut

6. If any one steal the property of a temple of of the court, he sha! be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing #om him

sha! be put to death.

14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he sha! be put to death.

21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he sha! be put to death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then sha! he be put to death.

38. A chie&ain, man, or one subject to quit-rent cannot assign his tenure of field, house, and garden to his wife or daughter, nor can he assign

it for a debt. He may, however, assign a field, garden or house which he has bought, and holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it

for debt.

53. If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and a! the fields be flooded, then

sha! he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money sha! replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.

102. If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he sha!

make good the capital to the merchant.

103. 109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper sha! be put to death.

116. If a prisoner die in prison #om blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner sha! convict the merchant before the judge. If he was

a #ee-born man, the son of the merchant sha! be put to death; if it was a slave, he sha! pay one-third of a mina of gold, and a! that the mas-ter of the prisoner gave he sha! forfeit.

145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife; if he take this second wife, and bring her into the

house, this second wife sha! not be a!owed equality with his wife.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, then this maid assume equality with the

wife: because she has born him children her master sha! not se! her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the

maid-servants.

148. If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he sha! not put away his wife, who has been

attacked by disease, but he sha! keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bears sons to him; if then this woman die, then sha! her father have no claim on her dowry; this be-longs to her sons.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son cannot be demanded back again.

188. If an artisan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his cra&, he cannot be demanded back.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands sha! be hewn off.

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye sha! be put out.

197. If a man break another man’s bone, his bone sha! be broken.

201. If he knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth sha! be knocked out.

204. If a #eed man strike the body of another #eed man, he sha! pay ten shekels in money.

205. If the slave of a #eed man strike the body of a #eed man, his ear sha! be cut off.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he sha! swear, “I did not injure him wi!ingly,” and pay the physi-cians.

3

209. If a man strike a #ee-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he sha! pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter sha! be put to death.

218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and ki! him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye,

his hands sha! be cut off.

221. If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased so& part of a man, the patient sha! pay the physician five shekels in money.

229. If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fa! in and ki! its owner, then

that builder sha! be put to death.

What Mattered to the Ancients?

As we read these laws and descriptions, we can draw many inferences about the culture and values of people in ancient societies..

✦ Who were the most powerful people in the society? Who were the people who had the fewest rights?

✦ What kinds of property did people own?

✦ What kind of occupations did people have?

✦ How were families valued or supported?

✦ How was human life valued, or disregarded?

✦ Do the laws seem fair to you?

4

5

The Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome

Greece: Who are “The People?”

Citizenship and individual rights are concepts that we can trace back to ancient Greece. Our modern society has expanded and built on those ideas.

In the city-states of Greek society, only males were granted the full legal status of citizens. Male citizens could vote, hold public office, and own property. Women were not allowed any of those privileges.

Women were not the only group who were not allowed to be full citizens. Laborers were poor workers who had very little legal status. Although they were paid, they were not entirely free people. Their rights were limited, and they depended on wealthy citi-zens to support them. Slaves had no legal status at all. They were treated as property. Many slaves were people who had been cap-tured or defeated in wars. Others were purchased or even kidnapped. Foreigners were people living in Greece who came to trade or to use their skills as craftsmen. They were required to register themselves as residents of the city-state. They were not allowed full citizenship. but they were recognized as valuable contributors to the society. Sometimes foreigners were able to earn citizen-ship after they proved that they were loyal to the city-state.

Greece: Ideas and PeopleLogos = Divine law and harmony of the universeNomis = Human life in the law of societyPolis = The city-state. By approximately 700 BCE, writing and reading had become common skills, which enabled people to read and interpret the laws of the polis.Sophists: Early philosophers who believed that there were no “universal laws;” instead, they said that laws, morals, and justice were the result of human thinking. Solon (638-559 BCE): Established a code of laws and started the first democracy in Athens. Plato (427-348 BCE): Believed in the idea of “philosopher-kings,” who would rule in an ideal society. Plato believed in a “common good” —equal rights for all people. Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Did not think people needed to be ruled by philosopher-kings. Instead, humans could use their own morality and reason. Stoics (@300 BCE) Believed in natural laws from the cosmos. Therefore, humans need to live by the laws of nature.

Map of Ancient Greece by Robert de Vaugondy - Robert de Vaugondy, Didier, (1723-1786). Public domain image.

Rome: The Individual and the State

Society in the early Roman Republic (2500 years ago) was divided into two major groups: the patricians and the plebians. Patricians were the wealthiest, most influential, and most powerful people in the Republic. The rest of the people, except slaves, were plebians. The plebeian class included everyone from landowners to merchants and peasants.

All adult males who were not born into slavery were considered citizens. Citizens could vote and could also be elected to po-litical offices. However, in the early days of the Republic, the patricians controlled most of the government. With the publi-cation of the Twelve Tables, plebeians gained political power.

Citizens of Rome were protected by the laws in the Twelve Tables, as well as the larger codes of laws in the Republic. They could rely on the laws to help solve questions and disputes about inheritance, debts, land ownership, damages to their prop-

erty, and criminal charges. Citizens also had re-sponsibilities to the Republic. They had to pay taxes, and they were required to serve in the military.

Roman women had limited rights. They were allowed to be educated and to make some indi-vidual choices for themselves. However, by law, the paterfamilias (the father of the family) had complete control over his household, his chil-dren, and his property.

Slavery was legal in the Roman Republic. Many of the slaves in Rome were people who had been captured when the Republic took over other countries in wars or conquest. It was possi-ble for a slave to buy his freedom, or to be granted freedom by his master. Freed slaves were allowed to become citizens.

Rome: Ideas and People

The Twelve Tables (450 BCE): The earliest recorded set of laws in Rome. The tables created a set of regulations for the entire Roman society.

Caesar Augustus (Octavian: 63 BCE-14 CE): Gave authority to justices and endorsed the idea of relying on previous deci-sions to influence new cases (this concept, called precedent, is one of the cornerstones of our legal system).

Justinian (483-565 CE): established a code of Roman law called the Corpus Juris Civilis. One of Justinian’s accomplishments was to set standards to determine whether laws were legitimate.

The Senate: Began in the earliest days of Rome (around 750 BCE). At first, it was a group of advisors to the king, but it re-mained as a part of the government after the Republic was founded. Senators were among the wealthiest and most powerful people in Rome.

Concilium Plebis: The Assembly, or Parliament, of Rome. Magistrates were elected through a democratic process. Begin-ning in 287 BCE, decisions of the Concilium were recognized as fully enforceable laws.

SPQR: “The Senate and People of Rome:” These letters appear throughout the buildings and streets of Rome, to signify the importance of government by the people.

6

This image of is part of a collection of maps and geographic paintings in the Map Room of the Vatican in Rome. Photo (c) Lauren Goldberg.

Religious InfluencesThe Torah, the Bible, The Q’uran, and American Ideals

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be traced back nearly 6,000 years to the lands of the eastern Mediterranean. All three faiths are connected through the patriarch Abraham, and are therefore called the Abrahamic religions. Abraham is known as the first religious leader to teach the idea that there was a single, all-powerful god--a belief system known as monotheism. A central idea in all of the Abrahamic traditions is that people’s basic rights are granted by God. Many of those rights can be identified in the Ten Commandments, delivered by the prophet Moses to the ancient Jews. The commandments formed the legal and moral code of ancient Israel. Although many of the commandments are presented as prohibitions (they forbid cer-tain actions), they present a powerful list of rights and protections for all individuals. For example, “Thou shalt not kill” makes it clear that people have a right to life. “Thou shalt not steal” implies the right to own property. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” means that people cannot be falsely accused of a crime. The messages in the commandments provide insights into foundational values that shaped human cultures across the world.

The central text of Islam, the Q’uran, was revealed by Muhammed over a period of 23 years beginning in 609 CE and ending with the prophet’s death in the year 632. (The Torah and other books of the Jewish Bible were probably recorded about 200 years before the Q’uran). Several essential values regarding human rights are featured prominently in the Q’uran. The right to life is the primary right: “Whoever kills a human being (without just cause), it is as though he had killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all mankind” (5:32). Judaism, and later, Christianity, include this same ideal: Human life is sacred.

Christianity emerged 2,000 years ago as an extension of Judaism. Christian writers and teachers kept the Jewish Bible, and added stories and lessons about Jesus and his disciples. By the end of the 1st century of the Common Era, the Holy Roman Empire had spread Christian beliefs and practices across most of Europe. During the Middle Ages, European Crusaders brought Christianity to Asia. Later, as European countries established colonies in Africa and the Americas, Christian ideas became a part of new settlements around the world.

When the Patriots and revolutionary leaders in the American British colonies began to create a new country and a new gov-ernment, their ideas about rights were informed by their knowledge of history and religion, including Islam. Among the hun-dreds of books in Thomas Jefferson’s personal library was a copy of the Q’uran. As a legal scholar, Jefferson would have been particularly interested in concepts related to natural law and human rights in the Islamic text. The Islamic legal code, Sharia, is interpreted from the Q’uran and the Hadith (the statements of the Prophet Muhammed). The Arabic word sharia means “the right path.” There are two major categories of Sharia: worship (the five pillars of Islam) and human interaction. This sec-ond category includes rules about marriage, inheritance, business, diet, war, crimes and punishments, and the judicial system. In a Sharia court, a certain number of witnesses are required before a person can be convicted of a crime. People have the right to be silent (so as not to incriminate themselves), and they have the right to defend themselves before a judge. Some of these ideas are echoed in Jefferson’s language in American foundational documents.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson made it clear that the leaders of the new country believed in their God-given set of rights:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a! men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable

rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men,

deriving their just powers #om the consent of the governed.”

This statement became one of the first official acts in defining the kind of country that the United States would be. The Dec-laration identified core ideas (which the Constitution explained in more detail), especially the rights and responsibilities of citizens of the United States. Despite the reference to God in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution makes it clear that the laws and government of the United States come from the people. The separation of Church and State is an es-sential characteristic of national identity. The framers were intent upon giving every person in the country the right to choose, or not choose, to practice a religion.

7

S E C T I O N 2

England and Europe

The Magna Carta: Enduring Rights

During the height of the Middle Ages, England was ruled by the descendants of William the Conqueror (of France), who had seized the British islands in 1066. By the year 1200, King John (brother of Richard the Lionhearted), had inherited the throne. John also inherited an ongoing and expensive war with the French. In 1214, he tried to make a group of noblemen pay a fine because they hadn't joined his army. The barons refused and staged a large rebellion. In order to stop the revolt and keep his throne, King John agreed to give up some of his powers. At a ceremony at Runnymede, he signed the Magna Carta.

The noblemen wrote the document to protect their own property, but in reality, the Magna Carta gave rights to all free men in England. People’s property could not be seized; women were allowed to maintain their homes and make decisions for themselves when their husbands died, and people could not be imprisoned unjustly. Even though King John died less than a year later, the Magna Carta remained as an important part of English law.

The following selections from the Magna Carta include some of the ideas about property rights and personal freedom that were important to the barons who wrote the document. The pronouns “we” and “ours” refer to the king, who always spoke of himself as “the royal We,” to show that he and England were the same.

1) In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetu-ity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity.

7) A widow, after the death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her marriage portion and her inheritance, nor is she to pay anything for her dower or her marriage portion or for her inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of her husband’s death, and she shall re-main in the chief dwelling place of her husband for forty days after her husband’s death, within which time dower will be assigned her if it has not already been assigned, unless that house is a castle, and if it is a castle which she leaves, then a suitable house will immediately be provided for her in which she

8

Image of the Magna Carta from the Society of Antiquraries of London

may properly dwell until her dower is assigned to her in accordance with what is aforesaid, and in the meantime she is to have her reasonable necessities from the common property. No widow shall be distrained to marry for so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives surety that she will not marry without our assent if she holds of us, or without the assent of her lord, if she holds of another.

21] No sheriff or bailiff of ours or of anyone else is to take anyone’s horses or carts to make carriage, unless he renders the payment customarily due, namely for a two-horse cart ten pence per day, and for a three-horse cart fourteen pence per day. No demesne cart belonging to any churchman or knight or any other lady (sic) is to be taken by our bailiffs, nor will we or our bailiffs or anyone else take someone else’s timber for a castle or any other of our busi-ness save by the will of he to whom the timber belos.

29) No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.

Religion and Rights in EnglandOne of the most divisive issues in the 16th and 17th centuries in England was religion.

When King Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church in 1534, he decreed that he would now be the head of the Church of Eng-land. He demanded that all English citizens follow him. Many Catholics, including his own daughter Mary, refused to reject their faith. For more than 100 years, the crown switched between Roman Catholicism and the Church of England.

In the 1680s, King James II tried to make Catholicism the religion of England. He was driven out of power, and in 1689 his daughter Mary II assumed the throne with her husband William III.

Parliament immediately created a new set of regulations to take some powers away from the monarch. The English Bill of Rights outlined rules for succession of the crown and required all future monarchs to follow the Church of England. Also, Parlia-mentary elections would be free, allowing more people to vote. In addition, the law required the king or queen to get permission from Parliament to keep an army or to raise any money. The Bill of Rights made it clear that Parliament was becoming the pri-mary source of laws in England.

Philosophy and Ideas about Rights: The State of Nature, Natural Rights, and the Social ContractAlmost 40 years before the English Bill of Rights was established, philosophers in Europe were thinking, and writing, about human rights. Some of their arguments influenced American colonists and the framers of the Constitution.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that without a strong government, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In other words, he did not put much faith in human nature. Hobbes thought that people should agree to give up their individual rights to a powerful king so that everyone could be protected. He called this idea the social contract.

John Locke (1632-1704) thought that people should give up some of their rights, but he also believed that the king’s powers should be restricted by Parliament. This idea is called a limited social contract. Locke believed in the idea of natural laws, and he believed that people had “natural rights,” which were not granted by the king. In his philosophy, everyone had a right to life, liberty, and property. In Locke’s philosophy, people would discover the natural laws of the world and use these ideals to im-prove society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French-Swiss philosopher who wrote a book called The Social Contract. In Rousseau’s philosophy, people should not give up their rights to a king or a government; they should work together as a community to give equal rights to everyone. Rousseau believed that God created people, and that it was humanity’s job to learn the natural laws of the world. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau thought that people were naturally good.

9

10

Why Do Human Societies Need Government?

Thomas Hobbes’ great masterpiece is the Leviathan, which he wrote in 1651. In the book, Hobbes presents his thoughts about human nature, the role of religion, and the need for laws to maintain a just society. The following selections highlight some of his central ideas.

From Chapter XIII, “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery:”

NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of the body and mind, as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For, as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing which never-theless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and, in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation and sometimes their delec-tation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.

Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or 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 inven-tion shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for indus-try, 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.

The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient articles of peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement. These articles are they which other-wise are called the Laws of Nature, whereof I shall speak more particu-larly in the two following chapters.

From Chapter XIV: “The First and Second Natural Laws”

A LAW OF NATURE, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.

What is Hobbes saying here?

Human beings are basically equal. Although one per-son’s body or mind might be a little stronger or quicker than another’s, every person is probably capable of kill-ing someone else.

All people have similar goals. If two people want the same thing, they will become enemies and will probably try to defeat or kill each other.

If there is no law to keep people under control, all peo-ple will be at war with each other.

If everyone is at war with each other, there will be no chance for society to accomplish anything, because peo-ple will be too worried about protecting themselves and their property. There can be no pleasure, and life will be awful.

Because people fear death (at the hands of their ene-mies), they will be willing to agree to some laws to estab-lish peace, which Hobbes calls the Laws of Nature.

The first Law of Nature is that people are forbidden to do things that would kill themselves.

Portrait of Thomas Hobbes by John Michael Wright. Image from the National Portrait Gallery of London

11

And consequently it is a precept, or generall rule of Reason, "That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of Warre."

From this Fundamentall Law of Nature, by which men are com-manded to endeavour Peace, is derived this second Law; "That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much lib-erty against other men, as he would allow other men against him-selfe." For as long as every man holdeth this Right, of doing any thing he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of Warre. But if other men will not lay down their Right, as well as he; then there is no Reason for any one, to devest himselfe of his: For that were to expose himselfe to Prey, (which no man is bound to) rather than to dispose himselfe to Peace. This is that Law of the Gos-pell; "Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them." And that Law of all men, "Quod tibi feiri non vis, alteri ne feceris."

Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it, it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.

The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract.

The first Law of Nature leads to the logical conclusion that people should seek peace, but if they cannot achieve peace, they should protect their own interests through war.

The first Law of Nature leads to the second Law: people should be willing to give up some of their rights to want (and have) everything. People should be satisfied with a reasonable amount of liberty, and in exchange, they should agree not to kill each other. Hobbes quotes the Bible as evidence to support his argument.

The Latin sentence here can be translated “do not do to an-other that which you do not wish.”

When people voluntarily give up their liberties, it is because they will get something (security) in return.

This process (of giving up rights) is the contract, or the Social Contract.

Hobbes had lived through the bloody civil war in England, and he felt that he needed to explain why it was so important for the country to have a government. Throughout the Levia-than, Hobbes tries to present his ideas in a scientific, rational format. Although he refers to morality and teachings from the Bible, he wants to convince people that laws are logical and reasonable, not just theological.

Frontispiece of Leviathan by Abraham Bosse, Public Domain image.

A Leviathan a large, powerful force, usually in the form of a creature. In the Bible, a Leviathan appears in several places as a dragon or a serpent.

12

John Locke was fascinated by the way people gained knowl-edge, and he believed that the most important way to learn about the world was through experience. He wrote a famous book called an Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which influ-enced many philosophers across England and Europe. Locke also wrote about politics and natural laws. One of his most well-known works in the area of political philosophy is called Two Treatises of Government, which he wrote between 1680 and 1690.

Here are some selections from his political theories:

From Chapter II: “Of the State of Nature:”

4. To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is recipro-cal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear ap-pointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to gov-ern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker... Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others’ rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation. For the law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the inno-cent and restrain offenders; and if any one in the state of Nature may pun-ish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so. For in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

What is Locke Saying Here?

People’s natural state is one in which they have com-plete freedom to do what they want without anyone telling them what do do. This natural state is also one in which all people are equal.

This freedom does not mean that peo-ple can kill themselves or other crea-tures. The laws of nature and God make it clear that people should not harm them-selves or any-one else.

People should not violate each other’s rights. The laws of nature should preserve and protect people. If some-one does violate the laws of nature (specifically, “peace and preservation of mankind”), people have the right to punish the offender.

Portrait of John Locke by Sir Godfrey Kneller. Public domain image.

Public domain image of the front page of Locke’s essay

13

From Chapter VII: “Of Political and Civil Society:”

87....But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it.

88....But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecu-tion of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of of-fences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judg-ments of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legisla-tive and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by stand-ing laws, how far offences are to be punished, when committed within the common-wealth; and also to determine, by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from without are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members, when there shall be need.

90 Hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed incon-sistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at all: for the end of civil society, being to avoid, and remedy those inconveniencies of the state of nature, which necessar-ily follow from every man's being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority, to which every one of that society may ap-peal upon any injury received, or controversy that may arise, and which every one of the* society ought to obey; where-ever any per-sons are, who have not such an authority to appeal to, for the deci-sion of any difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature; and so is every absolute prince, in respect of those who are under his dominion.

92 To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity. This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be de-voured by lions.

Political societies are necessary. People need to come together, agree to give up their natural rights, and estab-lish rules together that benefit everyone.

This type of social/civil society is a commonwealth. The commonwealth will create and enforce laws. All members of the commonwealth have a role, and a right, to participate.

An absolute monarchy (in which the king has all the power) is not compatible with the ideals of a common-wealth. When only one person has the authority to make decisions, the society is still in a state of nature.

If people think that they are protecting themselves by agreeing to allow a single person to rule over them, they are foolish. It is as if they are willing to be eaten by lions.

14

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss philosopher whose ideas about society connected with many of the great thinkers of his time. He wrote about education, religion, and politics; two of his most influential books focus on the state of nature (Discourse on Inequality) and the social contract (The Social Contract).

The Social Contract begins with a dramatic opening line:

MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still re-mains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.

Rousseau then goes on to begin his argument about how a civil society should be organized.

This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of dis-cretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving him-self, and consequently becomes his own master.

The family then may be called the first model of political socie-ties: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the chil-dren; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the fam-ily, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the peo-ples under him.

THE strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will — at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?

Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I main-tain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means abso-lutely nothing.

I SUPPOSE men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primi-tive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence.

What is Rousseau Saying Here?

All people have an instinct to protect themselves. This is a fundamental truth about human nature.

The most basic social structure is the family. The role of parents can be compared rulers, but parents rule their children out of love, not power.

If a ruler is physically strong, or if he has military power, his people will obey him, but they will do so out of fear. The people are not making a willing choice; they are making a necessary choice. This kind of leader-ship is not a moral right.

Even if a leader claims the right to rule the people through force, that right could be challenged by anyone who gained greater strength than the leader. In a sys-tem where the strongest person prevails, disobedience would be common as people would try to overpower each other. People would feel no obligation to obey rules.

Human existence would be extremely primitive in a society based on power and strength.

Portrait of Rousseau by Maurice Quentin de La Tour. Public domain image.

S E C T I O N 3

Foundational Documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights

The Declaration of IndependenceIn the summer of 1776, when Thomas Jefferson and his fellow patriots gathered in Philadel-phia for the Second Continental Congress, the American Revolu-tion had been underway for more than a year. The docu-ment that the delegates pro-duced on July 4 transformed the conflict from a colonial rebel-lion into a war for national inde-pendence.

Although many colonial leaders had been calling for a complete separation from Great Britain since the 1760s, most colonists still identified as British subjects when the fighting broke out in 1775. They felt that their rights were being violated, and they saw the Revolution as a way of forcing King George to recog-nize those rights.

As the fighting continued, inde-pendence became a more popu-lar idea. Leaders from the vari-ous colonies worked together to coordinate the war effort. In June, the Continental Congress agreed to declare that the colo-nies were now independent states. The resolution was ap-proved on July 2. Jefferson then wrote a powerful document, explaining why Congress had decided that a formal separation from England was necessary. Many of the concepts in the Declaration are based the themes of natural rights in the writings of Euro-pean philosophers like Locke and Rousseau, and these ideas were established as central values for the new country.

15

Public Domain image of Declaration of Independence from the National Archives

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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 as-sume 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 opin-ions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, lay-ing its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happi-ness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpa-tions, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

What Does the Declaration of Independence Say About People’s Rights?

People are entitled (by God and Nature) to certain rights. If those rights are violated by a political power, people should separate themselves from that government.

There are several truths that cannot be questioned:

1) All people are equal (created by God).

2) God has given people certain rights that cannot be taken away:

1) Life2) Liberty3) The pursuit of happiness

3) To protect those rights, people create governments.

4) The power of a government comes from the agreement of the people.

5) If a government abuses its power, the people have the right to change it or dissolve it and create a new government that protects people’s rights.

6) Although people have a right to abolish their government, common sense tells us that such a drastic choice should be taken only in extreme circumstances.

7) History shows us that sometimes people are better off un-der a government that has some problems than they are when they throw away the government altogether. How-ever, when the people’s rights have been abused to an ex-treme level, or if the leader becomes a despot, it is then the duty of citizens to abolish their government.

8) The conditions faced by the colonists at this moment have reached a level of abuse that can no longer be tolerated. Therefore, the states reject the authority of the King.

16

What Ideas Influenced Thomas Jefferson?

✦ How did the status of the monarch change during English history from the Magna Carta until the 1700s? How might this evolution have affected the colonists’ relationship to the King?

✦ Look back at the main ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Identify the similarities between the European philosophers and the Declaration of Independence.

✦ How does Jefferson defend the colonists’ right to Independence?

Portrait of Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale. Public domain image.

The Bill of Rights The Revolutionary War ended. The victorious Americans now faced the chal-lenge of turning their ideas into reality. Many of the same individuals who had crafted the Declaration of Independence were now responsible for preparing a blueprint for the new country. Instead of a king, how would the people be gov-erned? Who would lead the people? What powers would be controlled by indi-vidual states, and what powers would be held by the central government? How would laws be enforced?

The Constitution answered many of those questions. However, the Constitu-tion did not list specific rights for citizens. A list of ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, was soon added. When the Constitution was finally ratified, it included the Bill of Rights as an essential statement of the rights of all citi-zens.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, March 4, 1789THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Consti-tution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that fur-ther declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or prop-erty, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

17

Amending the ConstitutionEven while they were writing the original text of the Con-stitution, the framers knew that they (and their successors) would probably find reasons to make additions and changes to the document. Therefore, they included rules for how those changes should be made. Article V explains clearly the process for adding amendments:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Consti-tution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thou-sand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

18

What’s Missing?

✦ There are now 27 amendments to the Constitution. Some of these changes reflect events that the founders could not have foreseen; others were added because they were necessary to clarify and protect rights that had been de-nied.

✦ If you were going to write a Bill of Rights today, what ideas would you include?

✦ Think about the ways in which citizenship, human rights, and civil rights were defined and protected in some of the historical documents we have read.

✦ In your opinion, what rights should all citizens have? What rights should people have in a society if they are not citizens? How would you define citizenship in a society?