samuel adams (1722–1803) - bill of rights institute...06 028-039 found2 adamss 9/13/07 11:02 am...

The country shall be independent, and we will be satisfied with nothing short of it.

—Samuel Adams, 1774

The sharp knock on the door startled Samuel Adams. Huddled over hisdesk, attired in a worn shirt, he was composing yet another article forthe Boston Gazette about the plan of the British government to reducehis fellow American colonists to slavery. As he tried to ignore thedisturbance and finish the sentence on which he was working, asecond knock, more insistent and louder, echoed through his house.Grumbling, Adams put his pen down and walked to the front door.Upon opening it, he recognized a local merchant, who held a brand-new gentleman’s suit made of fine silk and red in color.

Adams, knowing that he had not purchased such an item, lookedcuriously at the man. The merchant informed Adams that the suit was ananonymous gift, purchased by Adams’s friends. They hoped that the greatPatriot leader, who considered luxuries like fine clothes un-republican, wouldwear the suit to the Continental Congress, to which Adams had recently beenelected. The clothier handed the suit to the surprised Adams, who absent-mindedly shutthe door and stood there stunned, staring at the splendid suit, which seemed so out ofplace in his modest home.

BackgroundSamuel Adams was born on September 22, 1722, in Quincy, Massachusetts. He enteredHarvard College at the age of fourteen. After graduating from Harvard, he began tostudy law but soon turned to a career in business instead. When Adams’s father died in1748, he took over the family brewery. But Adams was a poor manager, and the brewerywent bankrupt. Adams next took a job as a colonial tax collector, but he failed in thisposition too.

The Rights of the ColonistsDuring the 1760s, Adams became a leader of the Patriot resistance to the Britishgovernment’s attempt to tax the American colonies. With John Hancock and James Otis,Adams organized the Sons of Liberty. This group worked to oppose the new taxes enactedby the royal governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson. The Sons of Liberty tookthe lead in opposing the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Duties of 1767. SoonAdams had become famous throughout the colony and beyond.

In defending the liberty of his fellow colonists, Adams appealed to both natural andEnglish rights. In 1768, Adams authored “Resolutions of the Boston Town Meeting.” Inthis document, he argued that the law of nature dictated that “no law of the society canbe binding on any individual without his consent, given by himself in person, or by hisrepresentative of his own free election.” The colonists of Massachusetts, Adams held,were not represented in Parliament. Therefore, the British government could not taxthem. Adams also argued that the colonists by English law were entitled to “all libertiesand immunities of free and natural subjects” of England. Adams’s arguments helpedspark the rallying cry of “No taxation without representation.”

Samuel Adams

SAMUEL ADAMS (1722–1803)

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

r

r

06 028-039 Found2 AdamsS 9/13/07 11:02 AM Page 33

In 1772, Adams composed a pamphlet entitled “The Rights of the Colonists.” In thisessay, Adams again appealed to the idea of natural rights. Adams claimed that theAmerican colonists were “entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparablerights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain.” Though Adams did notgo so far as to call for American independence outright, he asked frankly,“how long suchtreatment will or ought to be borne.”

The RebelIn 1772, Samuel Adams helped to organize Committees of Correspondence acrossMassachusetts. These formed a network that coordinated resistance to British rule. Thefollowing year, Adams obtained letters written by Governor Hutchinson that asked theBritish government to crack down on the American resistance. Adams published theletters. The governor was furious.

When Parliament passed the Tea Act in 1773, which lowered the price of British tea,thereby undercutting American merchants and smugglers, Adams organized the BostonTea Party. This was a nighttime raid in which some one hundred fifty members of theSons of Liberty, disguised as Native Americans, boarded a docked merchant ship andthrew three hundred forty-two chests of British tea into Boston harbor. The water in theharbor was brown for days afterward.

In response to the Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Actsas punishment for the action of the Bostonians. Adams countered with a letter in whichhe called for Americans to unite “in opposition to this violation of the liberties of all.”

The Call for IndependenceHutchinson was recalled to England in 1774. General Thomas Gage became governor ofMassachusetts. Gage offered pardons to all members of the American resistance inBoston, except Adams and Hancock. In 1775, Adams and Hancock narrowly escapedarrest, and certain trial for treason, as British troops marched to Lexington.

Adams was elected to the Continental Congress in 1774. In that body he became achampion of American independence. “I am perfectly satisfied,” he wrote in April of1776, “of the necessity of a public and explicit declaration of independence.” In a speechto the Congress after independence was declared, Adams expressed his hope that thecountry would forever be an “asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty” and “nevercease to be free and independent.” Adams proudly affixed his name to Congress’Declaration of Independence.

Service to State and NationAdams served on the committee that drafted the new Massachusetts Constitution of1780. As a member of the Continental Congress, he also helped write and signed theArticles of Confederation.

Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He rejected thepurpose of the Convention, which was to strengthen the central government. Adamsfeared that a stronger government would infringe on the people’s liberty.

Though he attended the Massachusetts ratification convention in 1788, Adams tooklittle part in the debates. His silence could be attributed to the grief he felt at the deathof his son that year. He also felt little sympathy for either of the two parties in the

Founders and the Constitution: In Their Own Words—Volume 2

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute


contest, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Adams eventually supported theConstitution after the Bill of Rights was added.

Adams served as lieutenant governor of Massachusetts from 1789 to 1793. He thensucceeded his friend Hancock as governor of the state. In 1797, Adams retired to hishome. As the eighteenth century came to a close, he worried that the old republicanspirit of virtuous self-sacrifice for the common good was passing away and that thefederal government was growing too strong. Adams, one of the last of the “old republicans,”died on October 2, 1803.

Samuel Adams

Handout A

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Reading Comprehension Questions1. What careers did Adams pursue before entering politics?

2. What arguments did Adams use to defend the rights of Americans?

3. What important American Founding documents did Adams sign and/or havea role in creating?

Critical Thinking Questions4. What kind of nation did Adams hope that America would become?

5. George Washington is called “The Father of Our Country,” James Madison iscalled “The Father of the Constitution,” George Mason is called “The Fatherof the Bill of Rights.” Why could Samuel Adams be called “The Father of theAmerican Revolution”?


The Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence (1774)

1. Vocabulary: Use context clues to determine the meaning or significance of each ofthese words and write their definitions:

a. ignominious

b. inimical

c. subsistence

d. hitherto

e. barbarous

f. infamous

g. approbation

h. effectually

2. Context: Answer the following questions.

a. Who wrote this document?

b. When was this document written?

c. What type of document is this?

d. What were the two purposes of this document?


VOCABULARY AND CONTEXT QUESTIONS

Handout B

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute


The Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence (1774)

Directions: As you read Adams’s letter, underline words and phrases he uses which aredesigned to rouse his audience’s emotions.

We have just received the copy of an Act of the British Parliament passed in the presentsession whereby the town of Boston is treated in a manner the most ignominious, cruel,and unjust. The Parliament have taken upon them, from the representations of ourgovernor and other persons inimical to and deeply prejudiced against the inhabitants, totry, condemn, and by an Act to punish them, unheard; which would have been inviolation of natural justice even if they had an acknowledged jurisdiction. They haveordered our port to be entirely shut up, leaving us barely so much of the means ofsubsistence as to keep us from perishing with cold and hunger; and it is said that [a] fleetof British ships of war is to block up our harbour until we shall make restitution to theEast India Company for the loss of their tea, which was destroyed therein the winterpast, obedience is paid to the laws and authority of Great Britain, and the revenue is dulycollected. This Act fills the inhabitants with indignation. The more thinking part ofthose who have hitherto been in favour of the measures of the British government lookupon it as not to have been expected even from a barbarous state. This attack, thoughmade immediately upon us, is doubtless designed for every other colony who will notsurrender their sacred rights and liberties into the hands of an infamous ministry. Nowtherefore is the time when all should be united in opposition to this violation of theliberties of all. Their grand object is to divide the colonies. We are well informed thatanother bill is to be brought into Parliament to distinguish this from the other coloniesby repealing some of the Acts which have been complained of and ease the Americantrade; but be assured, you will be called upon to surrender your rights if ever they shouldsucceed in their attempts to suppress the spirit of liberty here. The single question thenis, whether you consider Boston as now suffering in the common cause, and sensibly feeland resent the injury and affront offered to here. If you do (and we cannot believeotherwise), may we not from your approbation of our former conduct in defense ofAmerican liberty, rely on your suspending your trade with Great Britain at least, whichit is acknowledged, will be a great but necessary sacrifice to the cause of liberty and willeffectually defeat the design of this act of revenge. If this should be done, you will pleaseto consider it will be, though a voluntary suffering, greatly short of what we are called toendure under the immediate hand of tyranny.

We desire your answer by the bearer; and after assuring you that, not in the leastintimidated by this inhumane treatment, we are still determined to maintain to theutmost of our abilities the rights of America, we are, gentlemen, Your friends and fellowcountrymen.

Source: “The Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence (1774).” The Avalon Project at YaleLaw School. .

Samuel Adams

IN HIS OWN WORDS: SAMUEL ADAMS AND RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY

Handout C

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute


Samuel Adams

SAMUEL ADAMS:“LOADED WORDS AND PHRASES” CARDS

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Ignominious Cruel

Unjust Affront

Subsistence Barbarous



SAMUEL ADAMS:“LOADED WORDS AND PHRASES” CARDS

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

“Suppress the spirit of liberty”

“Common Cause”

“Great but necessary sacrifice”

“Natural justice”

“Perishing with cold

and hunger”

“Hand of tyranny”


Liberty was the central political principle of theAmerican Revolution. As Patrick Henry, one of itsstaunchest supporters, famously intoned, “Give meliberty or give me death.” Henry was not alone in his rhetorical fervor. Indeed, no ideal wasproclaimed more often in the eighteenth-centuryAnglo-American world than liberty.

The idea of liberty defendedby the American Founders camefrom several sources. The mostvenerable was English commonlaw. Beginning in the latemedieval period, writers in thecommon law tradition developedan understanding of libertywhich held that English subjectswere free because they livedunder a system of laws whicheven the Crown was bound torespect. Leading English juristsargued that these legal limits onroyal power protected thesubject’s liberty by limiting the arbitrary use ofpolitical power.

Under English common law, liberty alsoconsisted in the subject enjoying certain fundamentalrights to life, liberty and property. William Blackstone(1723–1780), the leading common lawyer of theeighteenth century, argued that these rights allowedan English subject to be the “entire master of hisown conduct, except in those points wherein thepublic good requires some direction or restraint . . .”For Blackstone, these English rights further protectedthe subjects’ liberty by making them secure in theirpersons from arbitrary search and seizure, and byensuring that their property could not be takenfrom them without due process of law.

In order to preserve these fundamental rights,the English common law allowed the subject theright to consent to the laws that bound him byelecting representatives to Parliament whose consentthe monarch had to obtain before acting.

Common lawyers in the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries did not view these rights andthe liberty they protected as the gift or grant of themonarch; rather, they believed that they were anEnglishmen’s “birthright,” something that inheredin each subject and that therefore could not betaken away by royal prerogative.

This common law understanding of libertywas central to the seventeenth-century strugglesagainst the Stuart monarchy. Prominent jurists andParliamentarians such as Edward Coke (1552–1634)took the lead in the attempt to limit what they sawas the illegal and arbitrary nature of the Stuarts’ rule.This struggle culminated in the Glorious Revolution

of 1689 and the triumph ofParliamentary authority over theCrown. For champions of Englishliberty, the result of this century-long struggle was the achievementof political liberty. They furtherargued that, as a result of thisstruggle, Britain in the eighteenthcentury had the freest constitutionin the world. According to theFrench writer Montesquieu(1689–1755), Britain was “theonly nation in the world, wherepolitical and civil liberty” was “thedirect end of the constitution.”

This seventeenth century struggle betweenroyal power and the subject’s liberties made a greatimpression on the American Founders. Theyabsorbed its lessons about the nature and importanceof liberty through their reading of English historyas well as through their instruction in English law.

A second and equally influential understandingof liberty was also forged in the constitutionalbattles of the seventeenth century: the idea thatliberty was a natural right pertaining to all. Theforemost exponent of this understanding of libertyin the English-speaking world was John Locke(1632–1704). Locke’s political ideas were part of awider European political and legal movement whichargued that there were certain rights that all menwere entitled to irrespective of social class or creed.

Like the common lawyers, Locke saw liberty ascentrally about the enjoyment of certain rights.However, he universalized the older Englishunderstanding of liberty, arguing that it applied toall persons, and not just to English subjects. Lockealso expanded the contemporary understanding ofliberty by arguing that it included other rights—in particular a right to religious toleration (orliberty of conscience), as well as a right to resistgovernments that violated liberty. In addition,Locke argued that the traditional English common

Liberty

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

LIBERTY� �

02 005-007 Found2 Liberty 9/13/07 10:30 AM Page 5

law right to property was also a natural right, andwas an important part of the subject’s liberty.

Locke began his political theory by arguing thatliberty was the natural state of mankind. Accordingto Locke, all men are “naturally” in a “State ofperfect Freedom to order” their “Actions, anddispose of their Possessions, and Persons as theythink fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature,without asking leave, or depending upon the Willof any other Man.”

However, Locke did not argue that this naturalliberty was a license to do whatever we want.“Freedom is not,” he argued,“A Liberty for every Man todo what he lists (For whocould be free, when everyother Man’s humour mightdomineer over him?).”Rather, Locke held that sinceall men are “equal andindependent, no one oughtto harm another in his Life, health, Liberty, orPossessions.” According to Locke, each of us has“an uncontroulable Liberty to dispose of ourpersons and possession,” but we do not have theright to interfere with the equal liberty of others todo the same.

In Locke’s political theory, men enter intosociety and form governments to better preservethis natural liberty. When they do so, they create apolitical system where the natural law limits onliberty in the state of nature are translated into alegal regime of rights. In such a system, Lockeargued, each person retains his “Liberty to dispose,and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions,Possession, and his whole Property, within theAllowance of those Laws under which he is; andtherein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will ofanother, but freely follow his own.”

For Locke, as for the common lawyers, the ruleof law was necessary for liberty. In Locke’s view,“the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but topreserve and enlarge Freedom.” According to Locke,“Where there is no Law, there is no Freedom. ForLiberty is to be free from restraint and violence fromothers which cannot be, where there is no law.”

Building on both the English common law andon Locke’s ideas, the eighteenth-century Englishwriter Cato argued “that liberty is the unalienableright of mankind.” It is “the power which everyMan has over his own Actions, and his Right toenjoy the Fruit of his Labour, Art, and Industry, asfar as by it he hurts not the Society, or anymembers of it, by taking from any Member or by

hindering him from enjoying what he himselfenjoys.” Cato was the pseudonym for two Britishwriters, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon.Their co-authored Cato’s Letters (1720–1723) werewidely read in the American colonies.

On the eve of the American Revolution, then,the received understanding of liberty in the Anglo-American world was a powerful amalgam of boththe English common law and the liberal ideas ofwriters like Locke and Cato. On this view, libertymeant being able to act freely, secure in your basicrights, unhindered by the coercive actions of others,

and subject only to thelimitation of such laws as youhave consented to. Central tothis idea of liberty was theright to hold property and tohave it secure from arbitraryseizure. In addition, under theinfluence of Locke, liberty wasincreasingly being seen on

both sides of the Atlantic as a universal right, onenot limited to English subjects. Equally influentialwas Locke’s argument that if a government violatedits citizens’ liberty the people could resist thegovernment’s edicts and create a new politicalauthority. However, despite the gains that had beenmade since the seventeenth century, manyEnglishmen in the eighteenth century still worriedthat liberty was fragile and would always beendangered by the ambitions of powerful men.

Since the first settlements were established in the early seventeenth century, the Americancolonists shared in this English understanding ofliberty. In particular, they believed that they hadtaken their English rights with them when theycrossed the Atlantic. It was on the basis of theserights that they made a case for their freedom ascolonists under the Crown. In addition, in theeighteenth century, the colonists were increasinglyinfluenced by the Lockean idea that liberty was anatural right. As a result, when they were confrontedwith the policies of the British Crown and Parliamentin the 1760s and 1770s to tax and legislate for themwithout their consent, the colonists viewed them asan attack on their liberty.

In response, the colonists argued that theseBritish taxes and regulations were illegal because theyviolated fundamental rights. They were particularlyresistant to the claims of the British Parliament, asexpressed in the Declaratory Act of 1766, to legislatefor the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” By 1774,following the Boston Tea Party organized by SamuelAdams and John Hancock, and the subsequent


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

No ideal was proclaimed more often in the eighteenth-century

Anglo-American world than liberty.


Coercive Acts, many leading colonists such asThomas Paine and James Otis argued that they hada natural right to govern themselves, and that sucha right was the only protection for their liberty. Inaddition to several essays in defense of rights,including Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,John Dickinson wrote the first patriotic song, “TheLiberty Song.”

This colonial thinking about liberty and rightsculminated in the Declaration of Independenceissued by the Continental Congress in 1776, whichproclaimed that, because their liberty wasendangered, the colonists had a natural right toresist the English King and Parliament.

Having made a revolution in the name of liberty,the American challenge was to create a form ofgovernment that preserved liberty better than thevaunted British constitution had done. In doing so,the founders turned to the ancient ideal of republicanself-government, arguing that it alone could preservethe people’s liberty. They further argued that themodern understanding of liberty as the possession ofrights needed to be a central part of any properrepublican government. Beginning in 1776, in themidst of the Revolutionary War, all of the formercolonies began to construct republican governmentswhich rested on the people’s consent and whichincluded bills of rights to protect the people’s liberty.

Since there was widespread consensus amongthe Founders that liberty required the protection ofrights and the rule of law, much of the politicaldebate in the crucial decades following the AmericanRevolution revolved around the question of whichinstitutional arrangements best supported liberty.Was liberty best protected by strong stategovernments jealously guarding the people’s libertiesfrom excessive federal authority, as leading Anti-Federalists like George Mason contended; or, wasan extended federal republic best able to preservethe freedom of all, as leading Federalists like JamesMadison and Alexander Hamilton argued?

The era of the American Revolution also gavebirth to a further series of important debates aboutliberty. Was slavery, as some Americans in theeighteenth century were beginning to recognize, anunjust infringement upon the liberty of AfricanAmericans? Were women, long deprived of basiclegal rights, also entitled to have equal liberty withtheir male fellow citizens? By making a Revolutionin its name, the Founders ensured that debatesabout the nature and extent of liberty wouldremain at the center of the American experimentin self-government.

Craig Yirush, Ph.D.University of California, Los Angeles

Liberty

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Suggestions for Further ReadingBailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.Kammen, Michael. Spheres of Liberty: Changing Perceptions of Liberty in American Culture. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1986.Reid, John Phillip. The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1988.Skinner, Quentin. Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1969.


As Benjamin Franklin left Philadelphia’s ConventionHall in September 1787, upon the completion of thework of the Framers of the Constitution, a womanapproached him and asked the old sage of theRevolution what the delegates had created. Franklinresponded, “A republic, Madame, if you can keepit.” The woman’s reaction to Franklin’s reply is left unrecorded by history,but she might well haveasked Franklin for a moredetailed answer. Thoughthe word “republic” wascommon currency inAmerica at the time, themeaning of the term wasimprecise, encompassingvarious and diverse formsof government.

Broadly, a republicmeant a country not governed by a king. The rootof the word is the Latin, res publica, meaning “thepublic things.” “The word republic,” Thomas Painewrote, “means the public good, or the good of thewhole, in contradistinction to the despotic form,which makes the good of the sovereign, or of oneman, the only object of the government.” In arepublic, the people are sovereign, delegatingcertain powers to the government whose duty is tolook to the general welfare of society. That citizensof a republic ought to place the common goodbefore individual self-interest was a key assumptionamong Americans of the eighteenth century.“Every man in a republic,” proclaimed BenjaminRush, “is public property. His time and talents—his youth—his manhood—his old age, nay more,life, all belong to his country.”

Republicanism was not an American invention.In shaping their governments, Americans looked tohistory, first to the ancient world, and specifically tothe Israel of the Old Testament, the Roman republic,and the Greek city-states. New Englanders inparticular often cited the ancient state of Israel as theworld’s first experiment in republican governmentand sometimes drew a parallel between the TwelveTribes of Israel and the thirteen American states. In1788, while ratification of the Constitution wasbeing debated, one Yankee preacher gave a sermonentitled,“The Republic of the Israelites an Example

to the American States.” Indeed, the Bible was citedby American authors in the eighteenth centurymore often than any other single source.

Americans not only knew their Bible, but alsothe history of the Greeks and Romans. The eliteclass mastered ancient languages and literature, arequirement of colleges at the time. To these men

of the eighteenth century,ancient languages were notdead, nor were ancientevents distant; rather,the worlds of Pericles and Polybius, Sallust andCicero were vibrant and near. The relativelyminor advancements intechnology across 2,000years—people still traveledby horse and sailing ship—

served to reinforce the bond eighteenth-centuryAmericans felt with the ancients.

Like the Greeks and Romans of antiquity,Americans believed that government must concernitself with the character of its citizenry. Indeed,virtue was “the Soul of a republican Government,”as Samuel Adams put it. Virtue had twoconnotations, one secular and the other sacred.The root of the word was the Latin, vir, meaning“man,” and indeed republican virtue often referredto the display of such “manly” traits as courage andself-sacrifice for the common good. These qualitieswere deemed essential for a republic’s survival. “Apopular government,” Patrick Henry proclaimed,“cannot flourish without virtue in the people.” Butvirtue could also mean the traditional Judeo-Christian virtues, and many Americans feared thatGod would punish the entire nation for the sins ofits people. “Without morals,” Charles Carrollproclaimed, “a republic cannot subsist any lengthof time.” New Englanders in particular sought tohave society’s institutions—government andschools as well as churches—inculcate such qualitiesas industry, frugality, temperance, and chastity inthe citizenry. The Massachusetts Constitution of1780, for example, provided for “public instructionsin piety, religion, and morality.”

The second ingredient of a good republic was awell-constructed government with good institutions.

Republican Government

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT� �

04 011-015 Found2 Repub 9/13/07 10:55 AM Page 11

“If the foundation is badly laid,” George Washingtonsaid of the American government,“the superstructuremust be bad.” Americans adhered to a modifiedversion of the idea of “mixed”government, advocatedby the Greek thinker Polybius and later republicantheorists. A mixed republic combined the threebasic parts of society—monarchy (the one ruler),aristocracy (the rich few), and democracy (thepeople)—in a proper formula so that no one partcould tyrannize the others. But Americans believedthat the people of a republic were sovereign, so theysought to create institutions that approximated themonarchical and aristocraticelements of society. TheFramers of the Constitutiondid just this by fashioning asingle executive and a Senateonce removed from thepeople. The problem, as JohnAdams pointed out in hisThoughts on Government, wasthat “the possible combinations of the powers ofsociety are capable of innumerable variations.”

Americans had every reason to be pessimisticabout their experiment in republicanism. Historytaught that republics were inherently unstable andvulnerable to decay. The Roman republic and thecity-state of Athens, for instance, had succumbed tothe temptations of empire and lost their liberty. Thehistories of the Florentine and Venetian republicsof Renaissance Italy too had been glorious but short-lived. Theorists from the ancient Greek thinkerPolybius to the seventeenth-century English radicalAlgernon Sidney warned that republics suffer fromparticular dangers that monarchies and despotismsdo not. Republics were assumed to burn brightlybut briefly because of their inherent instability.One element of society always usurped power andestablished a tyranny.

The great danger to republics, it was generallybelieved, stemmed from corruption, which, likevirtue, had both a religious and a worldly meaning.Corruption referred, first, to the prevalence ofimmorality among the people. “Liberty,” SamuelAdams asserted, “will not long survive the totalExtinction of Morals.”

“If the Morals of the people” were neglected,Elbridge Gerry cautioned during the crisis withEngland, American independence would notproduce liberty but “a Slavery, far exceeding that ofevery other Nation.”

This kind of corruption most often resultedfrom avarice, the greed for material wealth. SeveralAmerican colonial legislatures therefore passed

sumptuary laws, which prohibited ostentatiousdisplays of wealth. “Luxury . . . leads tocorruption,” a South Carolinian declared duringthe Revolutionary era, “and whoever encouragesgreat luxury in a free state must be a bad citizen.”Another writer warned of the “ill effect ofsuperfluous riches” on republican society. Avaricewas seen as a “feminine” weakness; the lust forwealth rotted away “masculine” virtues. JohnAdams bemoaned “vanities, levities, and fopperies,which are real antidotes to all great, manly, andwarlike virtues.”

The second meaning ofcorruption referred toplacing private interest abovethe common good. Thistemptation plagued publicofficials most of all, who hadample opportunity tomisappropriate public fundsand to expand their power.

“Government was instituted for the general good,”Charles Carroll wrote,“but officers instrusted with itspowers have most commonly perverted them to theselfish views of avarice and ambition.” Increasinglyin the eighteenth century, Americans came to seegovernment itself as the primary source of corruption.

Fear of government’s tendency to expand itspower at the expense of the people’s liberty waspart of Americans’ English political heritage. Theyimbibed the writings of late-seventeenth-centuryEnglish radicals and eighteenth-century “country”politicians who were suspicious of the power of British officials (the “court”). Governmentcorruption was manifested in patronage (theawarding of political office to friends), faction (theformation of parties whose interests were opposed tothe common good), standing (permanent) armies,established churches, and the promotion of an eliteclass. Power, these country writers argued, waspossessed by the government; it was aggressive andexpansionist. Liberty was the property of thegoverned; it was sacred and delicate. The history ofliberty in the world was a history of defeat by theforces of tyranny.

Though the history of republicanism was adismal one, the lessons of history as well as theirown colonial experience convinced the AmericanFounders that they possessed sufficient informationon which to base a new science of politics.“Experience must be our only guide,”John Dickinsonproclaimed at the Philadelphia Convention; “reasonmay mislead us.” The Framers of the United StatesConstitution all had experience as public servants,


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Fear of government’s tendency to expand its power at the expense of thepeople’s liberty was part of Americans’

English political heritage.


and it must be remembered that the documentthey produced did not spring forth as somethingentirely new in the American experience. Rather,the Founders had learned much from the operationof their colonial charters, state constitutions, andthe Articles of Confederation.

At Philadelphia, the Founders focused on theproper construction of the machinery of governmentas the key to the building of a stable republic. TheConstitution makes no mention of the need for virtueamong the people, nor does it make broad appealsfor self-sacrifice on behalf of the common good. It isa hard-headed documentforged by practical men whohad too often witnessedavarice and ambition amongtheir peers in the statehouse, the courtroom, andthe counting house. A goodconstitution, the Foundersheld, was the key to goodgovernment. Corruption and decay could beovercome primarily through the creation of a writtenconstitution—something England lacked—thatcarefully detailed a system in which powers wereseparated and set in opposition to each other sothat none could dominate the others.

James Madison, often called “The Father of theConstitution” because of the great influence of hisideas at Philadelphia, proposed to arrange themachinery of government in such a fashion as notto make virtue or “better motives” critical to theadvancement of the common good. Acknowledgingin The Federalist Papers that “enlightened statesmenwill not always be at the helm,” Madison believedthat the separate powers of government—legislative,executive, and judicial—must be set in oppositionto one another, so that “ambition must be made tocounteract ambition.”

“In framing a government which is to beadministered by men over men,” Madison asserted,“the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enablethe government to control the governed; and in thenext place oblige it to control itself.”

James Wilson, representing Pennsylvania atthe Philadelphia Convention, declared that theConstitution’s separation of powers and checksand balances made “it advantageous even for badmen to act for the public good.” This is not to saythat the delegates believed that the republic couldsurvive if corruption vanquished virtue in society.Madison himself emphasized the importance ofrepublican virtue when defending the newgovernment in The Federalist Papers. But the Framers

agreed with Madison that men were not angels, andmost were satisfied that the Constitution, as GeorgeWashington put it,“is provided with more checks andbarriers against the introduction of Tyranny . . . thanany Government hitherto instituted among mortals.”

The question remained, however, whether onepart of society would come to dominate. No matterhow perfect the design, the danger remained that afaction would amass enough political power to takeaway the liberty of others. To combat this problem,classical republican theory called for creating auniformity of opinion among the republican

citizenry so that factionscould not develop. Theancient Greek city-states, forexample, feared anythingthat caused differentiationamong citizens, includingcommerce, which tended tocreate inequalities of wealthand opposing interests. In

contrast, Madison and the Founders recognizedthat factionalism would be inherent in a commercialrepublic that protected freedom of religion, speech,press, and assembly. They sought only to mediatethe deleterious effects of faction.

Republics also were traditionally thought to bedurable only when a small amount of territory wasinvolved. The Greek city-states, the Roman republic,the Italian republics, and the American states allencompassed relatively small areas. When the Romanrepublic expanded in its quest for empire, tyrannywas the result. Madison turned this traditionalthinking on its head in The Federalist Papers, arguingthat a large republic was more conducive to libertybecause it encompassed so many interests that nosingle one, or combination of several, could gaincontrol of the government.

Not all Americans accepted the Madisoniansolution. Agrarians, such as Thomas Jefferson, wereuncomfortable with the idea of a commercial republiccentered on industry and sought to perpetuate anation of independent farmers through the expansionof the frontier. Though uneasy about the “energeticgovernment” created by the Constitution, Jeffersonendorsed the Framers’ work after a bill of rightswas added to the document. “Old republicans” likeSamuel Adams and George Mason opposed theConstitution, even after the addition of a bill ofrights, fearing that the power granted to the centralgovernment was too great and wistfully looking backto the Revolutionary era when virtue, not ambition,was the animating principle of government. But in1789, as the new government went into operation,

Republican Government

© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

[The Constitution] is a hard-headeddocument forged by practical men whohad too often witnessed avarice and

ambition among their peers.


most Americans shared the optimism of BenjaminFranklin, who had decided at the conclusion of thePhiladelphia Convention that the sun carved intothe back of the chair used by George Washingtonwas a rising—not a setting—sun, and therebyindicative of the bright prospects of the nation.

“We have it in our power to begin the worldover again,” Thomas Paine had written in 1776,during the heady days of American independence.And indeed the American Founders in 1787 werekeenly aware that they possessed a rare opportunity.

Like the legendary Lycurgus of Ancient Greece,they were to be the supreme lawgivers of a newrepublic, a novus ordo seclorum or new order of theages. The American Founders were aware that theeyes of the world and future generations were uponthem, and they were determined to build an eternalrepublic founded in liberty, a shining city upon ahill, as an example to all nations for all time.

Stephen M. Klugewicz, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar, Bill of Rights Institute


© T

he B

ill o

fRi

ghts

Inst

itute

Suggestions for Further ReadingAdair, Douglass. Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998.Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins of American Politics. New York: Vintage Books, 1968.McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University

Press of Kansas, 1985.Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.Rahe, Paul A. Republics Ancient and Modern, 3 vols. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994.Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1969.


F&C-014-HandoutAF&C-014-HandoutBF&C-014-HandoutCF&C-014-HandoutDF&C-014-HandoutEF&C-Essay-LibertyF&C-Essay-RepublicanGovernment

samuel adams (1722–1803) - bill of rights institute...06 028-039 found2 adamss 9/13/07 11:02 am...

Documents