Lesson 1.1 · Unit 1 · CA HSS 11.1.1
The ideas the founders inherited, and what they did with them
The American founders were not inventing political philosophy. They were applying a set of arguments that had been developed in Europe over the previous century, and the interesting question is which arguments they took, which they rejected, and what they added.
- Natural rights, from Locke: that people possess rights before any government exists, so government does not grant them and cannot legitimately remove them.
- Government by consent: that legitimate authority arises from the agreement of the governed, which makes a government answerable to them rather than to God or inheritance.
- The right of revolution: Locke's conclusion that a government destroying the ends it was created for may be replaced, which is the argument the Declaration would use.
- Separation of powers, from Montesquieu: that liberty requires legislative, executive and judicial power to be held by different hands.
- Classical republicanism supplied a second and older tradition: that a republic depends on the virtue of its citizens and their willingness to subordinate private interest to the public good.
- The English common law inheritance supplied habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the principle from Magna Carta that even the crown is bound by law.
- The colonists added something: a century of actually running representative assemblies, town meetings and colonial courts, which meant the ideas arrived attached to working institutions.
Where students lose marks: treating the founders as pure Lockeans. Two traditions are in play. Natural rights is about protecting the individual from the state; classical republicanism is about the citizen's duty to the community. They pull in different directions and the Constitution contains both.
The source. Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason, adopted 12 June 1776. Public domain; spelling and capitalization as adopted.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue.
Step one: note the date, which is the first thing worth seeing. Adopted 12 June 1776, three weeks before the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson knew this document, and the resemblance in the opening sentence is not a coincidence.
Step two: identify the Lockean content in the first passage. Rights are inherent, held by nature rather than granted, and cannot be surrendered by any compact. The list is life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, which is Locke's list with one addition.
Step three: notice the phrase about posterity. People cannot divest their posterity of these rights, meaning no generation can bargain away the rights of the next. That forecloses the argument that a people once consented to monarchy and are therefore permanently bound, which was the standard defense of hereditary rule.
Step four: analyze the second passage. Magistrates are trustees and servants, at all times amenable to the people. Trusteeship is a legal relationship with duties attached, so an official who violates the trust may be removed. This converts a philosophical claim into something with a legal shape.
Step five: identify the shift in the third passage. Justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue. None of these are rights and none can be enforced by a court. This is the classical republican tradition, which holds that institutions cannot preserve liberty if the citizens are corrupt.
Step six: state the tension the document contains. The first passage says government exists to protect individual rights, including the right to acquire property and pursue happiness. The third says liberty depends on frugality and subordinating private interest to public good. A citizen energetically pursuing property is exercising the first and straining the second, and American political argument has run along that seam ever since.
Step seven: state what the document conspicuously omits. Mason owned enslaved people, as did many of the men who adopted this. "All men are by nature equally free" was written in a society where a fifth of the population was held in slavery, and the phrase "when they enter into a state of society" was later read by some as excluding them. The contradiction is not a modern observation; it was noted at the time, and it is the subject of lessons 1.4 and 1.5.
Questions 1 to 5 are recall. Questions 6 to 10 ask for reasoning.
- What does the natural rights argument claim?
Show the full solution
That people hold rights before government exists, so government cannot legitimately remove them
- What did Montesquieu contribute?
Show the full solution
Separation of powers: legislative, executive and judicial authority held by different hands
- What does classical republicanism require of citizens?
Show the full solution
Virtue, and willingness to subordinate private interest to the public good
- Name two elements of the English common law inheritance.
Show the full solution
Habeas corpus, trial by jury, and the principle that the crown is bound by law
- When was the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted, and why does the date matter?
Show the full solution
12 June 1776, three weeks before the Declaration of Independence, which echoes it
- Why does the clause about posterity matter?
Show the full solution
Because it closes off the standard defense of hereditary rule. Defenders of monarchy argued that a people had once consented to be governed by a royal line and were therefore permanently bound by that ancient agreement. Saying that people cannot by any compact divest their posterity of inherent rights makes such a bargain void from the start, so no generation can sell the next into subjection. It converts consent into something that must be continually renewed. No generation can bargain away the rights of the next, so ancient consent binds nobody
- What does calling magistrates "trustees" accomplish?
Show the full solution
It borrows a legal relationship with known duties attached. A trustee holds property for the benefit of someone else, must act in that person's interest, and can be removed and held to account for breaching the trust. Applying the word to officials means their authority is held for the people rather than owned, and that violating the trust is a recognizable wrong rather than merely bad government. It gives a philosophical claim a legal shape. It makes authority something held for others, with enforceable duties
- Explain the tension between the document's first and third passages.
Show the full solution
The first says government exists to protect individual rights, including acquiring property and pursuing happiness, which points toward leaving people alone to pursue their own interests. The third says no free government can be preserved without frugality, moderation and virtue, which asks citizens to restrain those pursuits for the public good. A citizen vigorously acquiring property satisfies the first and strains the third, and American political argument has run along that seam ever since. Individual rights point one way and republican virtue points the other
- Why did having working colonial assemblies matter as much as the ideas?
Show the full solution
Because the colonists were not proposing an experiment but defending something they already had. A century of electing assemblies, levying their own taxes, running town meetings and staffing courts meant self-government was an established practice rather than a theory, and the men who wrote the founding documents had administered it. That made the arguments credible to ordinary colonists and gave the new governments institutions that already functioned on the day independence was declared. Self-government was already a working practice, not an untested theory
- Why is it inadequate to call the founders simply Lockeans?
Show the full solution
Because two traditions operate simultaneously and pull against each other. Natural rights liberalism is about protecting the individual from the state and is visible in the Bill of Rights. Classical republicanism is about the citizen's obligation to the community and is visible in the emphasis on virtue, militia service and public duty. The Constitution contains both, which is why arguments about American government often turn out to be arguments about which tradition should govern a given question. Natural rights and classical republicanism are both present and point differently