Skip to main content
×
Home

MONTESQUIEU'S NATURAL RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONALISM

  • Paul A. Rahe (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

When Woodrow Wilson, in the course of his campaign for the Presidency in 1912, attacked Thomas Jefferson and Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, he knew what he was about—for the constitutionalism articulated by the latter and embraced, in turn, by the Framers of the American Constitution was a systematic attempt to put into practice something very much like the first principles spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Montesquieu was not a doctrinaire. He feared that, in his own country and elsewhere, revolution would eventuate in the establishment of a despotism, and so he gently, quietly promoted unobtrusive reform. But the cautious, prudential political science that he outlined in his Spirit of Laws was anything but value-free. If the American framers found his legislative science of use, it was because the hatred of despotism and love for liberty animating its author was grounded in an account of natural right closely akin to the one, espoused in John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, that had inspired their revolution.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Godkin Edwin Lawrence, “The Eclipse of Liberalism,” The Nation 71, no. 1832 (9 August 1900): 105–6.

2 Consider Wilson Woodrow, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York: Doubleday, Page, and Company, 1913), esp. 3–7, 19–22, in light of Eden Robert, “Opinion Leadership and the Problem of Executive Power: Woodrow Wilson's Original Position,” Review of Politics 57, no. 3 (1995): 483503, and The Rhetorical Presidency and the Eclipse of Executive Power: Woodrow Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States,” Polity 28, no. 3 (1996): 357–78, and see Pestritto Ronald J., Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of American Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005).

3 Wilson, The New Freedom, 41–54.

5 See Wohlgemuth Kathleen Long, “Wilson's Appointment Policy and the Negro,” Journal of Southern History 24, no. 4 (1958): 457–71, and Woodrow Wilson and Federal Segregation,” Journal of Negro History 44, no. 2 (1959): 158–73; Link Arthur S., Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956), 243–52; Blumenthal Henry, “Woodrow Wilson and the Race Question,” Journal of Negro History 48, no. 1 (1963): 121; Patler Nicholas, Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration: Protesting Federal Segregation in the Early Twentieth Century (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004); and Barlett Bruce, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 95110. Compare Baker Ray Stannard, Woodrow Wilson, Life and Letters Vol. IV: President, 1913–1914 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1931), 220–25.

6 See Rousseau Jean-Jacques, Émile, ou De l'Éducation (1762), ed. Wirz Charles, bk. 5, in Gagnebin Bernard and Raymond Marcel, eds., Œuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Paris: Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1959–1995), vol. 4: 836–37. In more recent times, Montesquieu has even been described as a sociologist of sorts: see Durkheim Émile, “Montesquieu's Contribution to the Rise of Social Science,” Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology, trans. Mannheim Ralph (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965), 164, and Manent Pierre, The City of Man, trans. LePain Marc A. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 1185 (esp. 50–85).

7 See Hume David, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, sec. 3, pt. 2, in Hume, Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 2d ed., Selby-Bigge L. A., ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1902), 197n. See also Klosko George, “Montesquieu's Science of Politics: Absolute Values and Ethical Relativism in L'Esprit des lois,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 189 (1980): 153–77.

8 See Pangle Thomas L., Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism: A Commentary on The Spirit of the Laws (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 2047, and Zuckert Michael, “Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Classical Liberalism: On Montesquieu's Critique of Hobbes,” in Paul Ellen Frankel, Miller Fred D. Jr., and Paul Jeffrey, eds., Natural Law and Modern Moral Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press 2001), 227–51, and Zuckert , “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 2 (2004): secs. 2–26. For a partial affirmation and helpful qualification of this view, see Robertson Neil G., “Rousseau, Montesquieu and the Origins of Inequality,” Animus 12 (2008): 6069.

9 What immediately follows is an abbreviated restatement of the argument advanced in Rahe Paul A., “Montesquieu, Natural Law, and Natural Right,” Website on Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism, The Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey: http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/montesquieu.

10 See Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 20, which I cite from Caillois Roger, ed. Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu (Paris: Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1949–1951), vol. 2: 225995. All translations are my own.

11 See de La Porte Joseph, Observations sur l'Esprit des lois, ou L'Art de lire ce livre, et de l'entendre et d'en juger (Amsterdam: Pierre Mortier, 1751).

12 Charles de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Mes pensées, No. 2057, which I cite from Montesquieu , Pensées, Le Spicilège, ed. Desgraves Louis (Paris: Laffont, 1991), 185658.

13 Ibid., no. 2092.

14 See Shackleton Robert, “Censure and Censorship: Impediments to Free Publication in the Age of Enlightenment,” The Library Chronicle of the University of Texas at Austin n. s. 6 (1973): 2541, which is reprinted in Shackleton , Essays on Montesquieu and on the Enlightenment, ed. Gilson David and Smith Martin (Oxford, UK: The Voltaire Foundation, 1988), 405–20, and Hanley William, “The Policing of Thought: Censorship in Eighteenth-Century France,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 183 (1980): 265–95. Montesquieu had considerable experience with the censorship apparatus: see Mass Edgar, Literatur und Zensur in der frühen Aufklärung: Produktion, Distribution und Rezeption der Lettres persanes (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1981), 5–68, 139–205, and Rahe Paul A., “The Book That Never Was: Montesquieu's Considerations on the Romans in Historical Context,” History of Political Thought 26, no. 1 (2005): 4389.

15 On Montesquieu's mode of composition, see Pangle, Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism, 11–19, and Binoche Bertrand, Introduction à De l'Esprit des lois de Montesquieu (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1998), 827.

16 Rousseau, Émile, ou De l'Éducation, bk. 5, in Œuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, vol. 4: 836–37.

17 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, Pref.

18 Cf., however, Robertson, “Rousseau, Montesquieu and the Origins of Inequality,” 60–69.

19 See Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, sec. 3, pt. 2, in Hume, Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 197n.

20 These chapters have received considerable attention. In addition to the secondary literature cited in notes 7–8, above, see Lowenthal David, “Book I of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws,” American Political Science Review 53, no. 2 (1959): 485–98; Waddicor Mark H., Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), 6599; Goldzinck Jean, “Sur le Chapitre 1, du livre 1, de l'Esprit des lois de Montesquieu,” in Analyses and réflexions sur Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois: La Nature et la loi (Paris: Ellipses, 1987), 107–19; Rétat Pierre, “Les Ambiguïtés de la notion de loi chez Montesquieu: Analyse du livre I de L'Esprit des lois,” in De la Tyrannie au totalitarisme: Recherche sur les ambiguïtés de la philosophie politique (Lyon: L'Hermès, 1986), 125–35; Rosen Stanley, “Politics and Nature in Montesquieu,” in Rosen , The Elusiveness of the Ordinary: Studies in the Possibility of Philosophy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 1453; Kawade Yoshie, “La Liberté civile contre la théorie réformiste de l'État souverain: Le Combat de Montesquieu,” in Grapa Caroline Jacot, Jacques-Lefèvre Nicole, Séité Yannick, and Trevisan Carine, eds., Le Travail des lumières: Pour Georges Benrekassa (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2002), 203–23; and Warner Stuart D., “Montesquieu's Prelude: An Interpretation of Book I of The Spirit of Laws,” in Minkov Svetozar and Douard Stephane, eds., Enlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor of Ralph Lerner (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), 159–87. Also pertinent are Krause Sharon R., “History and the Human Soul in Montesquieu,” History of Political Thought 24, no. 2 (2003): 235–61 (at 235–52), and Krause , “Laws, Passion, and the Attractions of Right Action in Montesquieu,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 32, no. 2 (2006): 211–30.

21 Cf. Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 1 with ibid., pt. 1, bk. 1, chaps. 2–3.

22 What Montesquieu does should be considered in light of the puckish remarks of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discours sur l'origine et les fondemens de l'inégalité parmis les hommes, in Œuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, vol. 3: 132–33.

23 Among others, Jean-Jacques Rousseau followed Montesquieu's example: see Rahe Paul A., Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 61140 (esp. 96–115), and Robertson, “Rousseau, Montesquieu and the Origins of Inequality,” 60–69.

24 Cf. Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 1, chaps. 2–3, with Hobbes Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Macpherson C. B. (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1968), pt. 1, chaps. 1–15 (esp. chaps. 11–15).

25 See Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 1, chaps. 2–3; bk 8, chap. 3; pt. 3, bk. 18, chaps. 1–2, 8–18, 26, and 30.

26 See Plato, Politicus, 279a1–283b5, cited from Burnet John, ed., Platonis opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1900–1907).

27 Cf. Charles de Secondat, baron de La Bréde et de Montesquieu, Lettres persanes (1721), ed. Edgar Mass, no. 78, cited from Ehrard Jean, Volpilhac-Auger Catherine, et al. , eds., Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu (Oxford, UK: The Voltaire Foundation, 1998) vol. 1: 137566, with Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 3.

28 After reading Siegel Stephen A., “The Aristotelian Basis of English Law, 1450–1800,” New York University Law Review 56 (1981): 1859, and Stoner James R., “Common Law and Natural Law,” Benchmark 5 (1993): 93102, see Benrekassa Georges, “Philosophie du droit et histoire dans les livres XXVII et XXVIII de L'Esprit des lois,” in Benrekassa , Le Concentrique et l'excentrique: Marges des lumières (Paris: Payot, 1980), 155–82, and consider Carrese Paul O., The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 1104.

29 Consider Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, Pref., pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 3; pt. 6, bk. 28, chaps. 6 and 38; and bk. 29, chap. 1, in light of Oakeshott Michael, “Rationalism in Politics,” in Oakeshott , Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962), 136.

30 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 6, bk. 28, chap. 41.

31 Ibid., pt. 6, bk. 29, chap. 18.

32 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 3.

33 Ibid. In this connection, see Postigliola Alberto, “Forme di razionalità e livelli di legalità in Montesquieu,” Rivista di storia della filosofia 49, no. 1 (January 1994): 73109.

34 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, Pref.

35 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 1, chaps. 1–3; bk. 8, chap. 3; and pt. 3, bk. 15, chap. 8.

36 See ibid., Préf.; pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 1; and pt. 3, bk. 15, chap. 3.

37 Ibid., pt. 5, bk. 26, chap. 14.

38 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 10, chap. 2, and pt. 5, bk. 26, chaps. 3 and 7. Zuckert, “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” sec. 15, rightly emphasizes Montesquieu's adherence to the Lockean position on self-ownership.

39 See Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 10, chaps. 2–4, and pt. 5, bk. 24, chap. 3.

40 Consider ibid., pt. 3, bk. 15, chaps. 1–2, 5, and 7–10, in light of ibid., pt. 1, bk. 1, chaps. 1–3, and bk. 8, chap. 3; and see ibid., pt. 2, bk.10, chap. 3.

41 Ibid., pt. 5, bk. 25, chap. 13. Note also ibid., pt. 2, bk. 12, chap. 5, and pt. 5, bk. 26, chaps. 11–12.

42 See ibid., pt. 3, bk. 15, chap. 12, and pt. 5, bk. 26, chaps. 3–6, 8, and 14.

43 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 3, chap. 10.

44 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chaps. 1–3. Cf. ibid., pt. 1, bk. 5, chap. 12; pt. 5, bk. 24, chap. 2; and bk. 26, chap. 15, and see Locke John, Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus, 2d ed., ed. Laslett Peter (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 22; chap. 6, sec. 57; and chap. 9, sec. 123.

45 Consider Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 11, chaps. 2 and 4, in light of ibid., pt. 1, bk. 2, chap. 1; bk. 3, chap. 3; bk. 4, chaps. 5–8; and pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 397–98.

46 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 4.

47 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chaps. 1 and 6, p. 397, and pt. 2, bk. 12, chaps. 1–2.

48 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 12, chaps. 2–30, and bk. 13, chaps. 1–20 (esp. chaps. 7–8 and 14).

49 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 1, chap. 3, and bk. 3, chaps. 1–9.

50 See ibid. pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 4.

51 Consider ibid. pt. 1, bk. 2, chaps. 1 and 4; bk. 3, chaps. 5–10; bk. 4, chap. 2; bk. 5, chaps. 9–19; bk. 6, chaps. 1–10 and 21; bk. 7, chaps. 4–5, 8–9, and 15; bk. 8, chaps. 6–9 and 17–18; and pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 7, in light of Rahe Paul A., Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Commerce, Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 74–76, 78–84.

52 See Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty, 186–211, and Rahe Paul A., “Montesquieu's Critique of Monarchy: A Self-Destructive Anachronism,” in Montesquieu et la civilité, Annuaire de l'Institut Michel Villey 2010, no. 2 (Paris: Dalloz, 2011), 209–28.

53 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 2, chap. 4, and bk. 6, chap. 3; and pt. 2, bk. 12, chap. 19.

54 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 5, chap. 19, p. 304. In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Britain, this understanding of the English constitution was the common sense of the matter: see the evidence collected in Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty, 270, n. 52. That, in deploying this phrase, Montesquieu had England and nowhere else in mind was perfectly evident to readers at the time: see Letter from David Hume to Montesquieu on 10 April 1749, in Greig J. Y. T., ed., Letters of David Hume (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), vol. 1: 133–38 (at 134, with n. 5).

55 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 399, 403, and pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, p. 583.

56 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 5.

57 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6. Cf. ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chaps. 7–20. In this connection, note Zuckert, “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” secs. 27–46.

58 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 5, chap. 14, p. 297.

59 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 4, chap. 4.

60 Note ibid., pt. 1, bk. 5, chap. 6, and pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 17; and consider ibid., pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, pp. 577–80; pt. 4, bk. 20, chaps. 7 and 12–14; and bk. 21, chap. 7, in light of ibid., pt. 4, bk. 20, chaps. 4–6, 17, and 21. In this connection, see Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty, 224–38.

61 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, pp. 578, 580–81. The phrase “harmful” or “destructive prejudices” recurs throughout the book: note ibid., pt. 2, bk. 10, chap. 4; pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 1; and pt. 5, bk. 25, chaps. 12–13.

62 Ibid., pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 7.

63 Ibid., pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 1.

64 Ibid., pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 2.

65 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 3, chap. 3; bk. 4, chap. 8; bk. 5, chap. 6; bk. 7, chap. 2; and pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 5. Note also Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence (1734), ed. Françoise Weil and Cecil Courtney, which I cite from Ehrard, Volpilhac-Auger, et al., eds., Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, vol. 2: 87–285.

66 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 9, chap. 2.

67 See ibid., pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, pp. 577–80, and pt. 4, bk. 20, chap. 7.

68 Ibid., pt. 5, bk. 25, chap. 12.

69 Ibid., pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, p. 581.

70 Ibid., pt. 3, bk. 19, chaps. 26–27.

71 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 396–98.

72 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 398–99.

73 Survey ibid., pt. 2, bks. 12–13; then, consider ibid., pt. 1, bk. 6, chaps. 3 and 16–17, and pt. 2, bk. 13, chaps. 12–13 and 19–20. Note, however, ibid., pt. 2, bk. 12, chap. 19.

74 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6.

75 Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, chap. 8, ll. 101–6.

76 Montesquieu, Lettres persanes, no. 130.

77 Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27.

80 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 3, chap. 3; bk. 4, chaps. 5–8; bk. 5, chaps. 2–7; bk. 7, chaps. 1–2 and 8–9; and bk. 8, chaps. 1–3 and 11–16.

81 See Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, chaps. 1–13, and Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 403–7; and chaps. 12–19.

82 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 8, chap. 15.

83 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 8, chaps. 16–19.

84 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 8, chap. 16.

85 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 8, chap. 19.

86 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 9, chaps. 1–3.

87 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 12, chap. 12.

88 Ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 20.

89 See ibid., pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, pp. 399–407.

90 See ibid., pt. 1, bk. 3, chap. 3.

91 Ibid., pt. 1, bk. 3, chap. 5.

92 Consider ibid., pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, pp. 574–77, in light of Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty, 65–143.

93 Note Fletcher Frank T. H., Montesquieu and English Politics, 1750–1800 (London: E. Arnold and Co., 1939), and Stewart William, “Montesquieu vu par les Anglais depuis deux siècles,” in Actes du congrès Montesquieu réuni à Bordeaux du 23 au 26 mai 1955 (Bordeaux: Impriméries Delmas, 1956), 339–48; then, see Courtney Cecil Patrick, Montesquieu and Burke (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1963); Carrese, The Cloaking of Power, 1–177; Carrithers David, “The Enlightenment Science of Society,” in Fox Christopher, Porter Roy, and Wokler Robert, eds., Inventing Human Science: Eighteenth-Century Domains (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 232–70; Mason Sheila M., “Les Héritiers écossais de Montesquieu: Continuité d'inspiration et métamorophose de valeurs,” in La Fortune de Montesquieu: Montesquieu écrivain (Bordeaux: Bibliothèque Municipale, 1995), 143–54; and Moore James, “Montesquieu and the Scottish Enlightenment,” in Kingston Rebecca E., ed., Montesquieu and his Legacy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 179–98.

94 Note Spurlin Paul Merrill, Montesquieu in America, 1760–1801 (University: Louisiana State University Press, 1940), and see Muller James W., “The American Framers' Debt to Montesquieu,” in Muller James W., ed., The Revival of Constitutionalism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1988), 87102; Cohler Anne M., Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and the Spirit of American Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988); Bergman Matthew P., “Montesquieu's Theory of Government and the Framing of the American Constitution,” Pepperdine Law Review 18, no. 1 (1990): 142; Rahe Paul A., Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), bk. 2, chap. 3, sec. 4; bk. 3, prol.; chap. 1, secs. 3–7; chap. 2, sec. 2; chap. 3, secs. 4–5; chap. 4, secs. 3–5, 7, and 9; and chap. 5, secs. 3 and 6; Manin Bernard, “Checks, Balances and Boundaries: The Separation of Powers in the Constitutional Debate of 1787,” in Fontana Biancamaria, ed., The Invention of the Modern Republic (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 2762; Zuckert , “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” secs. 47–79; Lee Ward, “Montesquieu on Federalism and Anglo-Gothic Constitutionalism,” Publius 37, no. 4 (2007): 551–77; and Jacob Levy, “Montesquieu's Constitutional Legacies,” in Kingston, ed., Montesquieu and his Legacy, 115–38.

95 See Larrère Catherine, “Droit de punir et qualification des crimes de Montesquieu à Beccaria,” in Porret Michel, ed., Beccaria et la culture juridique des lumières (Geneva: Droz, 1997), 89108, and Carrithers David W., “Montesquieu's Philosophy of Punishment,” History of Political Thought 19, no. 2 (1998): 213–40.

96 See Mosher Michael A., “The Particulars of a Universal Politics: Hegel's Adaptation of Montesquieu's Typology,” American Political Science Review 78, no. 1 (1984): 179–88, and Kawade, “La Liberté civile contre la théorie réformiste de l'État souverain,” 203–23.

97 See Romani Roberto, “All Montesquieu's Sons: The Place of Esprit Général, Caractère National, and Mœurs in French Political Philosophy, 1748–1789,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 362 (1998): 189235, whose reading of Montesquieu and of his critics and heirs nonetheless leaves something to be desired. The case of Denis Diderot is of special interest: see Wilson Arthur M., “The Concept of Mœurs in Diderot's Social and Political Thought,” in Barber W. H. et al. , eds., The Age of the Enlightenment: Studies Presented to Theodore Besterman (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 188–99.

98 In this connection, see the essays collected in the two-volume study: Felice Domenico, ed., Montesquieu e i suoi interpreti (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2005). Note also Catherine Volpilhac-Auger, “L'Esprit des lois, une lecture ad usum Delphini?” in Grapa, Jacques-Lefèvre, Séité, and Trevisan, eds., Le Travail des lumières, 137–71.

99 See Courtney Cecil Patrick, “L'Esprit des lois dans la perspective d l'histoire du livre (1748–1800),” in Porret Michel and Volpilhac-Auger Catherine, eds., Le Temps de Montesquieu: Actes du colloque international de Genève (28–31 October 1998) (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 6696.

100 See Federalist Nos. 47 (Madison) and 78 (Hamilton), which I cite from Cooke Jacob E., ed., The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961).

101 See Lutz Donald S., “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” The American Political Science Review 78, no. 1 (1984): 189–97.

102 Consider Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27, p. 578, in light of ibid., pt. 4, bk. 21, chap. 21.

103 Both Franklin and Hamilton were especially sensitive to the new republic's potential to become a great power on the English model: see Stourzh Gerald, Benjamin Franklin and American Foreign Policy, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), and Walling Karl-Friedrich, Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999).

104 Consider Storing Herbert J., ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), vol. 2, no. 3, para. 7 (Robert Yates and John Lansing, “Reasons of Dissent”); no. 4, para. 44 (Luther Martin, “The Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of the State of Maryland”); no. 6, paras. 10–21 (Letters of Cato III); no. 7, paras. 17–19 (Letters of Centinel I); no. 8, paras. 15–19 (Letters from the Federal Farmer II); vol. 3, no. 3, para. 20 (Essays of an Old Whig IV); no. 11, paras. 16–17 (The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents); no. 14, para. 7 (The Fallacies of the Freeman Detected by A Farmer); vol. 4, no. 6, paras. 16–17 (Letters of Agrippa IV); no. 28, para. 4 (Observations on the New Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions By A Columbian Patriot); vol. 5, no. 5, paras. 5–6 (Address by John Francis Mercer); no. 7, paras. 6–9 (Address by Cato Uticensis); no. 16, para. 11 (Speeches of Patrick Henry in the Virginia State Ratifying Convention); no. 17, para. 1 (Speech of George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Convention); no. 21, paras. 12–13 (James Monroe, Some Observations on the Constitution); vol. 6, no. 12, para. 9 (Speeches by Melancton Smith [in the New York Ratifying Convention]); no. 13, paras. 14–18 (Notes of Speeches Given by George Clinton before the New York State Ratifying Convention) in light of Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 8, chaps. 15–20.

105 Consider Federalist No. 9 (Hamilton), in light of Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 9, chaps. 1–3.

106 Consider Federalist No. 10 (Madison), in light of Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 2, bk. 11, chap. 6, and pt. 3, bk. 19, chap. 27; and see Hume David, “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth,” in Hume, Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, rev. ed., ed. Miller Eugene F. (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1985), 512–29 (esp. 525, 527–28).

107 See Federalist No. 39 (Madison).

108 See Rahe Paul A., “Background to Marbury v. Madison: The Debate Concerning Judicial Review at the Federal Convention and during the Ratification Period,” in Zoller Élisabeth, ed., Marbury v. Madison: 1803–2003: Un dialogue franco-américain/A French-American Dialogue (Paris: Dalloz, 2003), 1936.

109 See Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des lois, pt. 1, bk. 2, chap. 4; bk. 3, chaps. 5–7 and 10; bk. 4, chap. 2; bk. 5, chaps. 9–12; and bk. 8, chaps. 6–9. On the role played by the courts in the evolution of the French monarchy, see ibid., pt. 6, bks. 28, 30–31. For a discussion of Montesquieu's influence on William Blackstone and, through him, on the American understanding of jurisprudence, see Carrese, The Cloaking of Power, 1–230.

110 See Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, bk. 3, chap. 3, sec. 1–chap. 4, sec. 9 (esp. bk. 3, chap. 4, sec. 9), and Sheehan Colleen A., James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

111 James Madison, “Consolidation,” for The National Gazette, 3 December 1791, in Hutchinson William T., Rachal William M. E., et al. , eds., The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962–1977. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1977), vol. 14: 137–39.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.

114 See Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, bk. 3, Prologue.

115 See McPherson James M., Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

116 See Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift, 141–280.

117 See Rahe Paul A., “How Should Elites Think About the Tea Party?Commentary 131, no. 2 (2011): 1318.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 56 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 333 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.