Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:54:59.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MONTESQUIEU'S NATURAL RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2012

Paul A. Rahe
Paul A. Rahe
Affiliation:
History, Hillsdale College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 29 , Issue 2: Natural Rights Individualism and Progressivism in American Political Philosophy , July 2012 , pp. 51 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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

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, 19–22Google Scholar, 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): 483–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Rhetorical Presidency and the Eclipse of Executive Power: Woodrow Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States,” Polity 28, no. 3 (1996): 357–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and see Pestritto, Ronald J., Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of American Liberalism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005)Google Scholar.

3 Wilson, The New Freedom, 41–54.

4 Ibid.

5 See Wohlgemuth, Kathleen Long, “Wilson's Appointment Policy and the Negro,” Journal of Southern History 24, no. 4 (1958): 457–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Woodrow Wilson and Federal Segregation,” Journal of Negro History 44, no. 2 (1959): 158–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Link, Arthur S., Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956), 243–52Google Scholar; Blumenthal, Henry, “Woodrow Wilson and the Race Question,” Journal of Negro History 48, no. 1 (1963): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Patler, Nicholas, Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration: Protesting Federal Segregation in the Early Twentieth Century (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004)Google Scholar; and Barlett, Bruce, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 95–110Google Scholar. Compare Baker, Ray Stannard, Woodrow Wilson, Life and Letters Vol. IV: President, 1913–1914 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1931), 220–25Google Scholar.

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: 836–37Google Scholar. 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), 1–64Google Scholar, and Manent, Pierre, The City of Man, trans. LePain, Marc A. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 11–85 (esp. 50–85)Google Scholar.

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), 197nGoogle Scholar. 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): 153–77Google Scholar.

8 See Pangle, Thomas L., Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism: A Commentary on The Spirit of the Laws (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 20–47Google Scholar, 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), 227–51Google Scholar, and Zuckert, , “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 2 (2004): secs. 2–26Google Scholar. For a partial affirmation and helpful qualification of this view, see Robertson, Neil G., “Rousseau, Montesquieu and the Origins of Inequality,” Animus 12 (2008): 60–69Google Scholar.

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/montesquieuGoogle Scholar.

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: 225–995Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar.

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), 185–658Google Scholar.

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): 25–41Google Scholar, which is reprinted in Shackleton, , Essays on Montesquieu and on the Enlightenment, ed. Gilson, David and Smith, Martin (Oxford, UK: The Voltaire Foundation, 1988), 405–20Google Scholar, and Hanley, William, “The Policing of Thought: Censorship in Eighteenth-Century France,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 183 (1980): 265–95Google Scholar. 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, 139–205Google Scholar, 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): 43–89Google Scholar.

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), 8–27Google Scholar.

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): 485–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waddicor, Mark H., Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), 65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 107–19Google Scholar; 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), 125–35Google Scholar; 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), 14–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 203–23Google Scholar; 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), 159–87Google Scholar. 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)Google Scholar, and Krause, , “Laws, Passion, and the Attractions of Right Action in Montesquieu,” Philosophy and Social Criticism 32, no. 2 (2006): 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 61–140 (esp. 96–115)Google Scholar, 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)Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

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: 137–566Google Scholar, 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): 18–59Google Scholar, and Stoner, James R., “Common Law and Natural Law,” Benchmark 5 (1993): 93–102Google Scholar, 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), 155–82Google Scholar, and consider Carrese, Paul O., The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 1–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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), 1–36Google Scholar.

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): 73–109Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar, 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, 78–84Google Scholar.

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), 209–28Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

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.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

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)Google Scholar, 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), 339–48Google Scholar; then, see Courtney, Cecil Patrick, Montesquieu and Burke (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1963)Google Scholar; 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), 232–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), 143–54Google Scholar; 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), 179–98Google Scholar.

94 Note Spurlin, Paul Merrill, Montesquieu in America, 1760–1801 (University: Louisiana State University Press, 1940)Google Scholar, 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), 87–102Google Scholar; Cohler, Anne M., Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and the Spirit of American Constitutionalism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988)Google Scholar; Bergman, Matthew P., “Montesquieu's Theory of Government and the Framing of the American Constitution,” Pepperdine Law Review 18, no. 1 (1990): 1–42Google Scholar; Rahe, Paul A., Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992)Google Scholar, 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), 27–62Google Scholar; Zuckert, , “Natural Rights and Modern Constitutionalism,” secs. 47–79; Lee Ward, “Montesquieu on Federalism and Anglo-Gothic Constitutionalism,” Publius 37, no. 4 (2007): 551–77Google Scholar; 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), 89–108Google Scholar, and Carrithers, David W., “Montesquieu's Philosophy of Punishment,” History of Political Thought 19, no. 2 (1998): 213–40Google Scholar.

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): 179–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 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): 189–235Google Scholar, 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), 188–99Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar. 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), 66–96Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

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): 189–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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)Google Scholar, and Walling, Karl-Friedrich, Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999)Google Scholar.

104 Consider Storing, Herbert J., ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), vol. 2, no. 3, para. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar (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)Google Scholar.

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), 19–36Google Scholar.

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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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: 137–39Google Scholar.

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)Google Scholar.

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): 13–18Google Scholar.