What Were the Founders Reading?
Print
By J. Budziszewski, April 7, 2010 in Pedagogy and Teaching
"This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.  The historical documents which you mention in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration."

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Henry Lee, 8 May 8 1825, in Collected Works,
Ford edition, Volume 10, p. 343.

 

"These are what are called revolution principles. They are the principles of Aristotle and Plato, of Livy and Cicero, and Sidney, Harrington, and Locke; the principles of nature and eternal reason; the principles on which the whole government over us now stands. It is therefore astonishing, if any thing can be so, that writers, who call themselves friends of government, should in this age and country be so inconsistent with themselves, so indiscreet, so immodest, as to insinuate a doubt concerning them."

— John Adams, Novanglus, No. 1.

 

Washington_Portrait_ReadingWe often assign our students writings by the American Founders, men like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, James Wilson, and Alexander Hamilton.  Curiously, though, we rarely assign most of the works that shaped and influenced their own minds.  This is a pity, because these works shed so much light on what they were trying to do when they initiated the American experiment in self-government.  How much ink has been spilled on the meaning of Jefferson's famous line in the Declaration of Independence concerning "the pursuit of happiness"?  Yet how many of our students look into thinkers whose works Jefferson was reading, such as those of Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, to investigate the significance that "happiness" may have had to him?

No less interesting is what we find when we compare what the authors of these works were probably trying to teach with what the Founders actually learned from them—which is not necessarily the same thing, although it can be.  Did Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Livy, Sidney, Harrington, and Locke really teach the same principles, as Jefferson and Adams seemed to think?  Surely that is an overstatement; or could it be we who misread them?  Inevitably the question also arises, who really influenced the Founders?  Were they more strongly influenced by the authors themselves, or by their commentators?  We know, for instance, that the Founders read and recommended Livy's history of Rome.  But to what degree were they influenced by what Livy actually wrote, and by what degree by Machiavelli's commentaries on what he wrote—which some of them, at least, were also reading?

I think that by reintroducing our students to these works, some of them sorely neglected, we can illuminate for them not only the meaning of what the Founders were trying to do, but also the sometimes circuitous paths that the thoughts of the past follow on their way to the present.  This can serve as an initiation into the conversation across the centuries.

As part of my participation as a lecturer in one of the Lehrman Center's Summer Institutes, I've been asked to provide two syllabi for courses pertaining to America's history and institutions.  Both are for courses I actually teach at the University of Texas at Austin; one concerns the subject matter that I have just been discussing.  The University's title is "The Intellectual World of the American Founders."  I prefer to call it "What the Founders Were Reading."

Since I began teaching the course, it has gone through several iterations.  Because of the decay of the core curriculum, most students who take a course like this have no previous background in American political thought, or for that matter in any kind of political thought, so I try not to overwhelm them.  The present version of the course assigns only a third as much reading as the original version, which left students gasping.  I have found that relatively short readings, studied closely, are more effective than long readings, studied quickly.  A series of short essays with feedback, one for each unit, seems to be more helpful than a single long term paper.

I also give extra credit for composing "analytical outlines."  An analytical outline is a logical diagram of an author's arguments, composed in outline format.  Besides the two syllabi, I have also posted a handout that I provide students about analytical outlining.  In some courses, I require analytical outlines rather than just giving extra credit for them.  While students are composing analytical outlines, they dislike them, but some students return, years later, to express thanks for requiring them to do the work.  (A little footnote:  What a shame that the ridiculous practice of requiring the survey of teachers by students gives teachers a disincentive to assign exercises that their students find laborious.)

Old BooksThe fifteen brief readings for "What the Founders Were Reading" are arranged chronologically, and in such a way that with a little help from the teacher, the earlier ones pave the way for a sound understanding of the later ones.  I have selected them largely on the basis of James Madison's famous reading suggestions to the Continental Congress (the "Report on Books.")  I have also drawn from the favorites of John Witherspoon, "the schoolmaster of the republic," who was a university mentor to several of the Founders, as well as from political sermons which the Founders were known to admire.  I would like to think that these controversial readings about politics, history, ethics, religion, and law provide an intriguing way to enter into the minds of the men who began the new nation.

Tags: History, Political Theory, American Founding, Education, American Politics, American History, Colonial America, 18th century (1700-1763), Early Republic (1789-1820), The Founders

4 Comments
Dr. William G. Miller on Apr 8, 2010 at 7:03 am

Dr. Budziszewski, I appreciate your comments. I met you briefly when I was a grad student at the University of Dallas. I now teach political philosophy at the Anglo-American University in Prague. It is the greatest job in the world to get to come back to these great texts on a regular basis. Blessings, Bill Miller

J. Budziszewski on Apr 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm

It is indeed! Thank you for your gracious remembrance. God bless your work.

J.B.

Last updated on Apr 8, 2010 at 4:14 pm.
Anonymous on Apr 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm

I am an assistant professor of history at Marymount University (Arlington, VA), and I am currently planning for fall 2010 my first graduate course in the intellectual history of the American Revolution. I have been considering the idea of devoting as much as half the semester to reading the sources of the Founders' political thought.

Thank you for sharing your syllabus. I am impressed with the course you've crafted (including the selection of readings and the idea of analytical outlines). It has inspired the further develoment of my own thoughts about the graduate course.

If you have more suggestions on how to design such a course, or if you'd care to pass along any further details on how you run your course, I'd very much like to hear them. In any event, I thank you for your work and appreciate your trouble. jpatrickmullins@gmail.com

J. Budziszewski on Apr 10, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Thanks for your comment. Yes, I do have a few more suggestions. First is that we can't just give the students material to read; we have to teach them how to read it. It is simply amazing how little they do read, and how much of that little is merely surfing the 'net, a few seconds here and a few seconds there. They don't even seem to read novels these days. Although they know all sorts of disconnected tidbits, they are intellectually unformed.

The first part of teaching them to read is breaking their bad habit of reading only for the authors' conclusions. Instead we must teach them to read for the arguments which the authors offer in support of these conclusions. This is why I encourage analytical outlining. Besides the two syllabi now posted online, I've provided a handout on analytical outlining, which should be online early next week. It includes both a preamble and several examples of analytical outlines.

The second part of teaching our students to read is overcoming their fear of unfamiliar genres and archaic diction. Each time I assign my students a new writer from days gone by, I spend a little time simply discussing how they find the experience of reading him. What are the difficulties? What are the unexpected joys? Even little suggestions can help them a great deal. For example, I tell them that when they find a text difficult, they should try reading it out loud. Sometimes it makes more sense to their ears and eyes than to their eyes alone, and they also begin to develop an appreciation for its rhythms, its cadences, its music.

Besides teaching them to read, we need to retrain their mental habits. A large part of this is explaining to them what is and isn't a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, many of our students have been conditioned to respond favorably to certain kinds of ad hominems, and are consequently predisposed to think that anyone long dead must be wrong. Even those who have taken courses in logic have often been taught incorrectly. For example, they may have been told that all arguments from authority are fallacious. On the contrary, there is a right and a wrong use of authority; all other things being equal, the word of an honest man who knows his subject is more trustworthy than the word of one who doesn't.

Although of course we must to treat our students with respect, we also need to keep in mind just how little most of them know about the intellectual heritage of their own civilization. As with logical fallacies, the problem lies not just in what they haven't been taught, but in what they have been taught badly. For example, even those few who have heard of natural law have usually been taught that natural law just is the thinned and flattened theories of natural law popular during the Enlightenment. Concerning the classical natural law tradition, they are usually in the dark. Needless to say, whatever they don't know, we have to teach them.

Last updated on Apr 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm.

about the author

J. Budziszewski
J. Budziszewski

Dr. Budziszewski (Ph.D. Yale, 1981) is a professor in the Departments of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.  An authority on natural law, he is especially interested in moral self-deception -- how we tell ourselves that we don't know what we really do.  He also studies problems that arise at the four-way intersection of political and ethical philosophy and theology, for example the status of natural law in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; the relation between faith and reason; the problem of religious toleration; the incoherence of liberal "neutrality"; and whether the old saw that civil society is more secure on the "law but solid" ground of selfishness than on civic virtue is true or false (can we really have a better government than we deserve?).

Author of numerous articles in both scholarly and popular periodicals, Dr. Budziszewski also has numerous books to his credit, including Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (1997, winner of a 1998 book award from Christianity Today), The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man (1999), What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (2003), Evangelicals in the Public Square (2006), and The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (2009). His newest work, On the Meaning of Sex, will be published in November 2011 by ISI Books.