Self-Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution: The Influence of John Locke

Constitution Day, a U.S. “federal observance” (holiday) on September 17, was established in 2004. I am planning to post a blog article about that on Sept. 15, but this post provides background information and is largely about philosopher John Locke—with a little about “original sin.”   

John Locke was born in England on August 29, 1632, and died in 1704 at the age of 72. Although he never traveled to what more than 70 years after his death became the United States of America, he had considerable influence upon the new nation formed by rebellion against England.

Just last month, University of Chicago Press published America's Philosopher: John Locke in American Intellectual Life by historian Claire Rydell Arcenas.

Locke, who was born into a Puritan home, became the author of hundreds of essays, tracts, and letters, many of which opposed political tyranny and religious persecution. His philosophical, religious, and political thought bolstered the North American British colonists’ fight for freedom.

Although the framers of the United States Constitution, drafted in 1787, were influenced by many different persons, John Locke’s ideas were the most influential factor. (See this instructive website.)

In his seminal work “Second Treatise of Government” (1690), Locke put forward the concept that the power of government originates from the consent of the governed, writing,

Men being . . . by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.

At the same time, however, Locke condoned slavery, denied women full inclusion in civil society, and, ultimately, excluded atheists and Catholics from his calls for toleration. To a large extent, his self-contradictory ideas were accepted by those who wrote and approved the U.S. Constitution.

Heather Cox Richardson introduces John Locke in “The Roots of Paradox,” the first chapter of her intriguing book How the South Won the Civil War (2020).*

In “Introduction,” Richardson states: “America began with a great paradox: the same men who came up with the radical idea of constructing a nation on the principle of equality also owned slaves, thought Indians were savages, and considered women inferior” (p. xv).

She asserts that the “self-evident” truths that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence were “cribbed” from John Locke. Based on Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, Jefferson agreed with Locke’s Enlightenment idea of government as a social compact, saying that

the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled the colonists to create a separate government equal to that of England (Richardson, p. 12).

But Locke, and Jefferson, also held the view that some people—particularly white, moneyed men—were superior to others, especially women as well as indigenous and enslaved people.

So in spite of my deep appreciation for Richardson, she is misleading on calling Locke’s/Jefferson’s position “the American paradox.”

A real paradox expresses truth in statements that just seem to be self-contradictory. However, the stance of Locke and Jefferson was, in reality, self-contradictory.

John Locke’s name also appears repeatedly in Mark Ellingsen’s thought-provoking book Blessed are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place (2003), mostly in his second chapter, “Augustinian Realism and the American Constitutional System.”**

Locke was one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers, and as Ellingsen points out, the “Enlightenment’s optimistic view of human nature seems embedded in both the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence” (p. 56).

But along with their embracing that optimistic view, Ellingsen argues that “founding fathers” such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and even Benjamin Franklin also maintained “Augustinian convictions,” that is, a view of the reality of “original sin” that can be traced back to Augustine.

The paradox of the Constitution is seen in this juxtaposition of the Enlightenment view and the Augustinian view of human nature.

There are many deficient ways that the doctrine of original sin has been explained, and some of Augustine’s basic assertions are problematic.

But I think Ellingsen’s ideas about original sin are correct and agree with his conclusion: “Vigilance about the low sides of human nature, a healthy cynicism, improves civic life.”

_____

* Richardson (b. 1962) is an outstanding historian/history professor who daily posts “Letters from an American.” Early every morning I read her latest “letter” and always find them very informative. Here is the link to her blogsite.

** Ellingsen (b. 1949), an Augustinian scholar with a Ph.D. from Yale, is an ordained Lutheran (ELCA) pastor and a church history professor at the Interdenominational Theological Seminary in Atlanta. This link should take you to my 2011 review of his book on Goodreads (scroll down).