A span of more than a thousand years separates our last writer, the Roman historian Tacitus (who died in about 120 C.E.), from Niccolò Machiavelli. You might wonder: Was there no one during that time period worth covering? And, why Machiavelli? Wasn’t he an exponent of the ruthless politics the American Founders rejected?
The answer to these questions begins by understanding that the Founders lived in a classical era. An era is “classical” if the prevailing intellectual climate is one that admires science and reason, appreciates beauty with form and balance, and cares about individual rights and individual potential.
That isn’t to say that classicists are irreligious or that they ignore man’s social needs. Most of the Founders were people of faith and recognized that man seeks happiness in society. But they esteemed classical values to a much greater extent than cultural leaders during some other times.
It’s understandable, therefore, that the Founders would look first to other classical eras for ideas and historical models. This explains their interest in ancient Greece and Rome and in the rebirth of classical culture called the Renaissance. Machiavelli was a man of the Renaissance.
Why Machiavelli?
We employ the adjective “Machiavellian” to mean politically cynical and manipulative. The epithet derives from the cynical and manipulative character of Machiavelli’s best-known book, “The Prince.” Members of the founding generation used the epithet in the same way.Machiavelli’s Life
One reason the Renaissance began in Italy is a reason the classical era began in Greece: Italy was highly decentralized and politically fragmented. This forced cities to compete for talented people. It also enabled talented people to escape oppressive governments and social systems and migrate to where they were appreciated and assisted. Moreover, Italians had the advantage of living in an environment where the monuments of past classical glory towered all around them.Several Italian cities could boast impressive achievements, but the Athens of Italy was Florence.
Machiavelli was one of those extraordinary men of affairs—like Xenophon, Cicero, Polybius, Plutarch, and Tacitus—who applied their experience to writing history and political commentary. Machiavelli was born in 1469 A.D. into the poorest branch of a prominent Florentine family. By the time he was 29, he had become the head of the city’s “Second Chancery,” which handled foreign affairs in Florence’s surrounding territories. He later served the city in several posts, including many diplomatic missions. Because of his diplomatic responsibilities, Machiavelli (like Xenophon, Polybius, and Plutarch) traveled widely.
Exile, unfortunately, was a sentence Florence’s turbulent politics imposed on many of its leading citizens (the poet Dante, for example), and Machiavelli was exiled for several years.
Influence on the Founders
Several aspects of Machiavelli’s “Discourses on Livy” appealed to the founding generation. First, the Founders had grown up under a monarchy, so they were looking for guidance for erecting a republican government. Second, Machiavelli confirmed, restated, and updated the views of Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero on “mixed government”—the notion that republics last longest if they have monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic institutions that balance and check each other.Third, Machiavelli confirmed a lesson the Founders had learned from experience: A strong judicial power was necessary to preserve liberty.
Machiavelli in the Constitutional Debates
Participants in the constitutional debates of 1787–90 frequently charged their opponents with being “Machiavellian.” But some cited the Florentine for more solid reasons.As mentioned in earlier installments, the first volume of John Adams’s encyclopedia on republican governments was published in 1787 and circulated at the Constitutional Convention. Adams’s book also was discussed extensively during the ensuing debates over ratification. Adams devoted seven pages to reciting verbatim Machiavelli’s discussion of monarchical, aristocratic, popular, and mixed republics in the “Discourses on Livy.”
Adams’s volume further cited Machiavelli for the rule that constitution-makers must “presume that all men are bad by nature.” In other words, constitutional rules must be drafted on the assumption that people will act in a bad way. This statement by Adams is a useful corrective to the common claim that Adams thought the Constitution could serve only a “moral people.” The truth is that Adams invested a lot of time discussing how to draft constitutions so that events worked out well if people were immoral.
Mercy Otis Warren was later a distinguished historian, but during the battle over ratification, she wrote essays opposing the Constitution. She used the pen name “A Columbian Patriot.” She shared Machiavelli’s bias in favor of the people at large. Warren cited his view that “no republic ever yet stood on a stable foundation without satisfying the common people.”
A frequent argument in favor of the Constitution was that it represented only a modest change from the Articles of Confederation. A Pennsylvania opponent (“Centinel”) thought that argument was being used in bad faith. He pointed out that Macchiavelli recommended that constitution makers disarm public objections by keeping old forms, even when they made major substantive changes.
John Francis Mercer represented Maryland at the Constitutional Convention, but he left early and opposed the final draft. In a series of op-eds signed “A Farmer,” he made good use of Machiavelli’s wisdom. He quoted the wily Florentine on how aristocracy is tied to wealth rather than to formal titles. He also cited Machiavelli on the government of the German tribes described by Tacitus. And he quoted Machiavelli’s “deliberate opinion in favour of the body of the people, as the only safe depository of liberty and power.”
Mercer borrowed another observation from Machiavelli that seems perfectly applicable to today’s “woke” crowd:
Amen.