A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America is a three-volume work by John Adams, written between 1787 and 1788. The text was Adams’ response to criticisms of the proposed American government, particularly those made by French economist and political theorist Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, who had argued against bicameralism and separation of powers.
Background
John Adams wrote the three volumes while serving as the American Ambassador to Britain. At the time, the new United States was in the process of defining its constitution and government structure, and Adams sought to defend the principles that would underpin the American system of government. His central goal was to advocate for a mixed constitution—a system of government that would balance the powers of different branches and protect against tyranny.[1]
The work was specifically written in response to Turgot's letter to Richard Price, where Turgot critiqued the notion of a bicameral legislature and favored a simpler, unicameral approach. Adams, in contrast, believed that a complex government structure, with distinct checks and balances, was necessary to prevent both monarchical tyranny and the dangers of direct democracy.[2][3]
Content and argument
In the volume, Adams draws heavily on historical examples from ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, medieval Italian city-states, and modern European governments. He uses these case studies to demonstrate the inherent risks of concentrating power in a single governing body. Adams argued that a system involving multiple branches—specifically a bicameral legislature, an independent executive, and a judiciary—was the best way to protect liberty and prevent corruption.[4][5]
Adams’ work presents a strong case for a tripartite system of government with clear separations between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. He asserts that such a division would prevent any single group from accumulating too much power, a concern he viewed as especially relevant in the nascent American republic.[6]
Reception and impact
Upon its release, the series was widely read in both America and Europe. Adams distributed copies to key figures in the American government and to leading intellectuals of the time, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Richard Price.[2] However, a few scholars have argued that theThe Defence had minimal impact the framing of the U.S. Constitution.[6]
The work received praise for its scholarly depth and the extensive use of historical examples, although it also faced criticism from those who preferred a more democratic form of government. Price, for instance, while persuaded by some of Adams’ arguments, remained skeptical of the feasibility of such a balanced system being successfully implemented in America.[2]
Thomas Jefferson, among others, disagreed with Adams' views, particularly on the role of the executive. While Adams defended the necessity of a strong executive branch, Jefferson feared that this could lead to concentrated power and eventual tyranny. This difference of opinion between Adams and Jefferson would later become a defining feature of early American political discourse in the years following the release of this volume.[6]
Legacy
Although the volume was initially overshadowed by other contemporary works, such as The Federalist Papers, it shaped American political thought. It provided a critical intellectual foundation for the structure of the U.S. government, particularly the concepts of checks and balances and the separation of powers. Many of Adams’ arguments resonated with the later draft of the U.S. Constitution.[4]
In addition to its influence on American political theory, the work also contributed to international debates about republicanism and governance. Adams' arguments were discussed by leading Enlightenment thinkers across Europe, including the Marquis de Condorcet and the Marquis de Lafayette, who both corresponded with Adams about the ideas in The Defence.[2]
Criticism
Despite its impact, the volume was not without its detractors. Many argued that Adams’ preference for a strong executive and his fears of pure democracy placed him at odds with the more democratic ideals championed by figures like Jefferson. This division would later contribute to the ideological split between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties in the United States.
See also
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
^Martin, J. P. (1999). When repression is democratic and constitutional: The federalist theory of representation and the Sedition Act of 1798. The University of Chicago Law Review, 66(1), 117-182.
