Adams Skeptical about the French Revolution

By late 1788 and early 1789 Jefferson sees even more advances being made in the political life in France. He sees an orderly revolution in the works, perhaps similar to the events leading up to the signing of the Magna Carta in England. He observed that the third estate won the right to convene periodically, to register laws, and to propose amendments. “Thus a change in their constitution is, I think, certain: and the life of the present king or the minority of his heir will give time to confirm it” (Jefferson to Adams, December 5th 1788, 231-232). Jefferson is confident that the constitutional changes will remain firm in France. January sees more healthy changes, the power of taxing based on consent, accountability of ministers, the regular meeting of the estates, a degree of liberty to the press, and that these rights were to be fixed in a written document (Jefferson to Adams, January 14th 1789, 235-236).

Adams did not respond directly to these observations that Jefferson made. Perhaps this can be explained by what was probably his reservations or skepticism about the political movements in France coming to a happy end. This silence of Adams indicates that the disagreement about the nature and meaning of the French Revolution would be what would eventually lead to the strains in their friendship. These strains would eventually find themselves reflected in American institutions. By the late 1780s, public intellectuals, expecting a revolution to begin in France, began writing books about the American constitution and preparing to write a new Constitution for France. Turgot and Mably in France and Godwin in England wrote essays or books critiquing America for installing a constitution that allowed for three branches at the Federal level and also divided power between the federal and state level. The French critics were more enamored with the idea of a country with a single parliament and centralized federal power (Thompson, 1996, 364).

The Constitution was the Creed, We Never Got the Catechism

According to John Adams, the American Constitution needed a catechism to explain how we should live it out:

The idea that a moral social and political culture was necessary to maintain the Constitution is an idea that Adams held before the French Revolution began. Adams thought that the Congress needed write a political and moral catechism that would be taught in American schools. Adams asked Abbé Mably to write this catechism. Mably declined the offer, arguing that it would be better for Adams and the people in the US Congress to write and publish such a catechism (The information on the Catechism is in “John Adams on the Abbé de Mably.” More Books: The Bulletin of the Boston Public Library. Volume VIII April 1933. 125-145). This catechism was to explain the principal parts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with a view to explaining the kind of personal and social life that was necessary for each person to live and maintain in order to live the political truths contained in our founding creeds.

Despite this early rejection by Mably, and despite such a catechism never being written, Adams never lost his concern for the political culture that he thought was necessary to support the American creed. And so, in his letters to Jefferson, Adams expressed concerns about the negative effects that Rousseau’s philosophy might have on the interpretation of the American Constitution. If we were to extrapolate from his comments to Mably, political philosophy is the catechism of the Constitution. If Rousseau’s philosophy were to become the catechism of the Constitution, it would distort and ruin the Constitution over time because it would not adequately explain the Constitution and the institutions that it established.

Adams saw Rousseau’s political philosophy as informing the movements of the French Revolution. He feared the growing influence that the writings of Rousseau were having on young American intellectuals. He thought that if the intellectuals interpreted the Constitution through the lens of a Rousseauean philosophy, it would be the end of the Constitution and the institutions that it established. There are certain cultural ideas that need to be maintained in order to uphold the constitution and the institutions it established. Rousseau’s philosophy tended toward the breakdown of these ideals.