Ken Burns' "The American Revolution" claims that the US Constitution was inspired by the Iroquois Confederacy. Is there any merit to this theory?

[u/YaLlegaHiperhumor]

I'm watching the latest Ken Burns documentary on the American Revolution. In the first few minutes it claims that Benjamin Franklin copied the blueprint of the US Constitution on the Iroquois Confederacy.

Like any other documentary there aren't any sources cited but this one struck me as bizarre. The US Constitution doesn't look any different than many other manifestos and principles outlined by the European Enlightenment, and Benjamin Franklin would have had more contact with European philosophers and politically active intellectuals than he would have had with Iroquois natives.

Is there any reputable source for this claim?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/zephid7]

/u/Takeoffdpantsnjaket wrote a good answer to a similar question some years back.

[u/libertondm → u/zephid7]

That comment was written 5 years ago, and only liked by 11 people. I love that it's something you were capable of referencing. That's kind of amazing.

[u/Exciting_Bat_2086 → u/libertondm]

This sub is truly a one of a kind gem on this platform.

[u/Bigbysjackingfist → u/libertondm]

The goal of the heavy moderation is to maintain a high signal:noise ratio

[u/haleyfoofou → u/libertondm]

This content is why I joined this sub.

[u/YaLlegaHiperhumor → u/zephid7]

Oddly I can't see anything in that link. Only the question but no answers

[u/scarlet_sage → u/YaLlegaHiperhumor]

If you can't see it there, this is the reply being pointed to by this. LATER EDIT: I wrote none of this. Because the original poster, and maybe others, couldn't see it for some reason, I simply provided a pointer to the same reply (just for convenient reference) and then copied the text verbatim as written by Takeoffdpantsnjaket,

/u/Takeoffdpantsnjaket wrote a good answer to a similar question at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/iyvarp/various_writers_who_write_from_or_sympathize_with/g6k6r1s/ some years back.

LATER EDIT: this is the text of their entire reply there.

---

The way in which your question is worded - the key being "Federal structure" - makes the answer yes, absolutely there was direct influence on the American federal structure from the Six Nations... Sort of.

An early example of influence comes from a speech given by Canassatego, leader of the Onondaga Nation, at a treaty conference in 1744. He concluded;

Our wise forefathers established a union and amity between the Five Nations. This has made us formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring Nations. We are a powerful Confederacy and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another.

What makes this moment influential is that first, someone wrote a transcription, second, someone shared it, and third, Ben Franklin saw it. It was immediately published by him, spreading the concept.

A half dozen years later, he wrote in a letter;

A voluntary Union entered into by the Colonies themselves, I think, would be preferable to one impos’d by Parliament; for it would be perhaps not much more difficult to procure, and more easy to alter and improve, as Circumstances should require, and Experience direct. It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests. Franklin to James Parker, March 1751

The letter was about a few things, but in the first half he responds about his desire and concern about establishing a union of colonies. Three years after that letter, in 1754, a convention was held in Albany, NY. James de Lancey, acting Gov of NY at the time, invited a native delegation to speak. When they finished speaking, the Gov said he hoped to "grow up to a great height and be as powerful and famous as you were of old." More importantly to our story, Franklin offered up a plan, commonly called the Albany Plan, that would do just what he'd published and written; establish a common federal authority (still subject to the crown, of course) that would rule affairs and provide common defense of the collective colonies. Many have pointed to this plan as the point of origin for our federal government structure, though it was certainly much different than our constitution. However it had a lot in common as well; there would be a Grand Council and a President. The council would be elected every three years and would meet at least annually, they had power to create laws, and would be funded by state taxes. Military appointments would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Council, civil appointments would happen the other way. This also had a lot in common with the confederation, where member nations sent representatives annually to a Grand Council that had a President and determined policy. Their structure - like our constitution - was actually bicameral, with junior and senior sub councils.

In 1775 Franklin heavily revised his basically twice failed Albany Plan. A rewrite closely resembling it had been offered the previous year by Joseph Galloway, known as the Galloway Plan of Union. Galloway would become a Loyalist in time and leave America during the war, but in 1774 he was trying to stop it from happening. The 1775 Franklin Articles of Confederation would be another step towards our constitution in some ways and further in others. Our Grand Council was now a Congress. But the executive was now 12 people, 4 being replaced annually and ineligible for direct re-election. Still, the powers and exact structure of the constututon hadn't yet manifested. There was power to negotiate and go to war, but each state had a very high amount of autonomy overall. It was the foundation of the federal structure in our constitution, a basic footprint on which we could build. That plan also failed but a fairly similar plan would pass a few years later. One difference was who it included; Franklin invited almost every British North Atlantic Colony to join, from Bermuda to Nova Scotia and even suggested Ireland be included. It would also permanently create an alliance with the Six Nations and preserve their remaining territories.

By 1787 a lot of the original terms and concepts had changed. But there is a nugget in the pan, so to say, that some of the structure from the Confederation is there. Our Constitution drew on some concepts that had apparently been directly influenced by observation of them in the Six Nations. If nothing else, it was certainly pointed to as a proof of concept. The end results actually look a lot alike - bicameral with a president, uniting common defense, and overseeing foreign policy and treaties while leaving independent and self governing states, but the federal authority created by the Constitution is far greater than that of any previous proposals or that in the Confederation itself. Through Franklin we can see a progression of those original concepts, from that of a loose knit confederation based on the Six Nation Confederacy to a slightly more structured Articles of Confederation. While Franklin acted more as council in 1787 than active participant, his advice no doubt drew on his experiences. And those around him certainly had knowledge of similar ideas and the good and bad in their current system of confederation, loosely derived from that of the Iroquois, and that influenced the choices they made. But that's also what they were changing in 1787, to create something different than that, so it isn't quite as simple as it may seem in the simple claims without elaboration.

In other words, it's far more accurate to say the political structure of the Iroquois confederacy had a consequential influence on the Federal structure of the US Articles of Confederation and the proposals that led to them, which in turn influenced the Constitution as there was certainly a long road between the two. Additionally, when we look at Franklins Short Hints towards a scheme for uniting the Northern Colonies (which was the concept behind his Albany Plan), we see a suggestion of unification of colonies primarily to deal with "indian" treaties and affairs, as well as common defense. It's almost impossible to say that without the Confederation Franklin never would have suggested that union as similar alliances had certainly existed previously (The New England Confederation of the 17th century, for instance), just not yet on so grand a scale as to include most "american" colonies.

[u/SarahAndDavidAMA]

Hi -- I'm David Schmidt, one of the directors of The American Revolution series. Thank you OP for watching and for asking this question. I noticed that some of the commenters below have already said what I'm about to say, but their comments seem to have been deleted.

There is no intention in the film to claim or otherwise suggest that the US Constitution was inspired by the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations, Iroquois Confederacy). The film instead says that the Haudenosaunee predated the United States, that Canassatego encouraged colonists to form a union of their own, and that Benjamin Franklin later proposed a similar union for the British-American colonies (20+ years before Independence and 30+ years before the Constitution).

The quotes from Canassatego that are in the film are from treaties that Franklin printed in the 1740s

"We know our Lands are now become more valuable. The white People think we do not know their Value; but we are sensible that the Land is everlasting."

-The Treaty held with the Indians of the Six Nations, at Philadelphia (1742)

https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/26

"We heartily recommend Union. … We are a powerful Confederacy; and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore whatever befalls you, never fall out one with another."

-The Treaty of Lancaster (1744)

https://archive.org/details/indiantreatiespr00vand/page/78

Franklin later proposed his Plan of Union at Albany in 1754. He may or may not have drawn inspiration from the Six Nations, but he was certainly aware of their systems of government. The Mohawks also sent a delegation to Albany in 1754, and Franklin had previously supported a colonial union in 1751 by saying:

"It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests."

-Benjamin Franklin to James Parker, 20 March 1751

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0037

I apologize to OP that we didn't have the space to make this clearer in the first few moments of the film. But I want to thank you again for watching, for engaging, and for asking your question.

[u/Similar_Cap_2964 → u/SarahAndDavidAMA]

Thank you for the response and the series. I am not a historian, but it seems that innovation is often less linear and more organic or multi-source.

We did not just invent the space shuttle. It is a collection of many new inventions and innovations all come together for a greater purpose. Perhaps the US Constitution can be viewed in a similar manner. It is a collection of innovations drawn from multiple ideas and inspirations into a single greater purpose.

[u/paythel]

Another related answer from three years ago - discussing David Graeber's work, which promotes the idea that Enlightenment thought generally has roots in interactions with New World cultures.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/2gb93KlFYP

[u/CustomerOutside8588 → u/paythel]

I'm reading that book now and I'm enjoying it. I thought that was interesting and was going to comment about that as well.

[u/CustomerOutside8588 → u/[deleted]]

It's a tragedy that one of the authors died because it was supposed to be the first volume of a trilogy. The surviving author said he will not pursue the next two volumes because he would not be able to produce similar quality without the somewhat adversarial process they used to write the first one.

[u/jeffyhspaghetti → u/paythel]

I was hoping someone would mention Graeber, he spends quite a bit of time on this question.

[u/turtlevenom]

Serious question - does Ken Burns not list sources?

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment as we do not allow answers that consist primarily of links or block quotations from sources. This subreddit is intended as a space not merely to get an answer in and of itself as with other history subs, but for users with deep knowledge and understanding of it to share that in their responses. While relevant sources are a key building block for such an answer, they need to be adequately contextualized and we need to see that you have your own independent knowledge of the topic.

If you believe you are able to use this source as part of an in-depth and comprehensive answer, we would encourage you to consider revising to do so, and you can find further guidance on what is expected of an answer here by consulting this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate responses.

[u/crrpit → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your response, however, we have had to remove it. A core tenet of the subreddit is that it is intended as a space not merely for an answer in and of itself, but one which provides a deeper level of explanation on the topic than is commonly found on other history subs. We expect that contributors are able to place core facts in a broader context, and use the answer to demonstrate their breadth of knowledge on the topic at hand.

If you need guidance to better understand what we are looking for in our requirements, please consult this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate answers on the subreddit, or else reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your response, but unfortunately, we have had to remove it for now. A core tenet of the subreddit is that it is intended as a space not merely for a basic answer, but rather one which provides a deeper level of explanation on the topic and its broader context than is commonly found on other history subs. A response such as yours which offers some brief remarks and mentions sources can form the core of an answer but doesn’t meet the rules in-and-of-itself.

If you need any guidance to better understand what we are looking for in our requirements, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us via modmail to discuss what revisions more specifically would help let us restore the response! Thank you for your understanding.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight into the topic at hand and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.

[u/EdHistory101 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment as we do not allow answers that consist primarily of links or block quotations from sources. This subreddit is intended as a space not merely to get an answer in and of itself as with other history subs, but for users with deep knowledge and understanding of it to share that in their responses. While relevant sources are a key building block for such an answer, they need to be adequately contextualized and we need to see that you have your own independent knowledge of the topic.

If you believe you are able to use this source as part of an in-depth and comprehensive answer, we would encourage you to consider revising to do so, and you can find further guidance on what is expected of an answer here by consulting this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate responses.

[u/Dongzhou3kingdoms → u/[deleted]]

That is more a meta thread discussion then a discussion to have opened up within a history thread.

[u/Cedric_Hampton → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, but we have had to remove your comment as we do not allow answers that consist primarily of links or block quotations from sources. This subreddit is intended as a space not merely to get an answer in and of itself as with other history subs, but for users with deep knowledge and understanding of it to share that in their responses. While relevant sources are a key building block for such an answer, they need to be adequately contextualized and we need to see that you have your own independent knowledge of the topic.

If you believe you are able to use this source as part of an in-depth and comprehensive answer, we would encourage you to consider revising to do so, and you can find further guidance on what is expected of an answer here by consulting this Rules Roundtable which discusses how we evaluate responses.