美国的建国，不是一场单纯的独立战争的胜利，而是两种文化的较量与对垒，是从开国元勋们那里就开始了的决斗。它是以亚当斯为代表的信任自然的、骨子里认可丛林法则的“保守派”与以杰斐逊为代表的现代文明人人平等“自由派”的文化分野，也是导致副总统伯尔与被称为美国立宪之父的汉密尔顿用枪决斗的本质原因——双方都认为对方上台，处在十字路口的合众国，就会步入歧途而无法回转了。为了拯救合众国，个人献身算什么？为了建立合众国多少烈士抛头颅洒热血。

其实这两派的决斗不会以汉密尔顿被伯尔枪杀而了结，也不会以南北战争的结束而结束，更不会以川普／拜登轰轰烈烈的大选而画上句号。它将贯穿美利坚合众国三权分立民主政体的整个历史过程，虽然每个关键阶段都会被双方中至少一方认为社会走到了十字路口。

一、独立：打天下的愿望只是不给英国缴税

华盛顿什么时候说过他要搞民主了？他是奉亚当斯之命打独立战争。战争打完后他才逐步接受亚当斯杰斐逊麦迪逊等人的建立三权分立的联邦。在他打天下之前，他只知道要独立于英国。打下天下后不给英国政府缴税了是他打天下的愿望。

当年亚当斯找华盛顿说服他带队打仗，独立出去我们就可以少给英国上税了，我们就有更多的钱买奴隶、建豪宅了。美国的三权分立制度是没参与战争的杰弗逊设立的，是他说服了打天下的华盛顿亚当斯艾迪逊等开国元勋们。美国才有了一个民主自由的制度。

当年华盛顿并不认为自己能当选，因为他当初是在为亚当斯打工。是亚当斯找到他让他带领军队打仗，他就一直认为亚当斯是他的老板，是投资人，而他是 CEO。公司是投资人的，他是运行官，不是公司的主人。所以，他认为这江山是亚当斯的。他的选票超过亚当斯，他很震惊。那时他早就旅游去了，大选结果出来后都找不到他。

这个地球上最了解英国人的是法国人。没有法国人，就没有美国的独立。当初可不是华盛顿打下的天下，华盛顿就一土八路游击队，真的正面战争还是法国军队干掉的英军。法国人清楚，不把北美独立出来，英国的税收就源源不断。美国南方是法国领土，拿破仑卖给美国也有令美国强大到把加拿大的英军彻底干掉的考虑。

二、制宪：民主理念如何被一步步塞进宪法

民主制度在制宪会议上不被认同

为何杰弗逊对美国建立民主自由社会的贡献最大？美国历经一百多天、众多精英经过妥协设计出来的宪法，在最后定稿时却没有保障公民权利条款。没有新闻自由、言论自由、出版自由，甚至没有维护陪审团对民事案件的审理。为何会产生这样的事情？因为这些代表中的一些权威人士并不认同杰弗逊的民主理念。

美国制宪会议代表亚当斯指出：“以往所有时代的经历表明，民主最不稳定、最波动、最短命。记住，民主从不久长。它很快就浪费、消耗和谋杀自己。以前从未有民主不自杀掉的。民主很快就会倒退到独裁。”

美国制宪会议代表麦迪逊说：“民主是由一副由动乱和争斗组成的镜子，从来与个人安全，或者财产权相左，通常在暴乱中短命。”

美国 100 多天的制宪会议制定的宪法里之所以没有民主、自由、人权条款，就是因为麦迪逊、汉密尔顿、亚当斯等人反对杰弗逊的民主治国理念。

他不能在制宪会议上说服大家，因为他不能发表演说，但他后来还是把他的理念以修正案的方式放入宪法。没有华盛顿，美国照样会独立，因为有汉密尔顿、伯尔这些军事家，但如果没有杰斐逊，美国不会有民主制度，因为只有他苦口婆心地宣传民主自由人权三权分立等理念，最终说服了那些开国元勋们。在起草独立宣言的时候，那些开国元勋们以为这个宣言就是对外尤其是对英国的一个宣言，一个好听的口号。所以，他们同意了杰斐逊的独立宣言，但立宪会议上，他们就不同意了，这就是第一部宪法里没有民主、自由人权、随机选择平民当陪审团并由陪审团决定案件性质的司法独立等杰斐逊主张的治国理念，但这些内容都被杰斐逊慢慢地整到宪法里去了。

从独立宣言以后杰斐逊在美国建国理论上逐步占据上峰，制宪会议比独立宣言晚好多年。虽然第一步宪法还是没有民主、自由、人权等条款，但宪法第一修正案就是根据杰斐逊在弗吉尼亚州建立的法律为蓝本，“杰斐逊民主”也就慢慢被接受了。杰斐逊民主理论逐步被开国元勋们接受而成为美国建国的指导思想。

制宪大体框架：总统由人民直接选举产生

制宪大体框架：总统由人民选举产生，是富兰克林说服了大家的结果。有两派，一派是采取间接民主，就是由议会议员选举总统。一派是民选。由于弗吉尼亚那时是最大的州，麦迪逊就有更多发言权。这是麦迪逊被称为宪法之父的原因。至于怎么放大选举效果，便有了人团票的提出。本来普选票就是 51% 对 49%，人团票就变成了比例超大的印象。

杰斐逊靠书信来给他们开导。杰斐逊的智商让他知道对方在想什么，很容易就抓到了他们的软肋。他不仅仅是政治理论家，他的玩政治手腕非常高。所以，杰斐逊才是美国民主政体之父，虽然他没有打天下的功劳。

三、三权分立：一套为既得利益集团设计的制度

设计出三权分立制度的初衷：阻止华盛顿当国王。他设立的制度避免华盛顿当国王，如果天下是他杰斐逊打下来的，那他一定当国王。

杰斐逊是为富豪着想的，那他为何坚持民主制度？因为杰斐逊知道：只有民主制度才能让穷人不再造反，而专制制度下穷人没有发泄怨言的途径，一旦造反，国王也会被押上断头台。所以，杰斐逊要比那些只看到眼前利益的富豪更高瞻远瞩。制定三权分立制度的那些人都是亿万富豪里的精英，不是为穷人着想的穷光蛋。

也就是说，杰弗逊设计的三权分立民主政体其目的是为了防止穷人造反。普世价值三权分立保住了富豪们不会被绞肉机绞成肉馅，连秦城都不担心会进去，避免了今天你绞我，明天他绞你，最后个个都是绞肉机里的失败者。

当年杰弗逊设立的三权分立民主政体，本质上是通过这样的政体实现由精英治理国家、财团通过自己办的媒体给选民把关。名义上是选民当家做主选出的总统、议员、州长等执政者，而事实上这些候选人都是靠背后的金主制约。被选上后也不能办政府的媒体，就只能跟 1% 阵营联手领导 99% 阵营。

两个党：在竞争中像蛇一样前行

当年，华盛顿害怕两党执政，害怕得很。他认可类似于孔子的君子不党。可杰斐逊亚当斯麦迪逊汉密尔顿都认可需要有两个党，互相竞争，在竞争中公开变成魔鬼一样的极端，这样可以互相掣肘，社会在摇摆竞争中像蛇一样前行。也就是说，越是没有竞争，越是短寿。公司如此，政府亦如此。

关于美国两党互相敌视。当年华盛顿总统就对两党政治产生巨大担忧。在国家面临灾难或危机时，如果两党此刻还是以党争为核心，那就是百姓遭殃，因为双方互不相让，互不信任，互相谩骂，就会把精力都耗竭在党争上。所以，总统一定不能只顾本党利益，而应该团结反对党。这是极其难办到的，因为妥协是与人性里成王败寇适者生存相悖的，等于是反天然的。所以，只有极少数政治家能做到与反对党妥协。

西方政治家为何敢断定“两个核心”必然使国家崩溃？在美国联邦制开始时，竞选后谁的票多谁是总统、落选的当副总统。杰斐逊是最早发现这一弊端的。等到亚当斯和杰斐逊竞选总统时不仅仅是火药味十足，而且政见出现巨大分歧。但败选的杰斐逊也必须与亚当斯总统搭当。因为杰斐逊清楚地认识到这种败选者与胜选者组成政府无法阻止内斗，因为从上到下形成了两个核心。此治国方略在和平时期互相制肘效率低下；战争一旦爆发，政府就有分裂的危险。

四、持枪权：检验真民主的试金石

美国成为真正的民主制度就是靠杰斐逊给美国百姓持枪权。根据杰斐逊的标准：就看百姓是否有持枪权这一关键。敢给百姓持枪权的，就不会出带路党，是真的民主政体。

杰斐逊给人民大众持枪权的本质就是防止政府出了与人民大众对立的独裁者试图到时不下台，人民大众就有权力持枪起义。所以，杰斐逊说：一个政府是否真的实行民主制度，就看它是否敢给人民大众持枪权。

美国宪法第二修正案，1791：“人民持有和携带武器的权利，不得予以侵犯，因为它是对维护国家自由的保障所必须。”

杰弗逊担忧当第一代打江山的开国元勋们都离世后，对美国宪法的精髓不了解或不认同的野心家便有可能上台后做独裁者而不下台。解决这个问题的办法便是百姓有持枪权。独裁者是一小撮人，甚至是个人，而非整个政府。百姓持枪对妄想毁掉民主政体当独裁者的人产生心理压力而放弃妄想就足够了。

杰斐逊早就想好了。当社会、法律不能给你公平的时候，枪能让你得到最终公平。死多了，就会改变政策的。但要遵照古老的规则：冤有头债有主。绝不能滥杀无辜。如果没有枪，弱者只能逆来顺受，强者就更肆无忌惮了，社会迟早发生大动荡。对此，杰斐逊想得非常清楚。

杰弗逊看得远。如果以几十年为单位看待历史，反对百姓持枪权有事实支撑；如果以百年为单位看待历史，情况就很难说；如果以千年为单位看待历史，杰弗逊给百姓持枪权是绝对正确的。幸亏杰斐逊在富兰克林的帮助下说服了元勋们，才一步步完成了宪法第二修正案。

五、政教分离与平民陪审：现代文明的两块基石

再过一千年，回顾历史，政教分离的杰斐逊才是现代文明的鼻祖，是人类文明几个阶段的一个分水岭。美国是第一个在宪法中明确规定政教分离的世俗共和制国家，不以宗教立国不得设立国教是在 1791 年起实施的《美国宪法第一修正案》中明文规定的。信仰自由同时受到法律保护，国会的任何法律都不能受任何教堂影响。人类从此开启了现代文明的进程，美国成了自由的灯塔国。

杰斐逊想到必须用宪法和法律的形式固定下来，才能保证政教分离的体系能持续下去，这就需要在宪法修正案里也确定言论自由，随便骂宗教、骂总统也受到法律保护。政府不能办媒体给人民大众洗脑，人们的思维也就自由了，创造性也就可以井喷式发展了，国家不断地扩张和吸引移民进来也就顺理成章了。

杰斐逊还是采取了抓阄的优点：审案件不论哪个级别都靠随机抓到的平民判决是否有罪，而不是靠法官，只有到最高法院的案子才由大法官判决。平民会有偏见，那偏见往往是偏向于弱者一方而非强者一方。杰斐逊认为，只要偏向于弱者一方，那对强的一方就有在法律方面的掣肘，强者平时就需要收敛一些，发生社会动乱的可能性就低。

三权分立中的法院这一权不是选举制。美国的先贤们知道，每人一票并轮流坐庄的选举制是有缺点的，而指定加终身制也有优点。所以，美国的法官不采取投票选举并且是终身制。

六、汉密尔顿与伯尔的决斗：现代文明与丛林法则的对决

如果说杰斐逊是美国三权分立民主制度之父，汉密尔顿就是美国选举制度之父。如果说在军事上汉密尔顿是仅次于华盛顿的开国元勋，而在美国制度建设上，汉密尔顿则是仅次于杰斐逊的立国元勋。

为了解决普选导致不到半数当选的选举尴尬局面而人为拉大当选者与落选者的票数差异，汉密尔顿发明了“人团票数”的选举方法，美国至今沿用它。汉密尔顿还是美国第一家银行的创始人，也是控制美国金融界的鼻祖。他是美国建国时第一任财长。更重要的是：美国的党派政治是汉密尔顿开启的。汉密尔顿建立了美国第一个政党：联邦党。

在美国开国元勋里，如果找两个“为了理想而奋斗”的老实人，而非利用理想而获得个人地位的，那非汉密尔顿与伯尔莫属。汉密尔顿与伯尔都认为自己是为国家的民主伟业而奋斗，对方是走错了路，对方如果上台，国家将走向毁灭。其实汉密尔顿和伯尔都是被他人不停地鼓动、吓唬的结果无疑。这俩是政客里的好人，或者说是不合格的政客。为理想而奋斗而送死的，是天真；忽悠他人为理想而奋斗而死的，是骗子。

这其实是两种文化的较量与对垒，是以亚当斯为代表的信任自然的、骨子里认可丛林法则的“保守派”与以杰斐逊为代表的现代文明“自由派”的文化分野，也是导致副总统伯尔与汉密尔顿用枪决斗的本质原因——双方都认为对方上台，处在十字路口的合众国，就会步入歧途而无法回转了。

一桩决斗的利与弊

利：伯尔杀死了汉密尔顿这件事让美国人民认同了司法独立是真的，并在心理层面明白、认同了三权分立制度，三权分立再也不是个摆设了。

弊：如果没有伯尔杀死汉密尔顿的事发生，美国南北方解放奴隶的矛盾在萌芽状态就被汉密尔顿化解了。汉密尔顿曾经跟伯尔说过，等他当选为总统后，当即利用他的威望与能力把奴隶制废除。否则，南北之战必不可免。当他打死了汉密尔顿那一刻，他就知道再也没有人有愿望与能力废除奴隶制了，南北战争迟早要发生，国家要么分裂，要么血流成河。

汉密尔顿接受了副总统伯尔的约架被伯尔杀死后，他创建的联邦党也逐步消失，民主共和党一分为二，成为至今还在轮流执政的民主党与共和党。

七、打江山者坐江山：从华盛顿到林肯

美国建国后的总统大选，其结果便是开国元勋们坐江山。这是民意决定的，也是“一分耕耘一分收获”、“种瓜得瓜种豆得豆”、“没有白吃的午餐”这些常识性的规则在政治上的反应，毕竟人类的思维模式都遵从同样的理性逻辑。从第一任总统华盛顿上任到第十一任总统波尔克上任，经历了 56 年。在泰勒之前所有的总统，只有一人不属于开国元勋，他就是亚当斯的儿子小亚当斯。

亚当斯是第二任总统，但他只干了一届就被第三任总统杰弗逊给击败了。为了“补偿”亚当斯理应得到的利益，便把他儿子推上了总统宝座干了一届。父子加起来等于干满了两届。开国元勋里威望最高的华盛顿、亚当斯、杰弗逊、麦迪逊、门罗都干过总统了，唯有威望、功劳也极高的两人：汉密尔顿、伯尔由于决斗一死一逃跑退出了历史政治舞台。

在美国开国元勋们轮流当选完总统之前，其他人没有当选的，是历史的事实。等于实践了“打江山者坐江山”的规则。波尔克上台后立刻面临威望不足的难题，因为打江山与他无关。他立刻发动了美墨战争，把美国领土一步步扩大。波尔克下台 8 年后布坎南上台，南北战争一触即发，布坎南只干了一届就把烫手山芋交给了林肯。林肯通过战争打下了“江山”，制止了国家分裂。

美国的民主政体是独立战争打出来的，是靠南北战争稳固下来的。

打江山的一代人死后如果没有建立起一个在社会稳定前提下交接权力的政体，新的动乱将不可避免。直到林肯打赢了南北内战，开国元勋们“打江山坐江山”的威望认可规则才从国民的心理上淡化，因为发生动乱的战争结局太惨，即使不服总统的统治，那也只好忍受了，动乱的代价想想都可怕。

美国南北战争后，是北方的战略家们认识到必须杀掉林肯，否则南方人要报仇，国家很难稳定。林肯清楚，他即使打赢了内战，他也无法活下来，除非废除宪法。林肯打下天下后的民望太高，（林肯的敌人报复他的）唯一的选择是杀掉他。然而，为了美国的长远利益，林肯选择牺牲自己（而制止了国家分裂）。

八、联邦制：一套为不断扩张量身定做的政体

美国开国元勋们一致不把美国定位为 Country，因为 country 国界是不开放的，不是随便可以进入的，同样也是不可以扩张的。而美国的边界是可以随时扩张的。美国政体设计者杰弗逊本人到晚年自己总统任期下台后还根据美国建国精神鼓励总统攻打加拿大，继续扩张美国的边界。

为何杰斐逊当年极力说服华盛顿要走民主体制？因为杰斐逊主张扩张！两国势均力敌时，民主总统赌的后果：个人啥都没有损失，大不了到时下台，而专制政府独裁者不敢赌，一旦败了，个人甚至全家人性命都被内部另一派给吃掉。美国宪法不惩罚赌输了的总统，而专制政权刚好相反。

什么样的国家制度适合扩张？杰斐逊想到联邦制一点都不意外。而放开思想自由，科学技术就会突飞猛进。民主自由不受宗教的迫害，也会成为最大的扩张软实力。这是一整套体系，是一个完整的系统工程。

他是根据罗马帝国崩溃的根源来设计美国民主制度的。罗马的崩溃与其国家太大无关，是制度上司法不独立于当权者造成的烂透了的腐败。为何扩张如此重要呢？因为美国是联邦制，只有蒸蒸日上时才能有巨大凝聚力。

如何稳定联邦制：不停地发动对外战争

美国的战略家们从此发现了一个铁律：如果不连续的发动对外战争，美国的联邦制就要解体。

美国战略家们汲取了南北分裂的教训，认识到要通过不停的对外战争来获得凝聚力，以保持联邦制的稳固。韩战越战都没有什么经济效益，更没有什么石油利益。美国之所以花如此大的代价，其根本原因在于：只要是对外战争不停，美国的联邦制就会坚如磐石。要知道，根据热力学第二定律，有序的统一需要大的能量的。自由扩散并朝无序方向运动是天然行为。对外战争就等于有了外力、等于有了外部能量的投入。只有这样，才能克服独立出去的张力。

美国发生南北战争，是美国停止了收编而停止对外战争太久造成的。所以，美国的联邦制没有停止扩张的设计，显然就是把世界最终变成民主、共和的大家庭，最终实现人人生而平等。

九、宪法精神：人人生而平等与人类自由的灯塔

美国宪法精神里最核心的是“人人生而平等”。这就给人类的文明发展指明了道路。

美国的《独立宣言》宣告：人人生而平等，经过被政府管理的人们认可并授予的政府权力才是正当的政府权力，人们为了保障人们的生命权、财产权和追求幸福的权力才建立政府，当政府违背这些目的时，人民有权力也有义务变更或废除政府，并根据人民的需要建立新的政府。

美国宪法是个发展大纲，并不是在一开始颁布宪法时就能全部实现。比如“人人生而平等”，其奴隶制到了打江山的一代人全部死后也没废除，直到林肯打赢了南北战争后。

美国的政体最终还是走了杰弗逊的民主自由人权之路，虽然经过了两百多年，也是一步步走过来的。其中三个阶段由三个人做代表：杰弗逊的民主自由人权理念被接受阶段、林肯解放黑奴阶段、马丁路德金民权运动结束种族歧视阶段。也就是杰弗逊理论里的三步走：民主制度建立——自由扩大——人权与种族平等。

那为何杰斐逊富兰克林非要说服亚当斯华盛顿等美国打下天下的元勋们美国需要走人人生而平等的路呢？因为有史以来种族之间的战争惨绝人寰，以后武器的先进，将导致互相残杀的程度更为惨烈。走入人人生而平等的现代文明，还给本民族之内的和平共处带来理念上的可能性。这当然是需要很多代人的一步步努力，大方向就是这么先定下来。

十、设计者的悔恨：51% 对 49% 的专制

在美国的暂短的历史上，最伟大的政治家是给美国制定出三权分立民主制度的杰斐逊，但他也是一个挑拨离间内心最肮脏的政治流氓。杰斐逊不仅仅是政治理论家，他的玩政治手腕非常高。人品方面，他很糟糕。他不是完人。

杰斐逊在晚期就明白地讲他的制度是不合理的，他甚至追悔莫及。他说他设立的这个美国民主制度最终发展成是 51% 的对 49% 的人的专制。这跟他当初想象的可能相差太远。可此时他来不及改了，因为亚当斯他们认为杰斐逊当上总统后才后悔他设计的民主制，他想废除它其目的就是他想一辈子不下台了而恢复独裁制。

他设计的平民审案（抓阄原理）是最合理的最科学的制度，如果总统、议会、最高法院都是抓阄制，那就科学合理多了，政权就跟司法审理一样最大程度脱离开了金钱、财团的控制了。说最大程度，是无法绝对摆脱金钱的影响。

尾声：最后一道壁垒

杰弗逊在设计三权分立的民主政体时，就把总统作为人民大众的出气筒，在事关国家政治动荡的大事面前，最高法院便可作为“定海神针”，把大法官们神秘化，是这个三权分立百姓人人持枪的政体可以正常运作而不发生动荡的最后一道壁垒。

是杰斐逊在亚当斯富兰克林麦迪逊汉密尔顿等开国元勋们的帮助下“把不可能变成可能”，其中最难的三步是：（1）“不以基督教立国”的“政教分离”（2）联邦制而非国家制（3）“人民有持枪权”。其它的，比如三权分立，言论自由等，大家没什么反对声浪。

美国开国元勋们建立的美国是人类自由的灯塔，是不断扩张领土、任何人都随便进入美国的合众国。美国开国元勋们所追求的是迁徒自由、就业自由、居住自由、言论自由、结社自由，是美国疆土的不断扩大，而非画地为牢。所以，从 13 个州开始不停地扩张，直到永远。

The Founding of America: The Founding Fathers’ Theory and Practice

Editor’s note: This article summarizes Lao Yan’s account of the history of America’s founding and the details of its institutional design. Unless otherwise indicated, the content of this article consists of the original words or original meaning of Lao Yan’s many essays and comments. Edited and written by: Dazhi-Ruoyu33

Table of Contents

Introduction: A Duel Running Through the Entire History of the United States…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Independence: The Goal of Conquest Was Merely to Stop Paying Taxes to Britain……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Framing the Constitution: How Democratic Ideals Were Smuggled In Bit by Bit………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Democracy Was Not Endorsed at the Constitutional Convention……… 1

The Basic Framework of the Constitution: The President Directly Elected by the People……………………………………………………………………………… 1

III. Separation of Powers: A System Designed for the Vested-Interest Class…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Two Parties: Advancing Like a Snake Through Competition………………. 1

The Right to Bear Arms: The Touchstone of True Democracy………….. 1
Separation of Church and State and the Citizen Jury: Two Cornerstones of Modern Civilization………………………………………………………… 1
The Hamilton–Burr Duel: Modern Civilization Versus the Law of the Jungle…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

The Benefits and Harms of One Duel……………………………………………………. 1

VII. Those Who Conquer the Land Rule the Land: From Washington to Lincoln…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

VIII. Federalism: A Polity Tailor-Made for Perpetual Expansion……………… 1

How to Stabilize Federalism: Wage Foreign Wars Without Cease……… 1

The Spirit of the Constitution: All Men Are Created Equal, and the Beacon of Human Freedom………………………………………………………………………. 1
The Designer’s Regret: The Tyranny of 51% Over 49%………………………. 1

Epilogue: The Last Bastion…………………………………………………………………………. 1

Introduction: A Duel Running Through the Entire History of the United States

The founding of America was not merely the victory of a war of independence, but a contest and confrontation between two cultures—a duel that began with the Founding Fathers themselves. It was the cultural divide between the “conservatives” represented by Adams—those who trusted nature and, deep down, embraced the law of the jungle—and the modern-civilization “liberals” represented by Jefferson. It was also the underlying reason that Vice President Burr and Hamilton, known as the father of the American Constitution, dueled with pistols: each side believed that if the other came to power, the United States, standing at a crossroads, would take a wrong turn from which it could never return. To save the United States, what did personal sacrifice matter? How many martyrs shed their blood to build the United States.

In truth, the duel between these two factions did not end with Hamilton being shot dead by Burr, nor did it end with the conclusion of the Civil War, and still less will it be brought to a close by the tumultuous Trump/Biden elections. It will run through the entire history of America’s tripartite, separation-of-powers democratic polity, though at each critical stage at least one of the two sides will believe that society has reached a crossroads.

I. Independence: The Goal of Conquest Was Merely to Stop Paying Taxes to Britain

When did Washington ever say he wanted to establish democracy? He fought the War of Independence on Adams’s orders. Only after the war did he gradually accept the federation with separation of powers built by Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others. Before he fought in American Revolutionary War, all he knew was that he wanted independence from Britain. Once the land was won, no longer paying taxes to the British government was the aim of his conquest.

Back then Adams went to persuade Washington to lead the troops: once we become independent we can pay less tax to Britain, and we’ll have more money to buy slaves and build mansions. America’s separation-of-powers system was established by Jefferson, who did not take part in the war; it was he who persuaded the Founding Fathers who had fought in American Revolutionary War—Washington, Adams, Madison, and the rest. Only then did America have a free and democratic system.

Back then Washington did not believe he could be elected, because he had originally been working for Adams. It was Adams who sought him out and put him in charge of the army, so he always regarded Adams as his boss, the investor, while he himself was the CEO. The company belonged to the investor; he was the operating officer, not the company’s owner. Therefore he thought the country belonged to Adams. He was stunned when his votes exceeded Adams’s. By then he had long since gone traveling, and when the election results came out he could not even be found.

The people who understand the British best on this earth are the French. Without the French, there would have been no American independence. It was not Washington who won the country back then—Washington was just a ragtag guerrilla band; the real frontal warfare was the French army wiping out the British troops. The French understood clearly that unless North America was made independent, British tax revenue would flow on without end. The American South was French territory, and when Napoleon sold it to America, part of his calculation was to make America strong enough to utterly destroy the British forces in Canada.

II. Framing the Constitution: How Democratic Ideals Were Smuggled In Bit by Bit

Democracy Was Not Endorsed at the Constitutional Convention

Why did Jefferson contribute the most to building a free and democratic America? The Constitution that America designed over more than a hundred days, through compromise among many elites, contained no provisions guaranteeing citizens’ rights in its final draft. There was no freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or freedom of publication, and not even a guarantee of jury trial for civil cases. Why did this happen? Because some of the authoritative figures among these delegates did not endorse Jefferson’s democratic ideals.

Adams, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, stated: “The experience of every age past shows that democracy is the most unstable, the most volatile, the most short-lived. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Democracy soon degenerates into despotism.”

Madison, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, said: “Democracy is a mirror made of turmoil and strife; it has always been at odds with personal security or property rights, and is usually short-lived, dying in riots.”

The reason the Constitution drafted over those hundred-plus days at the Convention contained no provisions for democracy, freedom, or human rights is precisely that Madison, Hamilton, Adams, and others opposed Jefferson’s democratic philosophy of governance.

He could not persuade everyone at the Convention because he could not deliver speeches, but he later inserted his ideas into the Constitution in the form of amendments. Without Washington, America would still have become independent, because there were military men like Hamilton and Burr; but without Jefferson, America would not have had a democratic system, because he alone tirelessly preached the ideals of democracy, freedom, human rights, and separation of powers, and in the end persuaded those Founding Fathers. When the Declaration of Independence was being drafted, those Founding Fathers thought the declaration was merely a proclamation aimed outward, especially at Britain—a fine-sounding slogan. So they agreed to Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. But at the Constitutional Convention they did not agree, and that is why the first Constitution contained none of Jefferson’s governing ideals—no democracy, no freedom or human rights, no judicial independence whereby ordinary citizens are randomly selected as juries and the jury decides the nature of a case—yet all of these were gradually worked into the Constitution by Jefferson.

After the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gradually gained the upper hand in the theory of America’s founding; the Constitutional Convention came many years after the Declaration. Although the first Constitution still lacked provisions for democracy, freedom, and human rights, the First Amendment was modeled on the laws Jefferson had established in Virginia, and “Jeffersonian democracy” was thus gradually accepted. Jefferson’s democratic theory was gradually accepted by the Founding Fathers and became the guiding ideology of America’s founding.

The Basic Framework of the Constitution: The President Directly Elected by the People

The basic framework of the Constitution—that the president be elected by the people—was the result of Franklin persuading everyone. There were two factions: one favored indirect democracy, in which legislators would elect the president; the other favored popular election. Because Virginia was then the largest state, Madison had a greater say. This is why Madison is called the father of the Constitution. As for how to magnify the effect of the election, the idea of the electoral college emerged. The popular vote might be just 51% to 49%, but the electoral count would create the impression of a far larger margin.

Jefferson enlightened them through letters. Jefferson’s intellect let him know what others were thinking, and he could easily seize on their weak points. He was not merely a political theorist; his political maneuvering was extremely skilled. Therefore, it is Jefferson who is the father of America’s democratic polity, even though he had no merit in defeating Britain, like Washington.

III. Separation of Powers: A System Designed for the Vested-Interest Class

The original intent in designing the separation-of-powers system was to prevent Washington from becoming king. The system he established kept Washington from becoming king; had Jefferson himself won the war against Britain, he would surely have become king.

Jefferson was thinking of the wealthy, so why did he insist on democracy? Because Jefferson knew that only democracy could keep the poor from rebelling, whereas under autocracy the poor have no outlet for their grievances, and once they rebel, the king too is sent to the guillotine. So Jefferson was more far-sighted than those wealthy men who saw only immediate interests. The people who devised the separation-of-powers system were the elite among the billionaires, not paupers thinking on behalf of the poor.

Simply put, Jefferson’s separation-of-powers model was designed to keep the poor from rebelling and to protect the wealthy from political annihilation. It ensured the elite wouldn’t face the fate of disgraced Chinese politicians sent to Qincheng Prison. By stabilizing the system, it prevented a brutal cycle of mutual destruction—a political meat grinder where today’s victor becomes tomorrow’s victim, and everyone ultimately loses.

The separation-of-powers democratic polity Jefferson established was, in essence, a polity through which the country is governed by the elite, with financial conglomerates screening the voters through media they themselves own. Nominally the voters are the masters who elect the president, legislators, governors, and other officeholders, but in reality these candidates are constrained by the financial backers behind them. Once elected, they also cannot run government media, so they can only join hands with the 1% camp to lead the 99% camp.

Two Parties: Advancing Like a Snake Through Competition

Back then, Washington feared two-party rule—feared it greatly. He endorsed something like Confucius’s idea that a gentleman does not form factions. But Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton all agreed there needed to be two parties competing with each other, openly becoming devil-like extremes in the competition, so that they could check one another, and society would advance like a snake amid the swaying competition. That is to say, the less competition, the shorter the lifespan. So it is with companies, and so it is with governments.

On the mutual hostility of America’s two parties: back then President Washington was greatly worried about two-party politics. When the nation faces disaster or crisis, if the two parties still make partisan strife their central concern, then the common people suffer, because the two sides give no ground, distrust each other, and hurl abuse at each other, exhausting all their energy on partisan conflict. Therefore, a president must never serve only his own party’s interests but should unite the opposition party. This is extremely hard to achieve, because compromise runs counter to the human nature of winner-takes-all and survival of the fittest—it is, in effect, anti-natural. So only a very few statesmen can manage to compromise with the opposition.

Why do Western statesmen dare to assert that “two cores” must cause a nation to collapse? When America’s federal system began, after the election whoever had more votes was president and the loser became vice president. Jefferson was the first to discover this flaw. By the time Adams and Jefferson ran for president, not only was it full of gunpowder, but their political views diverged enormously. Yet the defeated Jefferson still had to partner with President Adams. Because Jefferson clearly recognized that such a government formed of the loser and the winner cannot prevent infighting, since two cores form from top to bottom. This approach to governance is inefficient in peacetime because of mutual obstruction; and once war breaks out, the government risks splitting apart.

IV. The Right to Bear Arms: The Touchstone of True Democracy

America became a true democracy precisely because Jefferson gave the American people the right to bear arms. By Jefferson’s standard, the key is whether the people have the right to bear arms. A government that dares to give the people the right to bear arms will not produce “guides” who lead in invaders; it is a true democratic polity.

The essence of Jefferson’s granting the people the right to bear arms was to prevent the situation in which the government produces a dictator opposed to the people who tries to refuse to step down; the people then have the power to take up arms and rise in revolt. Therefore Jefferson said: whether a government truly practices democracy can be judged by whether it dares to give the people the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1791: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Jefferson worried that once the first generation of Founding Fathers who had fought in American Revolutionary War had all passed away, ambitious men who did not understand or did not endorse the essence of the Constitution might come to power and become dictators who would not step down. The solution to this problem was for the people to have the right to bear arms. A dictator is a small clique, even a single individual, not the entire government. The people’s possession of arms exerts enough psychological pressure on anyone who dreams of destroying the democratic polity to make him a dictator that he gives up the ambition.

Jefferson had thought it through long ago. When society and the law cannot give you justice, the gun can give you ultimate justice. If too many die, policies will change. But one must follow the ancient rule: wrongs have their authors, debts their debtors. One must never kill the innocent indiscriminately. Without guns, the weak can only suffer in silence, and the strong grow ever more unscrupulous, so that sooner or later society erupts in great upheaval. On this, Jefferson thought very clearly.

Jefferson saw far. If you view history in units of decades, opposing the people’s right to bear arms has factual support; if you view history in units of a century, the matter becomes hard to judge; but if you view history in units of a millennium, Jefferson’s granting the people the right to bear arms is absolutely correct. Fortunately, with Franklin’s help, Jefferson persuaded the Founding Fathers, and step by step completed the Second Amendment.

V. Separation of Church and State and the Citizen Jury: Two Cornerstones of Modern Civilization

A thousand years from now, looking back at history, Jefferson, who separated church and state, is the true progenitor of modern civilization, a watershed between several stages of human civilization. America was the first secular republic to explicitly mandate the separation of church and state in its Constitution; that the nation shall not be founded on religion and shall establish no state religion was expressly stipulated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in effect from 1791. Freedom of belief was simultaneously protected by law, and no law of Congress could be influenced by any church. From then on humanity embarked on the course of modern civilization, and America became the beacon of freedom.

Jefferson realized that it had to be fixed in the form of constitution and law to ensure that the system of separation of church and state could endure, and this required that the constitutional amendments also affirm freedom of speech, so that cursing religion or cursing the president would be protected by law. The government could not run media to brainwash the masses, so people’s thinking would also be free, creativity could then erupt, and the nation’s continual expansion and attraction of immigrants would follow as a matter of course.

Jefferson still adopted the merits of drawing lots: in trying cases at every level, whether the defendant is guilty is decided by randomly selected ordinary citizens, not by judges; only cases that reach the Supreme Court are decided by the justices. Ordinary citizens will have biases, and those biases tend to favor the weaker side rather than the stronger. Jefferson believed that as long as the bias favors the weaker side, then the stronger side is checked in legal terms, the strong must restrain themselves in ordinary times, and the likelihood of social upheaval is lower.

Of the three branches in the separation of powers, the judicial power is not elective. America’s forefathers knew that the one-person-one-vote, rotating-turns electoral system has drawbacks, while appointment plus life tenure also has merits. Therefore America’s judges are not chosen by vote and serve for life.

VI. The Hamilton–Burr Duel: Modern Civilization Versus the Law of the Jungle

If Jefferson is the father of America’s separation-of-powers democratic system, then Hamilton is the father of America’s electoral system. If in military terms Hamilton was the Founding Father second only to Washington, then in building America’s institutions Hamilton was the founding statesman second only to Jefferson.

To solve the awkward electoral situation in which the popular vote produces a winner with less than half the vote, and to artificially widen the vote gap between winner and loser, Hamilton invented the “electoral college” method of voting, which America uses to this day. Hamilton was also the founder of America’s first bank and the progenitor of control over America’s financial world. He was the first Treasury Secretary at the nation’s founding. More importantly: America’s party politics was begun by Hamilton. Hamilton founded America’s first political party: the Federalist Party.

Among America’s Founding Fathers, if you were to find two honest men who “struggled for an ideal” rather than using ideals to gain personal standing, they would be none other than Hamilton and Burr. Both Hamilton and Burr believed they were struggling for the nation’s great democratic cause, that the other had taken the wrong road, and that if the other came to power the nation would head toward ruin. In truth, both Hamilton and Burr were undoubtedly the product of being ceaselessly egged on and frightened by others. These two were the good men among politicians—or, put another way, unqualified politicians. To struggle and die for an ideal is naivety; to deceive others into struggling and dying for an ideal is the work of a swindler.

This was in essence a contest and confrontation between two cultures—the cultural divide between the “conservatives” represented by Adams, who trusted nature and at heart embraced the law of the jungle, and the modern-civilization “liberals” represented by Jefferson. It was also the underlying reason Vice President Burr and Hamilton dueled with pistols—each side believed that if the other came to power, the United States, standing at a crossroads, would take a wrong turn from which it could never return.

The Benefits and Harms of One Duel

The benefit: the fact that Burr killed Hamilton made the American people recognize that judicial independence was real, and at a psychological level understand and accept the separation-of-powers system; the separation of powers was no longer just for show.

The harm: had the killing of Hamilton by Burr not occurred, the conflict between North and South over emancipating the slaves would have been resolved by Hamilton while still in the bud. Hamilton had told Burr that once he was elected president, he would immediately use his prestige and ability to abolish slavery. Otherwise, war between North and South would be inevitable. The moment he killed Hamilton, he knew that no one else any longer had the will and the ability to abolish slavery, that the Civil War would sooner or later occur, and that the nation would either split apart or run with blood.

After Hamilton accepted Vice President Burr’s challenge and was killed by Burr, the Federalist Party he had founded gradually disappeared, and the Democratic-Republican Party split in two, becoming the Democratic Party and the Republican Party that still take turns governing to this day.

VII. Those Who Conquer the Land Rule the Land: From Washington to Lincoln

After America’s founding, the result of the presidential elections was that the Founding Fathers ruled the land. This was determined by the popular will, and it was also the political reflection of common-sense rules such as “you reap what you sow,” “plant melons and you get melons, plant beans and you get beans,” and “there is no free lunch”—after all, human thought follows the same rational logic. From the inauguration of the first president, Washington, to the inauguration of the eleventh president, Polk, fifty-six years passed. Before Tyler, of all the presidents, only one was not a Founding Father: Adams’s son, John Quincy Adams.

Adams was the second president, but he served only one term before being defeated by the third president, Jefferson. To “compensate” Adams for the interests he rightly deserved, his son was pushed onto the presidential throne for one term. Father and son together amounted to two full terms. Among the Founding Fathers, those of highest prestige—Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe—had all served as president; only two of equally high prestige and merit, Hamilton and Burr, withdrew from the historical political stage because of the duel, one dead and one a fugitive.

Before the Founding Fathers had taken turns being elected president, no one else was elected—this is a historical fact. It amounted to the practice of the rule that “those who conquer the land rule the land.” Once Polk took office he immediately faced the problem of insufficient prestige, since the conquest of the land had nothing to do with him. He immediately launched the Mexican-American War, expanding America’s territory step by step. Eight years after Polk left office, Buchanan took office, the Civil War was on the verge of breaking out, and Buchanan, after serving just one term, handed the hot potato to Lincoln. Lincoln, through war, “fought in American Revolutionary War” and halted the nation’s division.

America’s democratic polity was fought out in the War of Independence and made firm by the Civil War.

If, after the generation that fought in American Revolutionary War dies, no polity has been established to transfer power under conditions of social stability, new upheaval will be inevitable. It was only after Lincoln won the Civil War that the rule of “those who conquer the land rule the land,” by which prestige was recognized, faded from the national psyche, because the outcome of upheaval and war was too terrible: even those who would not submit to a president’s rule had no choice but to endure it, for the cost of upheaval was dreadful to contemplate.

After America’s Civil War, it was the strategists of the North who recognized that Lincoln had to be killed; otherwise the Southerners would seek revenge and the nation would be hard to stabilize. Lincoln understood clearly that even if he won the Civil War, he could not survive unless the Constitution were abolished. After conquering the land, Lincoln’s popularity was too high, and the only choice (for Lincoln’s enemies seeking revenge) was to kill him. Yet for America’s long-term interest, Lincoln chose to sacrifice himself (and thereby halted the nation’s division).

VIII. Federalism: A Polity Tailor-Made for Perpetual Expansion

America’s Founding Fathers unanimously declined to define America as a “Country,” because a country’s borders are not open, cannot be entered freely, and likewise cannot be expanded. America’s borders, by contrast, can be expanded at any time. Jefferson, the designer of America’s polity, even after his own presidential term had ended and he had stepped down, still in his later years urged the president, in the spirit of America’s founding, to attack Canada and continue expanding America’s borders.

Why did Jefferson back then strenuously persuade Washington to take the democratic road? Because Jefferson advocated expansion! When two nations are evenly matched, the consequence for a democratic president who gambles and loses: personally he loses nothing—at worst he steps down when the time comes. But an autocratic dictator dares not gamble, for if he loses, his own life and even his whole family’s lives are devoured by another faction within. America’s Constitution does not punish a president who gambles and loses; an autocratic regime is exactly the opposite.

What kind of national system suits expansion? It is not at all surprising that Jefferson thought of federalism. And once freedom of thought is unleashed, science and technology advance by leaps and bounds. Democracy and freedom, unpersecuted by religion, also become the greatest soft power of expansion. This is an entire system, a complete systems-engineering project.

He designed America’s democratic system based on the root cause of the Roman Empire’s collapse. Rome’s collapse had nothing to do with the country being too large; it was the rotten-to-the-core corruption caused by an institutional failure to make the judiciary independent of those in power. Why is expansion so important? Because America is a federal system, and only when it is thriving and ascendant can it have enormous cohesion.

How to Stabilize Federalism: Wage Foreign Wars Without Cease

America’s strategists thereafter discovered an iron law: if it does not continuously wage foreign wars, America’s federal system will disintegrate.

America’s strategists drew the lesson from the North-South split and recognized that cohesion had to be obtained through ceaseless foreign wars in order to keep the federal system firm. The Korean War and the Vietnam War had no economic benefit, still less any oil interest. The reason America paid such an enormous price lies in this: as long as foreign wars do not cease, America’s federal system will be rock-solid. Bear in mind that, according to the second law of thermodynamics, an ordered union requires great energy. Free diffusion and motion toward disorder are natural behaviors. A foreign war is equivalent to having an external force, equivalent to the input of external energy. Only thus can the tension toward breaking away and becoming independent be overcome.

America’s Civil War occurred because America had stopped annexing and had ceased foreign wars for too long. Therefore America’s federal system, with its design that never stops expanding, was evidently meant to ultimately turn the world into a great democratic, republican family, and ultimately realize that all men are created equal.

IX. The Spirit of the Constitution: All Men Are Created Equal, and the Beacon of Human Freedom

The most core element in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution is that “all men are created equal.” This pointed the way for the advance of human civilization.

America’s Declaration of Independence proclaims: all men are created equal; the just powers of government are derived only from the consent of the governed and granted by them; governments are instituted to secure people’s rights to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness; and when a government violates these ends, the people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government according to the people’s needs.

The U.S. Constitution is a developmental outline; it could not all be realized the moment the Constitution was first promulgated. For example, “all men are created equal”—slavery was not abolished even after the entire generation that fought in American Revolutionary War had died, not until Lincoln won the Civil War.

America’s polity ultimately took Jefferson’s road of democracy, freedom, and human rights, though it took more than two hundred years and was walked step by step. Three stages are represented by three men: the stage in which Jefferson’s ideals of democracy, freedom, and human rights were accepted; the stage in which Lincoln freed the slaves; and the stage in which Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement ended racial discrimination. That is, the three steps in Jefferson’s theory: the establishment of a democratic system—the expansion of freedom—human rights and racial equality.

So why did Jefferson and Franklin insist on persuading Adams, Washington, and the other Founding Fathers who had fought in American Revolutionary War that America needed to take the road of “all men are created equal”? Because throughout history wars between races have been horrifically cruel, and as weapons became more advanced, the degree of mutual slaughter would only become more brutal. Entering the modern civilization in which all men are created equal also gave conceptual possibility to peaceful coexistence within one’s own people. This of course required the step-by-step effort of many generations; the broad direction was simply set down first in this way.

X. The Designer’s Regret: The Tyranny of 51% Over 49%

In America’s brief history, the greatest statesman was Jefferson, who devised the separation-of-powers democratic system for America, but he was also a political scoundrel of the dirtiest heart, a sower of discord. Jefferson was not merely a political theorist; his political maneuvering was extremely skilled. In terms of character, he was very bad. He was not a perfect man.

In his later years Jefferson plainly said that his system was unreasonable, and he even bitterly regretted it. He said the American democratic system he had established ultimately developed into the tyranny of 51% over 49%. This was perhaps very far from what he had originally imagined. But by then it was too late for him to change it, because Adams and the others believed that Jefferson regretted the democratic system he had designed only after becoming president, and that his aim in wanting to abolish it was that he wanted never to step down and to restore autocracy.

The trial-by-ordinary-citizens (the drawing-of-lots principle) that he designed is the most reasonable and most scientific system; if the president, the legislature, and the Supreme Court were all chosen by lot, it would be far more scientific and reasonable, and political power, like judicial adjudication, would be detached to the greatest possible degree from the control of money and financial conglomerates. To the greatest possible degree—meaning the influence of money can never be absolutely escaped.

Epilogue: The Last Bastion

When Jefferson designed the separation-of-powers democratic polity, he made the president the lightning rod for the masses; in great matters concerning the nation’s political upheaval, the Supreme Court could serve as the “sea-stabilizing needle.” Shrouding the justices in mystery is the last bastion that allows this separation-of-powers polity, in which every citizen bears arms, to operate normally without upheaval.

It was Jefferson who, with the help of Adams, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and the other Founding Fathers, “turned the impossible into the possible,” the three hardest steps of which were: (1) the “separation of church and state” of “not founding the nation on Christianity”; (2) federalism rather than a unitary national system; and (3) “the people’s right to bear arms.” As for the rest—such as separation of powers and freedom of speech—there was little voice of opposition.

The America the Founding Fathers built is the beacon of human freedom, a union that perpetually expands its territory and that anyone may freely enter. What America’s Founding Fathers pursued was freedom of movement, freedom of employment, freedom of residence, freedom of speech, and freedom of association—the continual enlargement of America’s domain, not drawing a circle to imprison oneself. And so, from thirteen states, it expanded without cease, forever onward.