By Sasha Alex Lessin, Ph.D. (Anthropology, UCLA)
THE IROQUOIS’ GREAT LAW OF PEACE — AMERICA’S ORIGINAL MODEL OF DEMOCRACY
Long before Europeans envisioned a modern republic, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) had already established a functioning, stable, and centuries-old democracy. They lived across what became northern and western New York, calling themselves People of the Longhouse—a metaphor for shared governance and shared destiny.
The Iroquois Confederacy formed under the GREAT PEACEMAKER, DEGANAWIDA, who ended internal war among the five nations and created a system where each nation retained local autonomy but united on matters of war, peace, and diplomacy.
The Iroquois Constitution—the Great Law of Peace–enshrined:
consensus,
checks and balances,
federalism, and
crucially, female political power.
Clan mothers could veto male chiefs whose behavior was deemed detrimental to the public good.
Iroquois governance stood in stark contrast to the European model the colonists brought. In Europe, property-owning men held power while women, enslaved peoples, and excluded indigenous nations.
This stood in stark contrast to the European model the colonists brought: property-owning men held power while women, enslaved peoples, and Indigenous nations were excluded.
Yet it was the Iroquois model—not Greece, not Rome—that showed the colonists that large-scale democracy was possible. Not theory. Not philosophy. A working system they could see with their own eyes.
FRANKLIN & THE ALBANY PLAN — HOW THE IROQUOIS INSPIRED AMERICAN UNION
In 1754, delegates from several colonies met with members of the Iroquois Confederacy at the Albany Congress. There, Benjamin Franklin observed how effectively the Haudenosaunee governed themselves and defended their shared interests.
Inspired, he drafted the Albany Plan of Union—a proposal explicitly modeled on the Iroquois Confederacy. It failed at the time, but its ideas later resurfaced in the U.S. Constitution.
Franklin remarked, “If six nations of so-called savages can form a union that lasts for ages, surely the English colonies can do the same.”
He saw clearly what too many modern politicians forget: The purpose of a Union was to prevent any one man from becoming a monarch.
In the 18th century, that meant resisting King George III.
In the 21st Century, Union means resisting any president who behaves like a king—including Donald Trump, whose attempt to bypass constitutional limits echoed the monarchic abuses the founders feared most.
THE GREAT LAW VS. EUROPEAN MONARCHY — WHAT THE FOUNDERS TRIED TO STOP
When delegates met in 1787 for the Constitutional Convention, no European democracy existed. Europe had kings, emperors, and aristocrats—precisely the kind of system the colonists sought to escape.
The only functioning democracies the founders personally knew were the Native American governments with whom they traded, negotiated, and sometimes clashed.
John Adams’ three-volume survey of governments—prepared for the Convention—included not only Locke and Montesquieu, but the Iroquois Confederacy.
Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin all interacted regularly with Native diplomats. To them, the idea that America should ignore Indigenous political models would have been absurd.
The founders deliberately designed a structure to prevent another King George III—and any future leader—from seizing power.
Their safeguards targeted:
- tyranny
- dictatorship
- cult of personality
- executive overreach
Safeguards many Americans now see under threat again in the age of Trump, whose assertion that a president should have “total authority” would have horrified both Franklin and the Iroquois statesmen he admired.
TAXES, TEA & OLIGARCHY — PRELUDE TO REVOLUTION
The Revolution began not with abstract philosophy but with unfair economic domination by oligarchs—a pattern tragically echoed in modern times.
The Tea Act of 1773 was designed to rescue the collapsing East India Tea Company, a multinational corporation whose investors dominated Parliament. The Act slashed taxes for the Company while keeping high duties on local merchants. Parliament then insisted the Americans buy monopoly East India Tea Company tea, refusing Colonists the right to grow or import their own.
This was the 18th-century version of a government captured by billionaires—precisely the sort of system Trump has celebrated and advanced through his own tariff schemes.
When Company tea arrived in Boston, colonists dumped it into the harbor—an act of economic defiance, not mindless rebellion. Britain responded by blockading Boston and demanding repayment.
This led directly to the First Continental Congress, where colonial delegates met in Philadelphia to decide their future.
In 1776, the Continental Congress met under immense pressure. Some delegates feared British retaliation, loss of property, imprisonment, or death. The room was filled with doubt, hesitation, and strained tempers.
Then came the moment recorded in strange accounts, described by early American authors, philosophers, and eyewitnesses only as “the Unknown Patriot” or “the Mysterious Gentleman.”
Janet Kira Lessin proposes that this figure may have been Enki, the wise Anunnaki scientist long associated with human freedom, compassion, and partnership social structures. Many delegates said the figure seemed to shimmer, radiate, or speak with a resonance that was beyond the range of a normal human voice.
According to these accounts, the being declared:
“This cause is not yours alone. It belongs to the generations to come. Rise above fear. Unite. Let liberty be your guiding star.”
He showed them a vision of a future republic where tyranny would be restrained, unity would prevail over division, and the ideals sown among the Iroquois would shape a nation.
The delegates, shaken and inspired, signed the Declaration of Independence.
THE LEGACY — A WARNING FOR OUR TIME
The Founders drew heavily from the Iroquois model of confederated democracy, aiming to prevent kingship, tyranny, or dictatorship from ever establishing a foothold in America.
Yet the colonists excluded women, rejecting the Haudenosaunee insight that power is only stable when women share authority. This omission still haunts American politics.
The founders’ anti-monarchical intent is clear:
- They divided powers.
- They checked the executive.
- They feared demagogues.
- They designed impeachment and removal mechanisms.
- They expected citizens to resist any future “King George.”
Today, the rise of leaders who express admiration for dictators, claim “total authority,” or seek to overturn elections—including Donald Trump—represents exactly the threat the founders sought to prevent.
Franklin’s voice echoes across centuries:
“A republic—if you can keep it.”
#Haudenosaunee, #GreatLawOfPeace, #BenFranklin, #AlbanyPlanOfUnion, #ConstitutionalConvention, #PartnershipGovernance, #ClanMothers, #FemaleVetoPower, #AntiMonarchySafeguards, #AntiTyrannyDesign, #KingGeorgeIII, #BostonTeaParty, #EastIndiaTeaCompany, #OligarchTariffs, #ContinentalCongress, #DeclarationOfIndependence, #UnknownPatriot, #Enki, #AnunnakiInfluence, #NativeAmericanDemocracy, #Federalism, #ChecksAndBalances, #WampumBelt, #IndigenousDiplomacy, #AmericanRevolution, #TrumpAuthoritarianism, #PreventDictatorship, #ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt, #HaudenosauneeInfluence, #UnityInDiversity, #Philadelphia1776, #FreedomAndSelfGovernance
