In defense of the Ancient Greeks and Romans

“In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and REPRESENTING the people in their EXECUTIVE capacity … Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AT LARGE. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE; and PARTIALLY representing them in their LEGISLATIVE capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people.”

– Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 63)

Western culture now seems to be falling out of fashion today. People understandably want to praise the other cultures of the world, and note that they made significant contributions to the arts, sciences, and philosophy. They thus feel that we somehow have to downgrade the contributions of the West. They seem to feel that elevating other cultures requires us to knock Western culture off of its pedestal – a problematic proposition. The legacy of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is one of the casualties of this problematic way of thinking. The Ancient Greeks and Romans may have been “great,” say others, but they were just two cultures among many – and they were no more “great” than any other cultures, says this group. They may have been “special,” this group admits, but all cultures are “special” – depriving this word of any real meaning.

The Pynx in Greece, the meeting place of the people of Athens

So what did the Ancient Greeks and Romans really leave us, you might be wondering? Oh, nothing much: just democracy … and maybe a few other important things. This post will try to explain why the Ancient Greeks and Romans were different. I should note that, to my knowledge, I don’t have a single drop of Greek or Italian blood in me. Thus, to me, this is not about genetics or “privileged bloodlines.” Rather, I see this as being about ideas – with freedom, possibly, being the very greatest of those classical ideas. By creating popular government, the Ancient Greeks and Romans both left us a legacy of free inquiry and pursuit of truth. To me, that is their greatest legacy. It needs to be remembered today, and it needs to be reverently (and thoughtfully) taught today.

The “Forum Romanum,” better known as the Roman Forum

A review of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”

“The best writings of antiquity upon government those I mean of Aristotle, Zeno and Cicero are lost. We have human nature, society, and universal history to observe and study, and from these we may draw, all the real principles which ought to be regarded.”

– John Adams, in a letter to Samuel Adams (18 October 1790)

Surprisingly, I actually found it easier to read Aristotle (in the original Greek, at least) than Plato

I have read Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” in the original Ancient Greek. Specifically, I read the work from February 2023 to May 2025. (More about why I learned Ancient Greek here, and more about how exactly I learned the language here.) I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the work. It was one of the most interesting works that I’ve ever had the privilege to read. Before undertaking this work, I had been reading some works by Plato instead, including Plato’s lengthy work “Republic.” But I had been somewhat worried about undertaking to read Aristotle, because of a quote from the historian Will Durant. Specifically, Will Durant once quipped that “We must not expect of Aristotle such literary brilliance as floods the pages of the dramatist-philosopher Plato. Instead of giving us great literature, in which philosophy is embodied (and obscured) in myth and imagery, Aristotle gives us science, technical, abstract, concentrated; if we go to him for entertainment we shall sue for the return of our money.” (See the same quotation at the beginning of this blog post for the relevant citation.) After hearing this quote, I was figuring that Aristotle would thus be harder for me to read than Plato. But my reaction was actually the opposite. That is, I actually found Aristotle easier to read (in the original, at least) than Plato.

Aristotle

Even after 1776, the Founding Fathers remained proud of their British heritage

“In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 26), written 1787

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against Great Britain, but were still proud of their heritage

In the thirteen American colonies, George Washington once fought on behalf of the mother country of Great Britain. At that time, the colonies had not even contemplated declaring their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, George Washington fought as a British soldier, early in the “French and Indian War” (as it is now called). Benjamin Franklin spent an even longer portion of his life being patriotic to Great Britain, and even working as part of the distant British government. Nonetheless, both men would eventually rebel against the mother country, with Benjamin Franklin voting in the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain. George Washington would even take up arms against the British Empire on the battlefield. For many years, the British (and their American Loyalist allies) would be extremely unpopular in the rebellious American colonies, and in the new American republic that was soon succeeding them. This would eventually lead the colonies to fight against Great Britain one more time in the War of 1812, under President James Madison. Thus, you might expect that the Founding Fathers would have begun to hate their British heritage. But, on the contrary, they continued to remain proud of many aspects of their British heritage. This post will attempt to show this, and explain why they were right to remain proud of the mother country’s heritage, even after 1776.

Lord Cornwallis surrenders to General George Washington at Yorktown, 1781

Did the Iroquois Confederacy influence the Constitution?

“Helvetius and Rousseau preached to the French nation liberty, till they made them the most mechanical slaves; equality till they destroyed all equity; humanity till they became weasels, and Affrican panthers; and fraternity till they cutt one anothers throats like Roman gladiators.”

– John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (21 May 1821)

I turn now to some hypothesized “influences” upon the United States Constitution

On this blog, I have extensively discussed the influences on the Constitution – such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume. Many of these influences are well-attested by evidence. Here, I turn to some other “influences” upon the Constitution which are merely hypothesized. These include the Greek philosopher Plato, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Iroquois Confederacy – a historical group of Native American tribes. There are popular theories in some quarters that they “influenced” the United States Constitution to a significant degree. Thus, I plan here to examine some of the debates regarding these theories, and inquire into the evidence for them.

Plato

How the Greeks and Romans influenced the Founding Fathers

Note: This blog post quotes from some historical documents, which contain words that would now be considered offensive. These words are only in quotation, and do not represent the views of this blog.

Did the Greeks and Romans influence the Founding Fathers? Personally, I believe that they did indeed do so, but I should nonetheless first acknowledge the only contrary quotation that I have yet found. Specifically, in 1782, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “We may preach till we are tired of the theme, the necessity of disinterestedness in republics, without making a single proselyte. The virtuous declaimer will neither persuade himself nor any other person to be content with a double mess of porridge,* instead of a reasonable stipend for his services. We might as soon reconcile ourselves to the Spartan community of goods and wives, to their iron coin, their long beards, or their black broth. There is a total dissimulation in the circumstances, as well as the manners, of society among us; and it is as ridiculous to seek for models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome, as it would be to go in quest of them among the Hottentots [his word, not mine] and Laplanders.” (Source: His writing entitled “The Continentalist No. VI, 4 July 1782”) As Wikipedia informs us, Hamilton’s chosen term of “Hottentots” (again, his word, not mine) was once used to refer to a particular tribe in South Africa, but the term is now considered a little offensive. By contrast, the term “Laplanders” refers to a group in Northeastern Europe, located in and around Finland. Thus, Alexander Hamilton thought it “as ridiculous to seek for models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome” as it was to “go in quest of them” among these other groups.

Alexander Hamilton

The Roman Republic attained to the “utmost height” of human greatness

However, in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton would later write that “the Roman republic attained to the utmost height of human greatness.” (See the quotation at the beginning of this link for the details.) Thus, Alexander Hamilton still had some admiration for the “simple ages of Greece and Rome” (as he had earlier put it), even if he had some reservations about “seek[ing] for models” among them. What evidence exists, then, that the Ancient Greeks and Romans did indeed influence the Founding Fathers? In this blog post, I will try to answer this question. As I will show here, the evidence is massive, and shows that the Founding Fathers gratefully acknowledged their debt to both Greek and Roman society.

Greek philosopher Socrates

Algernon Sidney influenced the U. S. Declaration of Independence

“This book contains all the malice, and revenge, and treason, that mankind can be guilty of: It fixes the sole power in the parliament and the people … The king, it says, is responsible to them, the king is but their trustee; that he had betrayed his trust, he had misgoverned, and now he is to give it up, that they may be all kings themselves. Gentlemen, I must tell you, I think I ought more than ordinarily to press this upon you, because I know, the misfortune of the late unhappy rebellion, and the bringing the late blessed king to the scaffold, was first begun by such kind of principles …”

– Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, in the trial of Algernon Sidney (1683) – explaining the reasons for his decision to have Sidney executed for high treason at that time

Algernon Sidney

Algernon Sidney was executed by the English government in 1683 for writing a book

Algernon Sidney was executed by the English government in 1683 for writing a book. Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys convicted him of high treason for writing these “Discourses Concerning Government.” (See the quotation at the beginning of this blog post, to hear Justice Jeffreys’ account of why he did so.) But others would later sing the praises of this book. One writer would call it “the textbook of the American Revolution.” Some referred to Algernon Sidney as “Sidney the Martyr,” because he paid for that book with his life. And, most prominently, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both fans of this book. Thomas Jefferson said that it was “probably the best elementary book of the principles of government, as founded in natural right, which has ever been published in any language.” (See the citation for this praise later on in this post.) I have not yet read this book, but I might like to do so at some point, after hearing the praise from these two men. In this post, I will examine Sidney’s influence upon John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. I will also try to show Sidney’s influence upon the Declaration of Independence.

Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, who had Algernon Sidney executed for treason

The Founding Fathers strongly criticized Plato’s “Republic” (and for good reason)

“Socrates had reason indeed to complain of the misrepresentations of Plato; for in truth his dialogues are libels on Socrates.”

– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams (5 July 1814)

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek …

I recently finished reading Plato’s “Republic” in the original Greek. But I’m still not convinced by its arguments. Why? Among other things, because Plato advocated having a philosopher-king with absolute power. (But I’m getting ahead of myself here.) I have given my own response to these ideas in another post, so I will not spend much time giving my ideas here. Rather, I will here focus on some of the responses from our Founding Fathers. Specifically, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both criticized Plato’s “Republic,” and so did one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. But in order to understand why they did so, I must first examine some of the arguments from “The Republic” itself – namely, the parts that the Founding Fathers most objected to. If you’ve already read my main post about Plato’s arguments, please feel free to skip this next paragraph.

Plato

… but I’m still not convinced by its arguments (which I briefly summarize here)

The Greek title of Plato’s “Republic” is ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ (“Politeia”). It has many translations, including “constitution.” Nonetheless, it might be best translated as “political entity.” In English, the work is ironically known as “The Republic” – but by modern standards, this is something of a misnomer. His “political entity” is far different from what we would today consider a “republic.” James Madison defined a “republic” as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place” (Source: Federalist No. 10). But this does not describe the “ideal” state of Plato. Rather (as mentioned earlier), Plato’s “ideal state” is led by a philosopher-king with absolute power. The philosopher-king is to rule for life. Plato reassures his readers that the philosopher-king will refrain from “abusing” his power, but does not provide any convincing reasons that his scheme will indeed prevent this from happening (something that a good system should be expected to do, in my opinion). The philosopher-king has power to determine the occupations that his individual subjects enter into, and also has power to censor any idea (political or otherwise) that he deems to be “dangerous” or “undesirable.” He also has absolute control over education for both the young and the old, and has power to arrange marriages between his subjects to promote “good breeding” – an idea now known as “eugenics.” These things have a tendency to make “The Republic” into something far less than an ideal state.

Plato

John Adams praised James Harrington’s “The Commonwealth of Oceana”

“These are what are called revolution-principles. They are the principles of Aristotle and Plato, of Livy and Cicero, of Sydney, Harrington and Lock[e].—The principles of nature and eternal reason.—The principles on which the whole government over us, now stands.”

– John Adams (writing under the pen name of “Novanglus”), in a letter “To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay, 23 January 1775”

John Adams was a great fan of the English political writer James Harrington

In 1656, the English political writer James Harrington wrote a book called “The Commonwealth of Oceana.” In this work, James Harrington advocated a republic, calling it the “ideal” form of government (or words to that effect). I should give a disclaimer that I have not read Harrington’s “Oceana,” and I don’t yet know how much I would agree with it. But it is clear that John Adams was a great fan of it. John Adams would later give great praise of both this book and its author. In 1775, Adams wrote a series of letters under the pen name of “Novanglus.” In one of these letters (the one quoted above), Adams credited Harrington with “revolution-principles.” But Adams also wrote another letter addressed “To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay” (among others). One of them contains some more of his praise of James Harrington. Thus, I would like to quote from what John Adams said, to show how Harrington had an influence on the young John Adams.

James Harrington

Actually, Rousseau did NOT influence the Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)

Wikipedia argues that Rousseau influenced the Founding Fathers …

I have often heard people claim that Rousseau “influenced” the Founding Fathers. One of my high school history teachers said this, and so have some websites. Most prominently, Wikipedia is among those who claim this. But absolutely none of these sources ever offered any convincing evidence that this is actually the case. Moreover, most of the Founding Father quotes about Rousseau are negative, casting doubt upon the idea that he “influenced” them to any significant degree (or at all, for that matter).

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Influences on the Constitution

Introduction: The document that changed everything in America …

When the Constitution was written, there was a lot going on at that time! The questions of this series. My aims in this series.

Interior of Independence Hall

Influences on the Constitution