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

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

A review of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

“The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads ; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other ; both of which are equally productive of confusion.”

– Opening lines of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 1

So I spent four and a half years reading Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work which influenced our Founding Fathers. The first volume was originally released in 1765, and the last was originally released in 1769. This is one of the best books that I’ve ever read, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. But this is the first post in which I’ve attempted to give an overview of the entire work. Thus, I will try to summarize the work for those who’ve never read it before. In doing so, I will give my reaction to the different volumes of Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” and what parts of each volume most stood out to me personally.

Title page of the original edition of the first volume of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

A review of “The Federalist Papers” (audiobook)

“I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: The utility of the Union to your political prosperity; the insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union; the necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object; the conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government; its analogy to your own state constitution; and lastly, the additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

“The Federalist Papers” has long been one of my favorite books. More than any other book, it helped to get the Constitution ratified by the thirteen states. But the importance of the Federalist Papers transcends the ratification debates. It is a timeless work, because it explains the intended purposes of virtually every clause in the Constitution, which is still the law of the land today. It is the most important work written by the Founding Fathers about the Constitution, and is used to interpret the intended meaning of the document today. Since this is an area of major controversy, this debate is one of the most practical in all of American politics.

A review of “The Constitutional Convention” (audiobook)

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation: but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely, in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.”

“Resolved. that the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first.”

– Articles 7 and 8 of the “Virginia Plan” (1787), the first draft of the United States Constitution (written by James Madison)

I had already seen a fine docudrama about the Constitutional Convention, before I ever listened to this audiobook. This was “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation” (which I review here). Obviously, there are advantages to a docudrama over any audiobook, such as the entertainment value of the powerful visuals that it includes. The docudrama may also be better at covering the greatest issue of the Convention, which was the controversy over representation. But this audiobook is better at covering pretty much everything else about the Convention. It covers issues not touched upon in the docudrama, such as the debates over the executive and judicial branches. These debates were quite important for the final document.

A review of “The Ratification Debates” (audiobook)

“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

– The Constitution’s most immediate predecessor, which was the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” (ratified 1781), Section XIII, Paragraph 1

This audiobook may be the finest overview of the ratification debates that I have ever heard. I haven’t found any equally good coverage of this subject in the television world, so I’m quite content to get this from an audiobook. In some ways, this audiobook may be even better. This covers the fiery debates over whether or not to ratify our current Constitution.

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

“Publius”: The secret pen name of three Founding Fathers

"As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side or the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, without an unmeaning compliment, I will say that I have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind, as the Production of your Triumvirate. When the transient circumstances & fugitive performances which attended this crisis shall have disappeared, that work will merit the notice of Posterity; because in it are candidly discussed the principles of freedom & the topics of government, which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in Civil Society."

- George Washington, in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (August 28, 1788)

It was common at this time for Americans to write under pen names named after great Romans

During the debates over whether or not to ratify the Constitution, authors on both sides of the debate wrote a series of anonymous "letters to the editor[s]" of newspapers under various pen names. There were advantages to writing these articles anonymously, of course, when one wished to say controversial things in these debates that could offend one's friends if they were known publicly. Among these authors were many who had actually named their alter egos after people in Roman history, whose accomplishments they thus wished to invoke in their arguments. The Constitution's opponents, for example, included "Brutus" (possibly Melancton Smith or Robert Yates or even John Williams), and "Cato" (possibly New York governor George Clinton). These were both names of people who had opposed the Roman monarchy (or at least, a particular manifestation of that monarchy). Thus, this would imply that they were opposed to a repeat of such monarchy in America.

George Clinton, a possible identity of the author that called himself "Cato"

Alexander Hamilton considered Gouverneur Morris and William Duer to write as "Publius"

The Constitution's supporters wrote under classical pen names, too; and theirs were equally indebted to Greek and Roman history. Alexander Hamilton made the unfortunate mistake once of using the pen name "Caesar." The condescending tone that he used when writing under this pen name made him almost as many enemies as the ill-chosen pen name itself. When he finally learned his lesson (and it fortunately didn't take him long to learn it), he returned to another pen name that he had used before, which was the pen name of "Publius." (Hamilton's prior use of this pen name, incidentally, was to attack fellow Federalist Samuel Chase for using some inside knowledge from Congress to try and dominate the flour market. Specifically, Hamilton used three letters under this name to question Chase's patriotism in 1778.) When he began recruiting collaborators for the now-famous Federalist Papers in 1787, Hamilton apparently approached Gouverneur Morris and William Duer about becoming contributors, before finally settling on James Madison and John Jay instead. Gouverneur Morris apparently turned down the invitation to work on the "Publius" papers, and Hamilton actually rejected three essays later written by William Duer, despite having invited him to participate in the first place. (William Duer would later write under the alternative pen name of "Philo-Publius," or "Friend of Publius," instead.)

Gouverneur Morris, who turned down the opportunity to write a portion of the Federalist Papers

William Duer, who wrote three essays that Hamilton later rejected as part of the Federalist Papers

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

An overview of the American presidency

"The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... "

- Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution

The White House, where every president of the United States has lived (excepting the first)

Unlike the Congress, the executive branch is controlled by a single individual, who is usually referred to in the masculine in the linguistic style of that time; although there are no prohibitions on a feminine president anywhere in the Constitution, so it is possible to have a female president (although I should note that at the time I write this, it has not happened yet). With this gender clarification in mind, I will give the portion of the Constitution establishing the executive branch: "The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years" (Source: Article 2, Section 1). There is usually also a Vice President of the United States, who is first in line to become president (more about that subject here). The Constitution says that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." (Source: Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4) However, the Senate does have some other power to elect its own leaders, because the Constitution says that "The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of the President of the United States." (Source: Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 5) With this discussion of the vice presidency concluded, I shall return to a discussion of the presidency itself.

An overview of the American federal courts

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

- Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution

The part here about "good behaviour" is effectively a lifetime appointment, since it means that the judges can hold their offices for life unless convicted of a crime (which is fairly rare for American judges, possibly because of their being subject to removal in this way). Just as the executive branch is subject to impeachment, so is the judicial branch; and judges can be removed by the exercise of this power. (More about that here.)

Alexander Hamilton

De facto lifetime appointment

The de facto lifetime appointment here is among the most criticized parts of the Constitution, but was defended by the Founding Fathers as making them independent of having too much influence from the other branches (which could erode the separation of powers). It also makes them independent of the popular prejudices of the people, who might otherwise have the power to retaliate against those who enforce laws against them - even when those laws are just and have actually been broken by the people who were judged against. In the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments" (Source: Federalist No. 78) This is why Hamilton correctly quoted Montesquieu as saying that "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing." (Quoted in footnote to Federalist No. 78) Hence, the radical mechanism of a de facto lifetime appointment, to protect against the improper influence of the other branches.

Supreme Court of the United States

How the Constitution was almost not ratified

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same."

- Article 7 of the United States Constitution

The Constitutional Convention

Our national debate over the Constitution is as old as the Constitution itself, with origins to be found in the events of the Constitutional Convention, where its particulars were first debated by the men present at the convention. The framers of the Constitution disagreed with each other vehemently on exactly what the document should say and do, and how it should say and do it. Moreover, a number of the men present at the convention refused to even sign the document after the debates at the convention. As many of them well knew, though, the national debate over what they had written was just beginning. With the strict secrecy of the convention's proceedings at the time that it was still going on, the nation didn't know what was in the document until after the finished product of the convention was presented to the nation. Many of them weren't all that happy over the things they found in it, to put it mildly.

A replica of Independence Hall, which is not surrounded by
high-rise buildings (that don't belong in the period) the way the real one is today

Why did so many people suspect the Constitution was "dangerous"?

Part of this may have been that they got all their surprises about the document at virtually the same time. They had not been witness to the deals and compromises that had taken place so gradually during the events of the convention. A gradual revelation of the document's contents thus was simply not possible after the nation's curiosity had been whetted by the "secrecy rule." (Which is not a criticism of the "secrecy rule," I should make clear; but it was only natural for the people to wonder about it. Many of them assumed that the convention had something to hide in this regard, after the secret proceedings had been continuing for some four months without news.) The supporters of the Constitution all knew that they faced an uphill battle when they presented the final document to the people. This uphill battle is today known as the debates over ratification (or the ratification debates) - arguably the most important debates in the nation's history, because of the sheer number of issues that it affected, then and now. If I might point this out, it affected the very same democratic process by which all future political issues would be debated in America - and by extension, in a number of other places as well.

Newspaper advertisement for the Federalist Papers, 1787 (a part of the ratification debates)

A review of “Founding Brothers” (History Channel)

"[The Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States ... "

- Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, Heading and Paragraph 17

What happened to the Founding Fathers after the Revolution was over?

Most people have some cursory knowledge of what happened during the American Revolution, and what the Founding Fathers did during this period. But what happened to them after the Revolution? What did the Founding Fathers do when the war was over, and the Constitution was ratified? These are the questions that a documentary by the History Channel attempts to address. They follow in the footsteps of a Pulitzer-Prize-winning book by Joseph Ellis - a book called "Founding Brothers," the same title as this History Channel program. The results of it are more surprising, more interesting, and more moving than what you 'd think possible.

What did the Founding Fathers disagree with one another about?

If you're interested in what happened to the Founding Fathers - in the issues they disagreed over, the quarrels between them, and their postwar accomplishments - then this is the best documentary to see. It covers the administrations of our first three presidents - George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson - and does not shy away from depicting Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison as well. These guys are much more interesting than the paintings we have of them, with the powdered wigs and the dated clothing. Moreover, the way that they handled the early days of the Republic set the precedents for all of the democratic dialogue that we've had since then. The government had been created, but it had not yet been given a trial run, and no one was quite sure how it would work in practice.

A review of PBS’s “Alexander Hamilton” movie

"There is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton's monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton's country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government."

- George Will, in "Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy" (1992), Chapter 2, page 167

He was one of America's Founding Fathers, but was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis - far away from the country he would help found. He was one of the most self-made men in America, but owed much of his career success to the generous help of someone else. And he died young while fighting a duel in his late forties, but had a great life of massive accomplishment despite this.

The man was Alexander Hamilton, and he was a tremendously obstinate man who made as many enemies as friends. Nonetheless, he led one of the most remarkable lives in American history. He was a brilliant man, and he knew it; possessing enough ego to sink a battleship; but he was a deeply good man as well, and always wanted what was best for his country. PBS's documentary about him is among the best that they've aired, and so I thought I'd offer a review of it here, for those interested in this amazing man.

A review of “A More Perfect Union: America Becomes A Nation”

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

- Preamble to the United States Constitution, written in 1787

It created the oldest Constitution that is still being used today, but which was a radical departure from virtually everything that came before it. It created a new form of government, but it was only authorized to modify the one that already existed - not to replace it. And it has been celebrated as the best form of government ever devised by man, but was not seen as anything close to ideal by any of the men who were there.

The Constitutional Convention

Why a Constitutional Convention was necessary

The event was the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in 1787 to improve upon the existing system of government. The government of that time was more like the United Nations than the modern United States. This was because all of the states remained sovereign, acting more like independent nations than portions of a whole. The federal government had no power to regulate trade, no executive branch to enforce laws, and no power to tax - with the latter flaw being the most crippling one. I'm not saying taxes can't be too high (or aren't too high now), but a government must have the power to tax to be able to perform its needful functions. Unfortunately, the government of that time simply was not able to do so. Thus, it was not able to pay the massive debts accumulated during the Revolution; and the massive war debts of the federal government were in risk of default. Thus, a stronger central government was required than the completely toothless one of that time. Thus, a Constitutional Convention was sorely needed.

Interior of Independence Hall