Sunday, August 2, 2009

Founders As Revived Roman Republicans

The following is a good article from Mortimer Newlin Stead Sellers of University of Baltimore - School of Law on classical influences on the Founding Fathers. David Barton when he explains "historical revision" mentions "omission" as one of the key factors. And indeed Christian Nationalists utterly ignore America's Founders affinity for republican Rome when they present their "history." When they wrote the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist Papers, America's Founders didn't view themselves as inspired Christians constructing a "Christian Nation." To the contrary they viewed themselves as revived Roman republicans; arguably they viewed themselves as "noble pagans." Or at least they adopted the surnames of noble pagans not biblical characters.

Here is a taste from the article:

Americans liked to think of themselves as “Publius”, “Publicola”, “Junius”, “Brutus”, “Cato”, “Cincinnatus”, “Tullius”, “Cicero”, and the like because they saw their difficulties as being essentially the same as those that had threatened the justice and stability of Rome: how to protect law, liberty, and the balanced constitution against the twin incursions of monarchy (leading to tyranny) on the one hand, and democracy (leading to anarchy) on the other.

[...]

Greeks were remembered for recognizing the full equality and independence of their colonies, Romans for the idea that “true law is right reason in accordance with nature” (Lactantius, VI. 8. 6-9, quoting Cicero), and for the checks and balances that secure right reason in practice. Greek policy showed Americans how Britain ought to respect its colonies, Roman doctrine taught the limits of governmental power. Otis argued that Britain’s balanced constitution gave Britons the world’s best opportunity for honest prominence since the days of Julius Caesar, “destroyer of the Roman glory and grandeur”, but that British politicians, like Caesar, by upsetting this balance, were subverting their state.

[...]

The American Revolution was a dispute about government, and with the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 Americans needed new models of government to replace the British institutions that had failed them. Rome supplied a name (“republic”), a goal (“liberty”), and a technique (checks and balances) in the structure of the Roman constitution that had endured for five hundred years between the fall of the kings and the rise of the Caesars. John Adams promoted this template for the new American constitutions in a letter to Richard Henry Lee, published as Thoughts on Government in 1776, in which Adams insisted that “there is no good government, but what is republican”. Adams followed Livy in defining a republic as “an empire of laws, and not of men”, arguing that whatever form of government secures just and impartial laws, will be the best republic. Adams suggested a bicameral government with a popular assembly, as in Rome, controlled by a second legislative chamber and an elected executive. Lee and the Virginians took Adams’ advice, and created a new constitution with a House of Delegates, a Senate, an annually elected governor, and independent judges, serving during good behavior. Virginia also passed a Bill of Rights, declaring that “all power is… derived from the people”.

[...]

Adams promoted this template for the new American constitutions in a letter to Richard Henry Lee, published as Thoughts on Government in 1776, in which Adams insisted that “there is no good government, but what is republican”. Adams followed Livy in defining a republic as “an empire of laws, and not of men”, arguing that whatever form of government secures just and impartial laws, will be the best republic. Adams suggested a bicameral government with a popular assembly, as in Rome, controlled by a second legislative chamber and an elected executive. Lee and the Virginians took Adams’ advice, and created a new constitution with a House of Delegates, a Senate, an annually elected governor, and independent judges, serving during good behavior. Virginia also passed a Bill of Rights, declaring that “all power is… derived from the people”.

[...]

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, writing as “Publius” in defense of the Constitution of the United States, recognized the Constitution’s greatest deviation from the Roman model, which was “the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity” from any direct role in public life (Federalist No. 63). The “genius of republican liberty” required that “all power be derived from the people” (Federalist No. 37), but the Constitution was carefully controlled and balanced, to avoid an “elective despotism” (Federalist No. 48, quoting Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia). “Publius” and other proponents of the Roman model were careful to distinguish republican checks and balances from the “turbulent democracies” of ancient Greece and modern Italy (Federalist No. 14). Republics use “ambition… to counteract ambition” (Federalist No. 51), making government decisions “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves” (Federalist No. 10). The Americans’ strong preference for Roman republicanism over Greek democracy made it easier to reject Rousseau’s pessimistic conclusion that “a certain celestial virtue, more than human, has been necessary to preserve liberty” (Adams, Defence).

12 comments:

J said...

Good points, especially in regards to the secular-republican aspect of Adams. The republican Federalists, however, were bitterly opposed (by TJ, and his states rights cronies), and Madison later himself sort of abandons the Fed. cause (probably 1790 or so). Adams also at times seems sort of Nixonian (re the immigration laws, and early police state like aspects). Hamilton also loved the judiciary, and early on wanted to create a Bank of England (both of which that hick TJ also opposed)

Had Hamilton prevailed the popular vote itself would have been curtailed, if not limited to the great Senators. I respect the Federalist model (at least the Madisonian aspects), but it's not sacrosanct.

King of Ireland said...

Jon stated:

"David Barton when he explains "historical revision" mentions "omission" as one of the key factors. And indeed Christian Nationalists utterly ignore America's Founders affinity for republican Rome when they present their "history."

John I agree with you in principle would change "ignored America's Founders affinity for republican Rome when they present their history" to "downplayed America's Founders affinity for republican Rome when the present their history."
I see this based on the following quote in "Liberating the Nations" by Barton's friend Stephen McDowell in the chapter titled "Origins and Development of Government and Liberty":

"The Greek and Roman theories were never as democratic as the Hebrew, however, because of their belief in the inequality of men. The ideas of democracy and freedom were only extended to were only extended to certain classes and all others were denied basic rights. Such tyranny eventually produced conflicts in society that lead to chaos and disorder. Cicero was murdered and they reverted to complete totalitarianism to restore order. Greek and Roman contributions to democratic ideas were therefore, more theoretical than actual, but were helpful to later generations who learned from their mistakes."

So to say they ignore it is probably not true but they do down play it. Some of it is for good reason in that a lot of what he said was true. The Founders said as much often. Madison did a study of all types of governments throughout history to learn from the mistakes. You see a lot of this come out in the Federalist Papers. Some of it is propaganda to set people of for their "Hebrew Republic" argument.

Some points they make about the "Hebrew Republic" are good and others are ridiculous on the surface. I have not sat down and gone verse by verse to check their claims but some of it seems nonsense. There flaw is pretty much what you said: The do not realilze that the Bible does not really have a lot to say about structures of government that is proscriptive. That is if you take the stance that I do that what was written to them was for them and not universal. Though there are some good principles in the Torah that should be heeded.

My issue with the Science Blogs/Rodda crowd, based on their comments the last few days, is why they ignore that Greek and Roman society were not equal and that universal human rights based on equality is not an idea they gave us. At least I have seen no evidence. I agree with Tom that one seem to have to inject the image of God view into Greek thought to arrive at unalienable human rights.

Barton does himself a disservice arguing the Constitution angle more than the DOI angle. Though he does have some good points about Federalism that Dreisbach fleshes out. But in the end it still makes him look like a Theocrat to some because it seems to them that he supports the religious test laws.

Some good points John. I am going to check and see if any orthodox Christians on the anti-Federalist side used Roman names. If they did they that point is mute.

King of Ireland said...

To clarify about Barton I do not think he supports the religious tests that continued in some states. I just think it adds fuel to the fire of those who think he is the reincarnation of the devil to call him a Theocrat. I personally do not think he is one. In fact, Dreisbach's argument for a lowering of the wall seems quite reasonable at first glance. He gives some powerful evidence that Hugo Black took Jefferson's words to a level he would not have approved of.

Anyway, good insight Jon.

J said...

"The Greek and Roman theories were never as democratic as the Hebrew, however, because of their belief in the inequality of men. The ideas of democracy and freedom were only extended to were only extended to certain classes and all others were denied basic rights. Such tyranny eventually produced conflicts in society that lead to chaos and disorder. Cicero was murdered and they reverted to complete totalitarianism to restore order. Greek and Roman contributions to democratic ideas were therefore, more theoretical than actual, but were helpful to later generations who learned from their mistakes."


The writer hits the mark on the aristocratic aspects of the greeks, Aristotle in particular. Aristotle does argue for a constitution of sorts, but it was mainly to establish a nobility with certain rights, including the right to rule the plebes (and serf-class really).

It's not really "Hebrew republic" but a real republic (even aristotelian in some sense), but with the Lockean social-contract democratic aspects.

The founding documents (DOI and Const) obviously do follow from the Lockean model--including say the right to assembly, and the writ of Habeas corpus. Ari. never argued for a right to Habeas (nor did Aquinas). That's from anglo law. And really, believers should be grateful for those Lockean aspects. Roman senators had no problem banning religious practices (pagan or christian).

King of Ireland said...

J stated:

"The founding documents (DOI and Const) obviously do follow from the Lockean model--including say the right to assembly, and the writ of Habeas corpus. Ari. never argued for a right to Habeas (nor did Aquinas). That's from anglo law. And really, believers should be grateful for those Lockean aspects. Roman senators had no problem banning religious practices (pagan or christian)."

That is an angle that is not touched on enough. Meaning the whole seeking political freedom as a means to the end of religious freedom. I think the rub of this whole thing with Barton is he sees the current high wall of separation as an infringement on the free exercise clause. Jay Sekulo started winning some of these cases on free speech grounds years ago. I do not like their politics but they seem to have a point about how separation is interpreted now as compared to how the Founders saw it.

jimmiraybob said...

...high wall of separation...

I say another dozen courses of brick and some razor wire. Some earthquake retrofitting wouldn't hurt.

My motto? "Save the Churches."

Whatever works.

jimmiraybob said...

The “genius of republican liberty” required that “all power be derived from the people” (Federalist No. 37)

If there’s one thing that argues against the Christian nation thesis this is it.

Statism
By Stephen McDowell (Providence Foundation - available by Googling)

A society cannot serve two gods [jrb - state sovereignty and God’s sovereignty]. It cannot have two sources of authority, law, and morality. One will ultimately prevail.



Earthly authorities are not intended to control us. We are to govern ourselves under God and His standard of truth. We should seek to change the mentality of letting others govern us. Freedom to choose is one key way we are like God. As we choose in a way that pleases Him, we bring Him glory. When we are deprived of this ability to make free choice by evil governments, then part of our God-likeness is suppressed. Liberty is freedom to do God’s will.



Qualifications for Godly Officials
By Stephen McDowell (available by Googling or at the Providence Foundation website)


The fear of God is an essential qualification for a Godly official.



A leader who does not fear God will not make an effective governor, …



We should discern if those we seek to place in power are those that God has called and “anointed” to rule.



At least one person, and by extension at least one organization that he represents, does not believe that we are currently governed under a legitimate authority, where, in his “Biblical worldview,” legitimate authority to govern is only rationed to those “anointed” by the God of Abraham (fundamentalist Christian version). McDowell and others believe that our current form of government usurps the authority of God, the church and the family and, without compromise, this situation must be changed. McDowell and others think that even a person with good knowledge, wisdom, good morals and ethics, humility, a sense of justice and compassion, and who is honest and of impeccable integrity is not qualified to govern if they don’t have the fear of God as they would define it.

How can the existing system where sovereignty has been recognized as being derived from the people and expressed through their chosen leaders be reconciled with one in which only God and God’s anointed leaders are seen as the only legitimizing governing authority? How can the Biblical worldview government envisioned by McDowell and others like him be reconciled with a national ban on religious establishment and religious testing for our elected leaders and the clearly intended rights of conscience and religious freedom? How will they every relent to recognize the legitimate authority of non-Christians, or Christians not of sufficient Godliness, to write enact and enforce the laws of the nation? The logical extension of their ideas is uniform submission to God, the exact opposite of our current pluralistic governing and legal systems.

This is why people come to the logical conclusion that the end of the game, even if not explicitly stated, for the MacDowells, the Bartons, the Hagees, the Wallbuilders, the Jay Sekulos, the Focus on the Family’s and the rest of the gang, is to slowly erode and subvert through numbers and stealth our hard won civil liberties, including freedom of and from religion, to a liberty/freedom to do God’s will – reducing non-Christians to second or third class citizens or worse. And, of course, they and their Christian posterity will be more than happy to tell us all what that will is.

This is why their vision of government is antithetical to the American values enshrined in the founding.

jimmiraybob said...

Qualifications for Godly Officials
By Stephen McDowell (available by Googling or at the Providence Foundation website)

The goal of many of our laws (and governmental actions) today is a “saved” society, where there is more peace and goodwill among men and that all that is negative is eliminated, such as poverty, crime, war, disease, prejudice, ignorance.



Government is not to provide the health, education, and welfare of citizens.



I also have to question how many people in today's world want to do without the Centers for Disease Control, the FDA, the National Institute of Health, child welfare laws, or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association or leave education and the care of those in greatest need to the whims and vicissitudes of local jurisdiction and/or the church?

(I heard the other day that some poor congress critter got harangued by a constituent and told to keep government's grubby mitts off of their Medicare* - don't know if this is fact or fiction.)

*may as well substitutes Social Security and the Veteran's Administration too

King of Ireland said...

JRB,

If you read the whole "Statism" essay in context he argues similar to Locke that the government does not give us our rights it exists to protect them. He is also saying that these rights come from God not the state ala Locke. In using the whole "render onto Caesar" argument he is more trying to show that while God ordains government(Romans 13), that government only has jurisdiction over certain things. When it crosses over into violating rights of conscience it is crossing over into the things that are God's. i.e. things that a person should look to God for counsel on not government.

Take the God part out of this and it is something you would see on Positive Liberty. It is anti-statism not any government.

As far as the last part, it is also the Libertarian small government idea with God added. We are not to allow government to tell us what are rights are because government is their to protect our right not give them out. This was essentially the prevailing sentiment at the Founding and is seen in the DOI when "Caesar" over stepped his jurisdiction and began to seek to control them. They told him that the source of their rights was God not him.

King of Ireland said...

Jrb quotes Mc Dowell:

"Government is not to provide the health, education, and welfare of citizens."

If you read the entire part of this essay he give the Dave Crockett story and brings up the Libertarian limited government argument again. He says that it is the biblical form again but if you leave the God stuff out it is something you would see on Positive Liberty and Cato's Website.

JRB continues to quote Mc Dowell:

"The fear of God is an essential qualification for a Godly official."

…"A leader who does not fear God will not make an effective governor," …

"We should discern if those we seek to place in power are those that God has called and “anointed” to rule"

This is all part of the third part the essay about:

How Christians should vote. You have to give that context. I do not agree with him that Christians should always vote for someone who supposedly fears God. We can all see that leaders who do not fear God in the way Mc Dowell and evangelicals see them have made good leaders so I obviously disagree with that. I would ask them point blank if they thought Jefferson was a Christian and when they had to come to the conclusion that he did not believe as they do, I would ask if he was an effective leader?

But JRB to not give the context that this was written to Christians about what to look for in a candidate and make a part of some accusation that they think that anyone that does not hold all these characteristics is not a legitimate leader? That is a huge leap with no evidence. The whole annoited thing means really two things to these people:

1. Sent by God
2. Gifted to do something

They are saying that that is something Christian voters should look for.

Is it wrong for secular humanist who want all religion out of politics to write essays that people should vote for people that think the way they do and outline some qualifications that would confirm that? Of course, all idea based groups do it. Does it mean that they want to overthrow the government if other people get in there?

This is the problem with grabbing a few quotes of what someone says and trying to piece together what they are saying. One has to understand the overall message the person is trying to get through. Audience is important as well for context.

He is pitching the idea of small government more than anything else in both these essays. I have read a decent amount of his stuff and he seems Repulican to the core. Fiscally and culturally conservative. The latter is not my cup of tea because my view of morality as the Bible teaches it is way different than his.

I think the greatest error these people make is adding their social and religious traditions to what the Bible says. The essentially do not want people to drink, smoke, or cuss. The Bible does not say any of the three are wrong.

But to state they are theocrats when Iran comes up on Wiki is wrong. It is not even close. At least not by their words. One would have to believe some serious pre-meditated deception is going on to jump to that conclusion. Thus the "Liars for Jesus" motif that provides a supposed insight to the hidden meaning of their words. I do not like these people at all. I used to argue with these types tooth and nail. But they are all mostly sincere and honest people. They live in a bubble, are indoctrinated at times, do not think things through they are taught to believe, and at times are arrogant. But not liars. Deceived but no sinister.

Barton is clear about this issue of all leaders having to be Christians in his essay about what and what is not a Christian Nation:

"Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement."

Catch him or one of his ilk stating the opposite of that and I will believe you. Your attempts here fall far short of that.

King of Ireland said...

Jon,

Both George Clinton and Robert Yates used Roman names as well. They were both orthodox Reformed Christians as per their denominations. I could not find any quotes for either on religion to see if they actually believed the statement of faith their church gave or not.

I doubt they emphasized Roman ideas over Christian ones.

J said...

George Clinton was "Cato"--from the old roman opponent of Caesar, which was in keeping with his anti-Federalist ideals. Clinton may have attended church, but he was one of Jefferson's cronies--thus pro-states rights, and in favor of the legislature, opposed to the Hamilton/Adams tories and judiciary-- and hardly a Patrick Henry like conservative biblethumper. Clinton refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added.