Lessons from History: Parallels Between the Roman Kingdom and American Colonies

8/6/2019 Lessons from History: Parallels Between the Roman Kingdom and American Colonies

1/21

Parallels Between the Roman Kingdom and American Colonies

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to

read, think, speak, and write.Let usread the histories of ancient ages; contemplate

the great examples of Greece and RomeLet us read and recollect and impress upon our

souls the views and ends of our own more immediate forefathers, in exchanging theirnative country for a dreary and inhospitable wildernessRecollect their amazing

fortitude, their bitter sufferingsthe hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which theypatiently enduredLet us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty for themselves and

us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials.

John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law

Preface

Lets see if this sounds familiar: Rome started as a small city-state, but grew to conquerthe European continent and beyond. Internally, the city of seven hills suffered from

several major economic crises, civil war and revolts. These problems were quelled by afocus on near constant external war. Eventually Rome not only ceased being a freerepublic where rulers were elected and the people respected, but also developed a two-party political system, dominated by populist rulers who sought to redistribute wealth andsubsidize agriculture. This got to the point where the people would vote themselves breadand circuses. Indeed, their happiness and peacefulness depended on these governmentbenefits.

Over time, it increasingly outsourced its labor and had to find its soldiers from the ranksof non-Romans as they became more and more entangled in wars. In fact, toward the endthe swarming population of immigrants rendered its army useless. It even had to debase

its currency to keep economically solvent multiple times. Meanwhile, Romans were lessand less moral, and instead of honoring deserving philosophers, like Seneca, cults ofcelebrity popped up around members of the ruling class. Romans stopped fighting forfreedom of speech, the right to keep their earnings, or for the rule of law in general.Instead it became a cesspool of sycophancy to the tyrants, materialism, and the pursuit ofpleasure.

The United States was, of course, consciously modeled on Rome (see our Constitution,Capitol Hill, Senate, checks and balances on power, etc), and our founding fathers had anumber of motivations to do so, some of which were kosher and others not so much. Butits astonishing how many unintended parallels there are.

Nonetheless it would be an impossible task to try to find an equivalent for everything,down to Bush choking on a pretzel, because the US timescale is so accelerated. Werealready nearing the end and there have only been 44 US presidents, while there werehundreds of Roman Consuls and almost 150 Roman Emperors. However, its interestingto see that when the United States government cannot literally follow the same path, theywill still resort to rhetoric. For example, when the US cannot start an actual war, it willstill wage a War on Drugs.


2/21

This essay serves as my introduction into our cultural decay and the grave consequencesthat I think it has had and will have. I do not think its going to be fixed until its beenlargely destroyed, and a light from the shadows shall spring. I am far from having asolution. Its only my intent to try to analyze the world we live in, put it in context, and

hope that somebody smarter than myself will be able to fix it, or at least understand thedirection that things should go.

My intention is not to glorify or either nation, and whether or not you agree with me here,I think we can all concede that we can learn from history else were doomed to repeat itsmistakes.

From Mythological Origins to the Founding of the Republics

The hearer on the speakers mouth depends,And thus the tragic story never ends

-Aeneid, Vergil

Both nations were founded and thrived throughout their history on myth, admirablefrom the standpoint of stability. Both sought to make their foundations appear likesomething of a higher nature and to derive authority from such an origin. They alsosought to highlight values and glorified images of a past, in order that you should seethese qualities reflected on them, and perhaps most importantly, to create a direction andpurpose for future policy. When the original myth is not suitable for this, you change it.

I think that the crux of the mythologies is well expressed by Machiavelli in hisDiscourses on Livy when he explains that there are two kinds of cities. The first kind ofcity is founded to be independent, not meant for external control. The second type is acity meant for the benefit (either economic or for the glory) of the mother state. Rome isthe first type of city and the American colonies were founded to be this second kind ofcity. However, many records having been destroyed in the sack of Rome in 390 BC, theyhad quite a free reign to redefine their past on their own terms. The writers of Americanhistory, unfortunately, have taken similar liberties.

Romes myths take for granted its sovereignty; it was not a vassal state, nor ever letitself become one at the expense of almost constant war. Its myths instead focus onshaping a warring culture and a people that would back Romes many wars even to theirown detriment.

To this end, many Roman myths were patriotic and meant to glorify the state and itsleaders, to encourage emulation of them, and put forth clear pictures of morality. Afterall, if one of your leaders is the son of a god, it would be a grave mistake to go againsthim. For example, Aeneas was said to be the son of Venus, and Julius Caesar laterclaimed the same. In turn, Augustus/Octavian, considered the son of Caesar, deified hisfather (not content to be the grandchild of a god). This same invention got previousRoman rulers assassinated.


3/21

This is not to say that there werent attempts to answer some of lifes bigger questions.For example, in the Aeneid different groups of the deceased go to different parts of theunderworld. The valiant go to the Field of War Heroes, theres even a place whereunborn babies go (explaining what Christianity does not), a field for people who have

committed suicide, and a place where the truly bad are to be tortured. But in general itwas used to justify life, ritual, current practices, and especially rulers. Its political purposewas to control the people and show you how the gods could punish you if you strayedfrom this path.

***

Rome was said to be founded by a Trojan solider, Aeneas, and his plight begins wherethe Iliad leaves off, much like Homers Odyssey. The poem was commissioned byAugustus Caesar (first emperor of Rome), and makes it clear that the gods wanted Rometo be founded. He faces many struggles on the way, wars, their ships being burned,

seeing the woman he loves commit suicide after he had to leave her, his wife and fatherdying, and more (not unlike the story of Job). But, it was fate that he would found Rome,and even Juno, who tormented him most, relented in the end, realizing it was simplyRomes destiny not only to be an independent people but to rule the world.

In our modern society that admires the ancient Greeks, as part of our democratic mythperhaps, it may be surprising that the Romans chose to tell themselves as being foundedby a Trojan rather than a Greek. However, by eschewing Greece, Rome was eschewingdemocracy, instead favoring monarchical Troy. Virgil didnt invent the idea that Romanscame from Troy, but he gave it new splendor.

It also justified Romes conquest of the Greek states, and subsequent enslavement ofthe Greek people, because now people get to imagine they are avenging their ancestors,the Trojans, against a Greece that used deception to tear down the mighty with the Trojanhorse.

To put Virgil in context, he lived throughout the collapse of the Republic and the birthof the Empire, and was commissioned to write this mythical poem by the first Emperor.He saw that the traditional republican foundations had been forever bastardized andcorrupted. While the moral direction of Homer was unity, society and peace, the moraldirection of Virgil is piety and reverence, hoping to reverse some of the peoplescorruption and degeneration that had set in after the Punic Wars. And so, unlike HomersOdysseus, a crafty man who is rewarded for his guile, Aeneas is a very pious and moralman.

The impression that contemporary readers were supposed to derive was that Augustuswas the embodiment of Aeneas, their classical hero. They were supposed to admire andlove Aeneas, and since Augustus was so similar, holding the same values, this wouldconfer authority on him. John Drydens introduction to his translation of the Aeneidexplains that these values were: piety to the gods, and a dutiful affection to his father,


4/21

love to his relations, care of his people, courage and conduct in the wars, gratitude tothose who had obligd him and justice in general to mankind. Thus, it was essentiallyjust propaganda. As we will see, this is reminiscent of Americas myth of creating thisnew religious free world, like Biblical wanderers, setting out on their holy mission.

The following passage from the introduction to Billsons translation brilliantlyillustrates the purpose of the United States mythology as well: The purpose of theAeneid was two-fold: to legitimize the new regime by expressing the divine mission ofRome to rule and spread the blessings of her civilization; and to reassert the personalqualities of the model Roman of the old Republica profound sense of obligation, strictadherence to duty, deep religiosity and seriousness of purposethat was essential to thesuccess of the new regime.

Further, the Aeneid does not talk about the Republic or glorify it. It does not glorifyBrutus (the original slayer) or Publius or any others. It skips over that time to Caesar asthe birth of Romes glory, which is quiet convenient. This is just as we look back to John

Adams and Thomas Jefferson as our historians. They are not our historians, not thenecessarily truth seekers, but they were visionaries and our molders of the future whoseart partially came to resemble life, and partially did not. This is not to say that they werebeing crafty. Virgil, Livy, Ovid, and other Roman mythmakers thought they were doingthe best for their country, and I believe so did our own founding fathers.

From Aeneas were descended Romulus and Remus, famous twins born from one ofRomes Vestal Virgins. Nobody believed that she didnt actually violate her sacred vows,and so they imprisoned her, and her kids were thrown into a floating river. They survivedby being nursed by a she-wolf. Sounds quite like a mix between the stories of Mary andMoses, does it not? That they grew up in the wild is supposed to represent freedom andlack of servility.

As adults, they fought each other to the death and Romulus prevailed. He was the firstKing of Rome, and its founder, first making his bones upon the Palatine Hill. The citylater expanded to its famous seven hills, and far, far beyond. Interestingly, Livy impliesthat the Senate assassinated him for his ambition to make Rome a world power throughconquest. But the final straw appears to have been his creation of a personal bodyguard,which was considered to be something only a tyrant would dowhy should a good rulerfear the people? He was the first in a long string of Roman rulers to be legally killed forthe same reason-- Caesar is only the most famous example.

But Machiavelli in hisDiscourses on Livy points out the flaw in this argument. Thatwhat he did was for the common good and not from personal ambition, is shown at oncecreating a senate, with whom he took counsel and in accordance, with whose voice hedetermined.

And so we see that myth paradoxically gave a warning for war, while at the same timejustifying it. Certainly that their first King was assassinated for these ambitions did notstop the Romans people from backing their rulers in seemingly endless wars and


5/21

conquest (they were also fairly easily persuaded by rhetoric) and after awhile, once theneighboring nations were provoked and fearful of Romes growing power, war wasinevitable.

As we shall see in due time, these prolonged conflicts were one of the causes of her

downfall, but throughout much of her history they kept Rome internally stable. Thecommons had much that they could complain aboutnotably that they were not givenany respectable share of the spoils of war, though sometimes soldiers were permitted topillage. Meanwhile, the aristocracy amassed riches, and war was only more lucrative astime went on and they came to annex Greece, Egypt, Gaul (modern day France), Spain,and more.

When the commons wanted to protest they could do so a way that would cripple thestate, but war kept them distracted. When you think youre about to die, the last thing onyour mind is the rate of taxation on olive oil. And thus myth was beneficial to the stateand became necessary for Romes stability. Their consent was necessary because they

were the ones who kept the city running and made up most of the army. The senatespower base rested on their consent, in the way that a broken horse doesnt realize howmuch power it could have over its rider if only it ceased consenting to be ridden. Keepingthis consent over time did lead to them granting the plebs more rights, such as thecreation of the peoples tribunes after their withdrawal to the Sacred Mount in 494 BC.But it would be hundreds of years more until they got such reforms as the Agrarian Laws(redistribution of land) intermarriage between the classes, and other such changes.

And this is yet another cause of Romes downfall. As Livy writes, the majority ofpeople do not seek freedom, equality, or justice. They seek stability. I would add thatpeople seek stability, but they also seek what others have, perhaps above all. People wantto be the upper class; they dont want to make everybody the upper class. They wantwhat is exclusive.

Wars gave the population both of these things. Though the people had to be grantedsome rights to keep peace at home, war ensured a population of slaves that freed upRomans for leisure, and the raw materials and agricultural acquired secured their way oflife. It also led to the creation of fantastic spectacleslions from Africa fighting thosesentenced to die, gladiators, lavish naval battles in the arena, and more. These also servedto blind the masses, and again, this addiction to pleasure and entertainment sowed theseeds of destruction on yet another front as Romans became lax, passive, and corrupted,to their own demise.

Early on this tendency was feared and the people were warned against descending intothis darkness. It is yet another paradox in Roman history. The intention of these gameshas always been to pacify the masses. Romulus, the founder of Rome and its first king,and an ambitious one, saw the need for a large population if Rome was to becomepowerful, and so encouraged the people to intermarry with other peoples. This provokedviolence, and to calm the people, he began the Consualia games, in honor of NeptunusEquester.


6/21

The Rape of the Sabine Women is a brilliant myth surrounding these games that thedistractions of entertainment, and the negative consequences that you allow to happenwhile you so distract yourself. While the Sabines came to Rome to enjoy these spectacles,their unmarried women were carried off by Roman men, the Sabines having refused to

intermarry with them. Blinded by the spectacle and drunk with the spectacles, they leftthemselves vulnerable.

It especially illustrates the importance of population. Machiavelli explains: They whowould have their city become a great empire, must endeavor by every means to fill it withinhabitants; for without a numerous population no city can ever succeed in growingpowerful. This may be affected in two ways, by gentleness or by force. By gentleness,when you offer a safe and open path to all strangers who may wish to come and dwell inyour cityby force, when after destroying neighboring towns you transplant theirinhabitants to live in yours. Both of these methods were practiced by Rome, and withsuch success, that in the time of her sixth king there dwelt within her walls eighty

thousand citizens fit to bear armsRome was soon able to place two hundred and eightythousand men under arms; while either Sparta nor Athens could ever muster more thantwenty thousand.

Without also having this inclusive policy, relying only on force what happened toSparta will befall you: For after she had spread her dominion over all the cities ofGreece, no sooner did Thebes rebel than all the others rebelled likewise, and the trunkwas left stripped of its boughs. (Machiavelli).

And so we see population and growth, distraction and war, and yet this influx ofinfluences led to destructionRome, too, was a melting pot. This very immigrationpolicy was at the heart of their growth but later wrought her destruction. Over time effortsto get into Rome grew more desperate and violent, but they didnt actually seek todestroy Rome. They sought to be a part of Rome, a Rome, though already largelydestroyed, they still saw as glorious.

This never came close to destroying Rome throughout most of its history, but when itsculture had decayed and other nations gained the militaristic upper hand, then the duskpassed into the night. The barbarians were used as spectacle. In turn, the spectacledestroyed the Roman spirit. And the barbarians were then able to destroy the Romans. Iam not a particular adherent to Eastern Religion, but there is certainly a cycle of life to beillustrated in these events. Its a chilling, but all too true, tale of what the United Stateslikely faces in its future.

Rome sought continually, in her uncorrupted years to continually renew the spirit ofgovernment to prevent their destruction. This is a theme that we see over and over inearly American history as wellthe idea of government and the populace needingconstant renewal to stay free. John Adams in Governor Winthrop to Governor Bradford(find date) writes: Calamities are the caustics and cathartics of the body politics. Theyarouse the soul. They restore original virtues. They reduce a constitution back to its first


7/21

principles. But it only works when the people are uncorrupted, and that ship, my friend,has sailed.

***

We are now ready to move on to our second King of Rome, Numa. Livy writes thatthis was a time of great stability due to the great piety of the Roman people. Machiavellicomments that The effect of this was to render easy any enterprise in which the senatorgreat men of Rome thought fit to engage. Religion is the lubricant of the state.

Machiavelli continues, And it will be plain to any one who carefully studies RomanHistory, how much religion helped in disciplining the army, in uniting the people, inkeeping good men good, and putting bad men to shame; so that it had to be decided towhich prince, Romulus or Numa, Rome owed the greater debt, I think the balance mustturn in favor of Numa; for when religion is once established, you may readily bring inarms; but when you have arms without religion it is not easy afterwards to bring in

religion.

And so we see, like the United States, in the beginning Rome was a very religiousnation. Since Romes monarchy lasted 244 years, its likely that there were more thanseven kings, but the general idea to be conveyed is that early Romans were pious andreaped the benefits of this. Stability, order, honesty, and safety. But I can only marvel athow quickly values fade from the mind.

Even our early Americans so quickly tossed their values to the wind and we see JohnAdams write in the name of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts (in the timeof the Puritans): But how soon is this ardor extinguished! In the course of a few monthsthey have cooled down into such a tame, torpid state of indolence and inattention that themiseries of slavery are suffered to preach their abominable doctrines, not only withimpunity, but without indignation and without contempt. So quickly and readily do wecast ourselves into the eternal flame of stupidity.

The third king of Rome was called Tullus Hostiliusnote the meaning of thesurname. According to the mythology, he was essentially the opposite of Numa. To avoidredundancy, I will not relate all that happened during his reign, but the essence of themyth is a quick decay of values. A golden time, followed by a decaynot yet evil, butcertainly without the golden sheen of the past. As mentioned, we see this same narrativeplayed out in our own history. Its really no wonder that Eastern religions make thebalance of good and evil a central part of their religion.

Its with our fifth king, only about one hundred years after the founding of Rome, thatwe see the seeds of destruction blossom. Tarquin the Elder became king by curryingfavor with the richer of the plebeians, as opposed to the aristocracy who would havepreferred to have a king from among their own number. To add insult to injury, he wasnot of Roman birth, but was an Etruscan with a Greek father. That he became king, asWill Durant writes, represented the growing power of business and finance against the


8/21

landed aristocracy. You can see how the resentment was budding.

He then proceeded, whether due to personal motives of staying in power, or for whathe deemed the common good, struck at the very power base of the aristocracy andreorganized the voters and the army. Durant writes, He classified the citizens according

to wealth rather than birth, so that while leaving the old aristocracy intact, he raised up asa balance to it a class of equites, literally, horsemento serve in the cavalry. Theresentment culminated in his assassination, and the patrician class aimed to limit thekingship again to a religious role as was speculated that they originally played (Durant).

To their dismay, the next king was also an Etruscan and the son-in-law of Tarquin theElder, Servius Tullius. With Servius we have our first king who was not elected. Hispower base were the outraged masses who he, with his mother-in-law, manipulated bynot telling the people that the king was dead in the days after his death, allowing Serviusto serve in the meantime and curry favor.

He proceeded to further erode the power of the patricians. Where his predecessordivided them by wealth, he added a division by area of residence preventing them frombeing able to aggregate what power they had left. There were also 35 new tribes for themto be split up among. No longer could they dominate elections to the same degree.

At the same time, he was a benefactor to the poor and gave distributed the spoils ofwar amongst them--something that did not happen for a long, long time under theRepublic. To give his actions some context, when the last king of Rome, Tarquin theProud (Serviuss son-in-law), seized power by murdering him he gave a speech in whichhe said that Serviuss excessive love for the poor came from the fact that he himself camefrom a poor family.

However, Tarquin the Proud didnt hesitate to shed patrician blood and himself kept abody guard. (Livy is clearly showing this to be a sign of a tyrant, tyrants who deserve tobe murdered. Interestingly, Livys story of his seizure of power is very much likeAugustus did. He writes that Tarquin entered into the forum with armed men, sat on thethrone, demanded all be present and gave a speech. Those who he thought would opposehim were murdered. But unlike Augustus he was not wise enough to then ensure a timeof stability and peace afterward.

This power-hungry king degraded freemen with months of forced labor, had citizenscrucified in the Forum, put to death many leaders of the upper classes, and ruled with aninsolent brutality that won him the hatred of all influential men (Durant). Livy writesthat he had deprived the leading men of the state of their land and divided it among thevery lowest that he had laid all the burdens which were formerly shared by all alike, onthe chief members of the community. Durant further writes that this was particularlyoffensive because the patricians had thought of the rex as the executive of the Sneateand the chief priest of the national religion.

Machiavelli chimes in, All business which formerly had been transacted in public,


9/21

and with the sanction of the Senate, he caused to be transacted in his palace, on his ownresponsibility, and to the displeasure of everyone else. (Machiavelli). Not to fullyequate these two events, but it was also business interests being struck at and increasingcentralization of commerce in the American colonies that led to outrage.

He was also the 3rd

Etruscan King of Rome, and the kings essentially were no longerelected. Its a long-standing trend in history, as Machiavelli points out in his Discourseson Livy that nearly all rulers, during the time of the monarchy and the Empire, who arechosen (adopted or elected) as opposed to inherit or seize power are good leaders. Thosewho seize power or the sons of the previous ruler generally show themselves to betyrannical leaders.

The usual reason given for the patricians finally having enough was that his son rapeda noblewoman, Lucretia who later killed herself. The aristocrats commence the rebellion,and the king and his family are sent into exile. Note that one of the men she called to herwas Publius Valerius Publicola who was also a leader of the overthrow. In The Federalist

Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, they refer tothemselves as Publius, trying to capture a little of his former glory. However, its clearthat there was a long buildup of resentment and hatred toward the monarchy.

But was it correct to automatically conclude that the righteousness of the monarchycould not be restored? During these years, there was due process, trials, and appeals. TheSenate existed from the very first, with one hundred senators, later to be increased to twohundred under Tarquin the Elder (and further increased in later times), and wasconstituted by the patrician class. Its been speculated that this class was originallyanother people who conquered the Latins, perhaps Sabines. Durant explains that in thebeginning, however, the aristocracy were not such lords of comfort as they became inlater years and actually were a modest and hard-working bunch.

There was also representative government in the form of the curiae. Livy writes that,in fact, throughout the monarchy after the death of one king, the people clamored foranother (similar to the Biblical story of David). The kings practiced the same warring,conquests, and distributions of spoils to advantageous peoples throughout their time aslater rulers would do (even fighting personally in battle) meaning that the people werelargely distracted from ills at home as well.

Further, the institution of slavery under the kings was nowhere near what it becameunder the Republic. Durant reports, Under the kings they had been costly and few, andtherefore had been treated with consideration as valuable members of the family. In thesixth century BC, when Rome began her career of conquest, war captives were sold inrising number to the aristocracy, the business classes, and even to plebeians; and thestatus of the slave sank."

And so, its wrong to think that the overthrow of the monarchy was a popular uprising.It was a patrician movement. It was the last three kings that caused the split between themonarchy and aristocracy, the aristocracy having seen their power undermined. The


10/21

commons and the majority were not suffering. Their lot had actually been improvedunder these last few kings. The plebeians had more power than they did before and werenot going to fight to take that away from them, be that as it may. Meanwhile thearistocracy saw their members attacked and, most importantly, their wealth. It was anelite uprising. The fiercest haters of monarchy were always the aristocracy throughout its

history. It always represented a loss of sovereigntyfor them where the poor hadsomething to gain by it.

I want to take a moment and illustrate an important point. The monarchy, while it canbe allied with the aristocracy or the commons, it is neither. It is a separate body that hasthe ability to shield the one against the other. And in many ways it succeeded where theRepublic would later fail, as we will see with the ensuing clash between the plebs and thepatricians that would continue for centuries.

And so, the monarchy could not go on. And here again we have our theme of renewal.Like in America, there were loyalists who resisted the foundation of a republic.

Interestingly in Rome the most notable of these were the sons of Brutus, one of the firstconsuls. Brutus had his sons killed for their attempt to restore the monarchy. But overall,it was a government founded and conducted by popular consent, in the way that theAmerican Revolution sought to appease cries for taxation without representation.However, it was not a violent overthrow. The last king, as mentioned, was exiled (thoughhe tried to return with an army various times) and not assassinated.

Like John Adams with his flurry of letters, Patrick Henry with his firebrand speeches,and our brilliant commoner Thomas Paine, the Roman revolutionaries courted the people,and established their republic, if they could keep it.

****

The other type of city Machiavelli describes is a dependent city, meant for theeconomic or political benefit of the mother state. British America was this type of colony,and the early settlers considered themselves English men and women. This is not to saythat they did not have their own religious and commercial motives, but they recognizedthat the British crown granted them their charters for its own benefit.

Having been left largely to administer themselves throughout most of their colonialhistory, they grew to develop institutions of self-government and in a number of wayswere freer than the English in England, especially in matters of religion. The crown keptits interference limited to commerce. Over time, however, these interferences grew moreunacceptable to a people used to freedom (which they defined as a lack of governmentalintervention) and the pain was all the bitterer because they felt subjugated (not beingallowed to have representation in Parliament). Concurrently, new sentiments werearoused in the colonists, especially after 1763 that led to an outright rejection of theircolonial purpose.

Similarly in Rome, the aristocratic leaders who overthrew the monarchy were


11/21

motivated by an waning of their own power, feeling more than a little slighted, and also arecognition that in a monarchy the rules could be recreated the monarch went. Thereligious-minded British also learned this lesson. With each new king came new religiouspolicy and so there was no assurance of continued freedom to practice any given religion,and the freedom of a particular religious sect would wax and wane through time without

any assurance of the future.

The very heart of their legal debate was a rejection of British authority, claiming thatParliament had no right to legislate for the colonies because the colonists were notrepresented in the legislature. They sought to make their own laws and have these be asbinding as the laws made in England, as they felt that the Magna Charta (1215) granted toall English subjects, but took the argument further and said that they had a number ofdivine rights given directly from God. Britain felt undermined and that these ideas weresubversive.

Money also played another role, indeed, as a motive of the British in changing their

policy in the decade and a half before the war, and slowly Americans came to believethey would be financially better off without the British.

***The early settlers came from a world of violent religious clashes and most were genuinelypious. These clashes in theology may seem small to the non-religious mind (they were allChristian, after all), but they were taken with the utmost sincerity. As Livy once wrote ofRome: The neglect of the gods which now prevails, had not then made its way; nor wasit then the practice of every man to interpret his oath, or the laws, to suit his privateends.

Since the start of the Reformation tensions were high and only intensified, with theconstant frustration of religious policy being changed with each new monarch. Beforegoing to America, English colonial efforts first started much closer to home in Ireland. Inthe early days of Spanish and French conquest and colonization in America, it was herethat the English concentrated and not only sought to mold their community into their ownreligious image, but also seize lands and waters for fishing, agriculture, and commerce(MacCullough). It was a bloody affair at timeswith the Spanish financing Catholicrebels and English armies being used to quell the rebels and reconquer. However, allthree peoples ultimately failedthe Spanish and French in North America and theEnglish in Ireland. As a last resort they ventured to the New World, thousands of milesaway.

Early efforts to establish British colonies in America had been made under previouskings, but the first lasting colony, Jamestown in the Virginia Colony, was founded underKing James I. In fact, this colony was not separatist or religiously at odds with England.The inhabitants were Anglican, adherents to the Church of England, but they did seek todo things differently and to this end no bishops were ever named and landed power waskept away from the clergy. You can see early signs of the American political character


12/21

that would developlocal representation and separation of church and state.

They were loyal to these beliefs throughout the religious and political strife in Englandthat was to come. Further, Jamestown became a commercial center exporting goods toEngland, as colonies do. In other words, this was not a revolutionary movement. So, its

very wrong to think of these early colonists as renegades, and clearly there was adifference between being a separatist and colonizing the New World. Indeed, they helpedto further the political and commercial agenda of Great Britain and quiet religioustensionsif people didnt like it, they could certainly leave!

There was also a clear difference between creating a religious community andfomenting freedom as we think of it today. Some practiced more tolerance than others,but only in Pennsylvania and New York in this era did we see the current interminglingof religions that we value today. And even this was an accident of fate, not planned orseen as the happiest state of things by the organized religious groups. MacCullough statesthat this is largely because no single religious group established themselves firmly

enough due to lack of clergy.

The one place that did not lack large numbers of clergy was Massachusetts due toHarvard, originally intended to train clergy. Here, non-members of their church wereexcluded from their assembly (taxation without representation!). They were looking toRome, not democratic Greece. Its also fairly obvious that this democracy, or evenbelief in human rights, did not extend to other peoples--strict Christianity is notsynonymous with freedom or democracy. Nor were the Biblical peoples were not verypeaceable.

Howard Zinn writes inA Peoples History of the United States that The governor ofthe Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land bydeclaring the area legally a vacuum and used religion to seize their lands and waragainst them to get what they wanted. As even the most casually educated know, theNative American population was soon reduced to a small fraction of what it once was.

They were the group was indeed most separatist, and thus receives an unjust share ofthe attention from posterity. Many Puritans were disappointed by James I who was froma reformed background but did not advocate the Puritan cause to their satisfaction. Heactually strengthened certain Catholic institutions (The Reformation). While Charles I,Jamess successor, granted the Puritans their charter, he also attacked the growingProtestant establishment. As I mentioned before, the English had learned the lesson thatmonarchy in the post-Wittenberg world meant uncertainty.

A good degree of mythology was necessary for the Puritans to succeed in theirendeavor. Without reassurance that they were undertaking divine work and fulfilling acelestial purpose, it was not so easy to face the stinking corpses on the way across theAtlantic, or to endure the bitter winters that had wiped out former groups of colonists.The idea, as MacCullough explains, was that they were molding the rugged outdoors intoan Eden. They shaped nature, they shaped souls, they shaped society, and they were


13/21

bound by a covenant to God to do so.

And so taking a moment to compare these stories to that of Rome, we see more majorcomparisons. Both the Aeneid and this early religious history tell stories ofimmigrantsandpilgrims. The Trojans also faced war, their home having been burned to the ground

by treacherous Greeks, and later had to war with the Italian peoples in order to establishthemselves. Aeneas wife and father died, and at one point, the women were sodiscontented with the state of things that they burned the ships to stop the constantuprooting. But Aeneas led the Trojans through these travels by the idea of manifestdestiny, that they were founding Rome, to be a city upon a hill (literally, as Rome waseventually built on seven hills).

Indeed, one of the most famous quotes associated with the Puritans is John Winthropsdeclaration that the Massachusetts Bay Colony would be a city upon a hill. He wasquoting Matthew 5:14, a speech by Jesus in which he says You are the light of theworld. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Im no Biblical scholar, but I wonder

if this was not, in turn, a reference to Rome. Jesus lived in the time of Roman rule in theprovince of Judea, and would have been aware of its description as the city of sevenhills, its Senate on the Capitoline Hill, etc. For this reason, perhaps, he chose this imageas an analogy to influence. In any case, Winthrop was certainly well-educated in Romanhistory.

Another fitting comparison to Rome is that the Romans interpreted the Auspices tomeet the occasion; and made a prudent show of observing he rites of religion even whenforced to disregard them; and any who rashly slighted Religion they punished(Machiavelli). These Puritans tended to put religion before all else, and ostracized (orkilled) those who slighted their beliefs.

Despite our focus on this group, there was a wide diversity of peoples and religions inAmerica, and a substantial portion of the population was not English. Some were DutchProtestant like New York; some Swedish like those in modern-day Delaware; some wereAnglican like Virginia and remained as such for many decades; some were Catholic likeMaryland was originally; and some were Puritan like the Massachusetts Bay Colony whowent as far as to prohibit non Puritan church members from participating in local politics.We also have the Quakers in Pennsylvania and many more, not to mention those whodidnt give a lick for religion and wanted their gold and glory.

Therefore, we can conclude that Massachusetts hardly was a place representing masssentiment or the character of the Americans. MacCullough writes: For all its subsequentfame in American mythology, their settlement remained small and poor, for not manywished to join them.

What was the crowns perspective on all this? While the monarchy allowed thecolonists to achieve some of their religious goals, the end goal in permitting this wascommerce. If religion stimulated them to produce, export, and purchase the refinedproducts back from England, than freedom they would have. The colonists were not


14/21

religious renegades, but were living in a commercial colony which valued and practicedreligion (in general). The people consented to this situation by colonizing under a royalcharter, and this fact was never considered part of their bondage. Only later when theBritish government began levying certain taxes, without allowing the colonists to sit inParliament, did this sentiment arise. Without commerce, they would not have survived,

and possibly would have lost the support of the crown, knowing this was their purpose.

And thus, one the one hand it is wrong to take the Marxist, and crudely simple dead,white men point of view that the founders of America. There was a fervent religiousspirit among Americans, though posterity likes to portray them as all Deists and thus notloyal to Christian principles. This is incorrect. But on the other hand it is wrong to denythat there were also seeds of virtuous decay that would take root in the coming century,and flourish in the 20th.

By 1763, John Adams took up the name of John Winthrop to try to spur the people ofMassachusetts again to action writing, But how soon is this ardor extinguished! In the

course of a few months they have cooled down into such a tame, torpid state of indolenceand inattention that the missionaries of slavery are suffered to preach their abominabledoctrines, not only with impunity, but without indignation and without contempt.

To summarize the two early religious environments, we first see Rome coming into herown as a sort of city-state, and under Numa it was transformed into a deeply pious nation.Later writers such as Livy, perhaps from nostalgia, write that it was the most religioustime in Romes history. Though technically it remained a part of Roman life throughoutits history, down to Constantine who was baptized a Christian on his deathbed, Romanswaxed and waned in their dedication; toward the end they were certainly waning morethan waxing.

So too in British America we see a genuine, often fervent religious dedication. To thisday weve adopted one of these groups mythology as our own, the Puritan, and manypeople still talk of Americas political and economic influence in the world as part of akind of covenant with God, like they are the new Israelites. And though these feelingsand beliefs have never been quite consistent among the populace, especially not after theCivil War, Christianity still remains the dominant ideological system. Even when peopledo not identify with atheism, mysticism, agnosticism, etc, they will affirm that theybelieve in God, and very easily fall into the Judeo-Christian narrative of good versus evil.

***

Having established the religious context, we next delve into commerce and theeconomy of the colonial era and the lessons we can learn from this period. The economywas always linked not only to Great Britain but to Europe. You cannot have an Americawithout a Europe, and so youll forgive me if I briefly delve into European affairs.

Like the Italy of 700 BC (and for many centuries onward), 16th and 17th century


15/21

Europe was racked with conflict and war. There were brief periods of one statesdominanceSpain, then France, then Britainbut the power they held was neverextreme. In fact, the end goal in many of the ensuing conflicts was to never let anymonarch get any more power, and also to maintain the status quo. As Elizabeth I said,"Whenever the last day of France came it would also be the eve of the destruction of

England.

Thus, the English during this time played the role of Sparta in the Peloponnesian War,while in our parallel histories, the Samnites and their allies in the Italian Peninsula fearedthe rise of Rome. Britain dedicated herself to preventing any other nation from expandingits power, at the expense of financing Dutch rebels in the United Provinces, lending aidand money to the Huguenot uprising in France, harassing the other nations (with theDutch) in the New World to disrupt trade and supply routes, raiding their colonies,financing Frederick the Great and more.

This argument is still frequently used today to engage in wars that are more

harassments than total-destructive war. For example, the United States interventions inCentral America, the Middle East, Asia. If we really are to learn from history though, wewill realize that this always ends in bankruptcy, at the very least, and when you do gainsome power, its quickly taken away since the path to power is so hazardous on yourcountry. Roman wars, on the other hand were not of this naturethey were more of atotal war in that if they came after you, they would make sure that you would not riseup against them again. I think that if you were truly justified in your war, this is what youwould do rather than engage in a wasteful expenditure of money and lives.

As Livy writes, they did nothing half-heartedly. You could be destroyed, your cityburned and your population enslaved or wiped off the face of the earth. On the otherhand, if you were lucky (or Italian) you could simply become companions (a vassalstate), sometimes with Roman citizenship and sometimes not, depending on your utility.Rome, consequently, lasted far longer than either the American, British, or any otherEuropean Empire.

Not only were there changes in the nature of the wars being fought, but there werevast military changes during this time as well. Paul Kennedy explains that after thedecline of feudalism, knights no longer owed military service to their sovereign, and so itwas crucial for any ruler to be able to pay, out of pocket, for a war, or have excellentcredit to borrow the amount. You might be their king, but 16th century folks had kids withmouths to feed too.

Further, you not only had to pay and equip a land-based army, but an ever more costlyfleet of ships to sail around the globe. The Spanish didnt bother to do this, with a fewexceptions, howeverthey would usually just commandeer whatever navy they could.

It was the Spanish colonies that allowed the Hapsburg rulers to stay solvent. Kennedywrites, Even when the English and Dutch attacks upon the Hispano-Portuguese colonialempire necessitated an ever-increasing expenditure on fleets and fortifications overseas


16/21

the direct and indirect gains to the Spanish crown from those territories remainedconsiderable.

Machiavelli warns us of giving too much credit to money, though, and we would bewise to heed ancient wisdom. InDiscourses on Livy he relates the take of Croesus, the

king of Lydia, showing Solon of Athens his treasure store and asked Solons what hethought about his power. Solon then replies war is made with iron and not with gold,another coming with more iron might carry off his gold. Rather, Machiavelli, states, it isa solid army.

And so, we can see the importance of money and the American gold, silver, and othercommodities in financing the wars, but no single military force had a supremely decisiveedge over another, certainly not in the kind of dominance that Napoleon would create inhis armies a few decades later.

Soon the Habsburgs faded away, bankrupt, and a power vacuum was left around 1660,

and the same would happen to France who was the next to take center stage. After theyrose to power, they surged ahead with centralization, organization, and bureaucratization,consolidating and strengthening their power after the Hundred Years War. Kennedywrites, all this forced the other powers to follow suit, if they did not wish to beeclipsed." Thus, much like he steady trend of Americanization that went on around theworld in the twentieth century, the other countries of this time proceeded in theirFrancofication. But, as we know, this ended poorly in the time of Marie Antoinette andLouis XVI only a few decades later.

If only they would have heeded the following advice: Whosoever increases not hisstrength while he adds to his dominions must needs be ruined. He who is impoverishedby his wars, even should be come off victorious, can add nothing to his strength, since hespends more than he gains (Machiavelli).

In any case, with France defeated and the other European nations having to lookinward to repair themselves, Britain was now head honcho not only in Europe but on theAmerican continent, having largely expelled the Spanish and French. The restraints offand the centralization begun, the British began to exert more control over their Americancolonies.

I want to take a moment and reflect on how we can see the consequences of thishistory in early American policy. You can see that they would have seen the disastrouseffects of intervention, having the Spanish and French examples before them. In contrast,they would have understood the benefits of a peace, to let a country recover and builditself up, hence their subsequent (if only in theory) isolationism. One child becomes analcoholic because daddy was. The other doesnt drink because daddy was an alcoholic.

You can also see why they would have abhorred political factions. Great Briton wasrife with factions in Westminster. France was not, and its generally recognized thatBritains factions prevented it from properly handling the American colonies, whereas,


17/21

for a time, France was seen as an uber-efficient governmental machine. So, without evenhaving to crack a book they could observe many fundamental political principles.

***

It was in this warring context that the colonies were established, and we can nowunderstand how very deeply Britain wanted and needed revenue from them, and in thelatter half of the eighteenth century, following the trend of heavier and heaviercentralization by the French, these controls began to increase.

The goal was to make the colonies more dependent on the crown. By around 1750, allof the colonies, except Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, werecrown colonies (Andrews). Consider that the opposite course of actiongiving more andmore freedom to the colonies would have been looked on as only helping their enemies.

And it was bitterly resented. The Americans had begun with institutions of self-

government and popular representation, with only a governor and council appointed fromEngland, which ruled them. As we see in Rome, even while it was a kingdom, there wasa senate and public officials were popularly electedindeed, even the king was electedby the people.

We learned before that the Roman patrician over throwers of the monarch soughtto do so for two reasons: 1) the hereditary, Etruscan dynasty was spiraling out ofcontrol, culminating in the rape of a noblewoman; 2) their own power wasundermined by the preceding political reorganization under the last kings.

We only have to read the rhetoric of John Adams (let alone the many others) whoechoed this first sentiment, with his rampant claims of tyranny. For example, hecalled the Stamp Act an enormous engine, fabricated by the British Parliament forbattering down all the Rights and Liberties of America. By 1776 this was awidespread (though not all-encompassing) feeling.

The British perspective was that, since America had benefited from the time ofrelative self-governance and peace, not having been involved in the European affairs,that they should help pay in the form of the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act, andthe Townshend Act. The colonists, in turn, cried this would ruin their productivity. Itwas but a small stepping stone to the argument of their being ruinous, to their beingunconstitutional. The colonists then began attacking the very legitimacy of Britishrule by calling upon the Magna Carta of 1215 and divine principles of justice.

C. Bradley Thompson, editor of one selection of John Adams writings wrote that:It violated in two important ways the most fundamental principle of the Englishconstitution: the principle of consent. The Stamp act denied the rights guaranteed byMagna Carta that no citizen shall be deprived of his property or taxed without hisconsent, and it extended juryless courts of admiralty into the American colonies.When combined with the recently passed Sugar Act, the Stamp Act permitted the


18/21

transfer of revenue enforcement from regular common-law courts to the newlyempowered admiralty courts. In Adams eyes this meant that unconstitutional courtswould now enforce unconstitutional taxes. Forever the two peoples had fractured,despite the repeal of most of these unfavorable laws.

Fundamentally, I think, the British failed in their being so disconnected from theAmericans and thus did not offer solid leadership or any peaceful direction, leaving avoid for the radicals to fillmuch like the Roman monarchs leaving a void for theSenators (well-versed in persuasive oratory) to fill.

But where the British may not have been paying attention, the early radicals were.I think that they felt that they were the only ones who saw what was coming, havingreceived a rigorous education in the classical works of Rome and Greece: Thosewho covet such power, always have recourse to secrecy, and the blackness ofdarkness to cover their wicked views; and have always their parties and instrumentsand minions at hand, to disguise their first approaches, and to vilify and abuseas

turbulent destroyers of the public peace, as factious, envious, malicious pretenders topatriotism, as sowers and stirrers of sedition (Adams).

We read something of an extremely similar sentiment in Discourses on Livy:Rome could have used no greater fraud than was involved in her method abovenoted of making for herself companions; since under this name she made for herselfsubjectsthe Latins never knew that they were enslaved until they saw the Samnitestwice routed and forced to make terms.

I can imagine that Adams would have felt like a Trojan Cassandra at times, cursedto see the future, and yet doubly cursed to never have anybody believe her. He felt hesaw the first signs of a tyranny that would soon come to enslave Americans. And hewas certainly familiar with the Roman principle of constant government renewal tokeep a state free and thriving. And as Machiavelli said, We have seen how necessaryit was that Rome should be taken by the Gauls, that being thus in a manner reborn,she might recover life and vigor, and resume the observances of religion and justicewhich she had suffered to grow rusted by neglect. The same sentiment was aptlyexpressed by Thomas Jefferson: A little rebellion now and then is a good thing andas necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

But what if only about 10% of the populace agrees with you that revolution isnecessary? Here enters mythology. Adams outright uses the Puritan mythology as ajustification for his own actions, much like Augustus used Aeneas. Adams writes ofthe Puritans: They were from the very beginning enemies to monarchythey sawclearly, that popular powers must be placed as a guard, a control to the powers of themonarch and the priest, in every government, or else it would soon become the manof sin, the whore of Babylon.

It is true that they chose to limit the power of the clergy, but given that RhodeIsland was founded by those ostracized from Massachusetts I think we can hardly say


19/21

that our modern conception of brotherly love was a principle practice among thePuritans. In other words, they were separatists but had their own kind of tyranny thatwould later inspire such works as The Crucible and The Scarlett Letter.

Another illustrative quote: [Americans] are a people whom no character can

flatter or transmit in any expressions equal to their merit and virtue; with the highsentiments of Romans, in the most prosperous and virtuous times of thatcommonwealth, they have the tender feelings of humanity, and the noble benevolenceof Christians; they have the most habitual, radical sense of liberty, and the highestreverence for virtue; they are descended from a race of heroes, who, placing theirconfidence in Providence alone, set the seas and skies, monsters and savages, tyrantsand devils, at defiance for the sake of religion and liberty.

Compare this to a quote from the Aeneid:To them no bounds of empire I assignNor terms of years to their immortal line.

Even haughty Juno, who, with endless broils,Earth, seas, and heaven and Jove himself turmoilsAt length, atoned, her friendly power shall join,To cherish and advance the Trojan line.The subject world shall Romes dominion ownAnd, prostrate, shall adore the nation of the gown.Then dire debate and impious war shall cease,And the stern age be softened into peace

The myth goes deeper as we see him raise the issue beyond the legal argumentsand into a cosmic event. Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants ofprinces or parliaments, but original rights, conditions of original contracts, coequalwith prerogative and coeval with government; that many of our rights are inherentand essential, agreed on as maxims, and established as preliminaries, even before aparliament existed.

Fundamentally, then, I think he was aware that the tyrannies committed by theBritish crown were not actually that tyrannical, but were signs of much worse tocome. Like the Romans upon seeing Tarquinus the Proud dare run over his fathersbody with a chariot, and his son rape a noblewoman, they felt that they were growingprogressively worse. Noble blood would soon be spilled on a large scale, andAmericans feared something similar.

To summarize, we clearly see both sentiments present in the Americans as wellasense of their rights being undermined by a newly imperialistic Britain and alsofeeling that Britain was in the nascent stages of spiraling out of control into a tyranny,a tyranny that should be resisted with violence as Brutus and Publius resisted Tarquinthe Proud. And, like Caesar unto Pompey, they asked for terms that could not becomplied with. The British could do no other than go to war; an Oedipal struggle


20/21

would ensue.

As Patrick Henry said, Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased atthe price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. Paul Johnson writes that insaying these words he got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slavehe then

bent to the earth with his hands still crossed for a few seconds, and suddenly sprangto his feet, shouting, Give me liberty! and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered hisarms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said insepulchral tones: Or give me death! He would later compare Americans to sailorsbeing lured by sirens to great disaster.

Interestingly, once the revolution was carried through and a new governmentestablished, Patrick Henry became a marginal figure and for this I admire him. Likethe Roman practice of retiring quietly once leaving office, he abandoned hisambitions for a quieter life having once made their mark upon the world.

I want to clarify that though I admire many of these men, I believe that they alsokick-started a long-standing trend of American entitlement and ingratitude--theywould never have had their New Jerusalem or New Rome if not for what Britaindid for them. Instead of analyzing these things, I believe, they were possessed with asingle-mindedness, high on the holy water of freedom. But we would be wise toremember that everything once given can be taken away.

***

As many have pointed out before me, the whole series of events is quite bizarrewhen put into their proper context. A vast colony revolting against a fledgling empireto secure freedom untold, based on classical ideals. And yet very quickly after theygot it, betrayed their foundations---escape from the trappings of empire we did not.They did not forge new souls for men. Technology, politics, the invasions from othercultures, were all too big for the intentions of a few men.

One of the grossest atrocities of human treatment was developing in the form ofchattel slavery, worse than the institutions of slavery already in Africa, and worsethan in Rome (in general) in this extreme form of capitalism. Zinn even reports thatJames Madison told a British visitor shortly after the American Revolution that hecould make $257 on every Negro in a year, and spend only $12 or $13 on his keep.In Rome, also, slavery was not nearly the institution under the kingdom as it was inthe Republic.

It had a more equality-centered culture as the years went on, but it cannot bedenied that injustice has always existed. There has always been at least one groupwho bore the brunt of public mistreatment. Slaves (free or otherwise), women,Chinese, Japanese, communists, and the list goes on. This does not mean that some ofthese men didnt have righteous intentions. These righteous intentions just didntoutlive them very long. Similarly, in Rome after the Republic was established there


21/21

developed a centuries-long clash between the plebs and the patricians.

However, through these myths and the culture they generated, Rome physicallyconquered their entire known world, at least everything they considered worthconquering. The Americans have culturally conquered everything that they deem

worth conquering (except some of the Islamic states, which I guess are our equivalentto the Visigoths and such). And the myths of John Adams are the ones we remember,just like of Greece we remember Achilles, as we remember Romulus and Remus. Ourmyths seem to have outlived the truth.

For all their flaws, Id rather live under John Adams America of civic virtue andintrospection than our current America. Imagine having a President who would takehis private time to reflect on matters such as the following.

The most abandoned minds are ingenious in contriving excuses for their crimes,

from constraint, necessity, the strength or suddenness of temptation, or theviolence

of passion, which serve to soften the remordings of their own consciences, andtorender them by degrees insensible equally to the charms of virtue and the

turpitude

of vice.

This same sentiment is reflected in Livy when he writes that in modern times we canno longer endure our vices, or their remedies.

Alea iacta est. The die is cast.

References

Adams, John The Revolutionary Writings of John AdamsAndrews, Charles The Colonial Background of the United StatesDavies, NormanEuropeDurant, Will Caesar and ChristKennedy, Paul The Rise and Fall of Great PowersMacCullough, Diarmaid The ReformationMachiavelli, NicoloDiscourses on LivyVirgil, Aeneid(Two translations: Billson, and Dryden)Winterer, Caroline Culture of ClassicismZinn, HowardA Peoples History of the United States

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-human-fiction
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Lessons from History: Parallels Between the Roman Kingdom and American Colonies

Documents