This book is a bit esoteric. It studies the education of our original revolutionary leaders and ties it to the history and development of the early United States. Whether you know the histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans or not, they make their presence known to us even today. Rome had its capital and senate for example. I will try to pull the anecdotes and history I found compelling in this book without following the author down details of ancient history— for example, the qualities of the general who opposed Hannibal and saved Rome…….. What I found in this book were background and comments that once again, helped me understand that our “Founding Fathers” were not old Testament figures, larger than life but rather, complicated and interesting men often in conflict with each other. They deserve credit for having managed a revolution that for better or worse, changed the world dramatically—kind of like Rome itself.
Rome. Front and center: Consider Washington DC—we have a Senate (Roman word)—we have e pluribus unum (Roman phrase). “Capital” is a Roman word and most the notable landmark buildings in DC were inspired by images of ancient Greece and Rome. There is a statue of Washington DC in a toga as well as one bare-chested, chiseled in marble—a bit unusual in those days (bare chested president, that is)— just like a Roman emperor. If you share the notion that we, like Rome, are falling (or fallen), you are in good company: John Adams in retirement during the early 1800’s re-read his Roman histories and thought the United States of his time was heading down the very same path. If you want to learn more about this comparison in our contemporary world, consider this book: Are We Rome? by Cullen Murphy.
“Virtue,” is a Roman word that had a very specific meaning at the time of our independence. George Washington was considered by his peers as the epitome of what this meant: a good man puts the common good before his own private interests—consistently. George Washington was felt to have done this on multiple occasions and combined with his gravitas, his reputation amongst his co-leaders as well as fellow citizens was solid. Virtue was a glue that helped hold the revolution together when so many things stood to tear it apart. His reflection on the soldiers at Valley Forge referenced this general “virtue” in the army that led to victories. He would lament, after the Constitution was the rule of the land that the competing factions within the nation would no longer hold to the emotional bonds that a war brings and this sense of civic camaraderie that he hoped would pull our large republic together indefinitely.
The Players: The book examines our history through the leadership and examples of the first four presidents. He rates their importance as follows:
Washington: the face of the revolution’s victory and the anchor with respect to public leadership and legitimacy as the first president. And like Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (Roman with virtue) he walked away peaceably from power that was all but his to keep.
Adams: Important in the Congress and the first president to peacefully transfer power to an opposition figure. He was pissy about it though—he, like Trump, did not stick around for the Inauguration of Jefferson.
Jefferson: was inspiring: he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He doubled the size of the country.
Madison: Methodically and single-mindedly drove the creation of the Constitution.
Their educations were different. Washington never went to college. His education was, “hands on,” in the field, whether surveying, farming, or learning his military craft. He did not read Greek or Latin. He was well acquainted with the classics in that they were popularly read and understood even by people without the advantages of prep school or college.
There were four colleges in the colonies of these men: Harvard, Yale, The College of New Jersey (later, Princeton), and William and Mary.
Here, time was uniformly spent on the classics and preferably, reading the histories from Rome and Greece in their native tongues. This was considered a core competence in college.
John Adams went to Harvard, the most English (by tradition) of the four colleges. One’s place in the eating hall was determined by your class status (not GPA but rather, daddy’s standing in society) as was the calling of names at graduation. Adams was a good student and was awarded a prize his freshman year: his choice of a book. What did he choose? He chose a biography of Cicero (a famous Roman politician dedicated to the Roman republic)—and the author suggests he used this biography as a blueprint for his aspirations and life. If you have seen the HBO series Rome, you get a flavor for some of Cicero’s qualities……and John Adams shared some of these though unlike Cicero, he was no orator.
Jefferson was a fine student and did what the sons of aristocrats in Virginia did, he went to William and Mary. His mentoring there was largely under the auspices of two Scots (Doulas and Small) and through this, a connection to the Scottish Enlightenment tradition. The Scottish Enlightenment as differentiated from an English or the European Enlightenment was new to me. It was powerful and innovative —bypassing the English academic system often (The English system of colleges is written off in this book as working to maintain class distinction and with innovative learning taking a second chair). The Scottish enlightenment had a profound influence on American education in the early years as well as in Europe. Graduates of the Scottish University system often came to the colonies and assumed roles teaching both privately and in the Universities. They had deep roots in study of the classics. The Scottish reformation pushed literacy and the Scotts had the highest literacy rate in all of Europe because, in part of Scottish religious orientations (you have to read the Bible yourself to sort things out properly with God). This tradition would bring us the Encyclopedia Britanica, first published in Edinburgh.
James Madison, a Virginian, did something very unusual. He went to college at the College of New Jersey (Princeton). The academic head was a Scott of great influence (he would also sign the declaration of independence) and this school was unusual in that it attracted students from all the colonies. The other three overwhelmingly attracted regional students. As a consequence, the interaction of young minds from across the colonies would soften some of the regionalism that challenged the creation of a republic the size of the original 13 colonies. Once more, Princeton was the UC Berkeley of its day—challenging, confrontative, and to many in the aristocracy, somewhat threatening. And—Madison learned French at Princeton and spoke it with the Scottish Brough/accent of his teachers to the point the a native French speaker could not understand him at all.
Personalities: The book is peppered with reflections of our founding fathers. Some highlights:
Tom Paine: Tom was never interesting in building a society he would run. He was all about running commentary on everyone else trying to run society. He was not a fan of the classics and would point out that we could do better than rely on learnings from 2,000 years ago and once more, in reference to Rome, it was started and run by thugs. He was the outlier though, and just as most leaders of the revolution, he used historical anecdotes of Rome and Greece to make positive points.
Jefferson on Patric Henry: “I think he was the best humored man in society I almost ever knew, and the greatest orator that ever lived….his judgment in other matters was inaccurate. In matters of law it was not worth a copper; he was avaricious and cotton hearted. His two great passions were the love of money and of fame; but when these came into competition, the former predominated.”
Ben Franklin on John Adams: “He means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his Senses.” Once more, Adams managed both by personality and the policies that reflected it during his administration to alienate himself from the affections of generations who might agree with Franklin. You won’t find Adams on any American money—and you will find the non-president, Hamilton. He is not on Rushmore. He was a one term president.
Adams on Jefferson: Adams quotes Jefferson as having said, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” In Jefferson’s own hand, a flirtatious letter to a married woman: “I am but a son of nature, loving what I see and feel, without being able to give a reason nor caring much whether there be one…….”
The Declaration of Independence: It turns out, of the four, Jefferson’s bias lay towards the Greeks who were in most ways, very different than the Romans. His favorite philosopher was Epicurius and the influence is found quickly in the Declaration. John Locke had written an essay re the value of, “life, liberty, and estate…”. which reads and feels quite different than “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” No New Englander could have made that change—but an Epicurean could..… The word, “prudence” is used in the Declaration and it is one of four critical Epicurean virtues, the other three being temperance, fortitude, and justice. The closing of the Declaration brings us back to Rome and a (then) common belief: “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” In other words, their virtue was at stake and they would not back down.
Slavery: it is 2021—the subject cannot be ignored—nor should it, as even for one without much depth, one can see some fundamental conflicts built into the nation’s founding as it relates to this subject. The compromise regarding slavery was not a “white wash” but rather, woven into our social fabric where it remains. Of the first four presidents, only John Adams never owned a slave. John Adams often made clear that he was against slavery. George Washington was ambivalent, but freed many of his slaves in his will. The effect of this was complicated by Virginia law that required free slaves to leave the state, married or not……parents or not. He could not free the slaves of his wife. Thomas Jefferson is legend in this regard having made staunchly anti-slavery arguments early in his life only to perseverate and never reconciling his youthful rhetoric with action. He pretty clearly could not make things work at Monticello without his slaves. His slaves did not fare well. In general, Southerners quoted both Biblical and Greek/Roman literature to support chattel slavery. Of note, the slavery as known in ancient times was largely transient and involved war captives—a very different form of involuntary servitude. In writing about the British policy of offering freedom to slaves who came across British lines, Madison worried that this might prove to be an Achilles heel in the defense of the South. Some historians assert that concern of freeing slaves was the factor, more than taxation or the fighting in New England to bring the South on board with the independence movement. (Consider reading Rough Crossings by Simon Schama if curious about what happened to the slaves freed by the British during the revolutionary war). Madison, a wealthy Virginian, clearly was ambivalent. Madison spent three years in Philadelphia with a slave named Billey. He wrote his father to relate the fact that he would give Billey his freedom. After three years of working side by side with and seeing free blacks work in Philadelphia, it seemed inconceivable that Billey should come back to Virginia. “I … cannot think of punishing him by transportation merely for coveting that liberty for which we have paid the price of so much blood and have proclaimed as often to be the right and worthy the pursuit, of every human being.” Billey was clearly talented and trusted as he became Madison’s business agent in Philadelphia under the name Willam Gadner. Shortly after the constitution was ratified and early in our nation’s history, a revolution in Haiti would lead to the only example of former slaves revolting and then establishing and running their own government in the Americas. The example of the race war that occurred during that revolution would find Southern culture, “doubling down” on their need and faith in chattel slavery. It facilitated the polarization that would make the constitutional compromise untenable decade by decade. Jefferson would react in horror in his advanced age at the Missouri compromise, thinking it an act of treason or of suicide. He saw it as a failure of the generation following the “revolutionary generation.” He was right, though it was predictable given the great compromise that established the unity of the original United States—and his generation owned that.
The War: Washington though victorious in the end, suffered greatly with respect to reputation and judgements of his competence. One of his important supporting generals was a traitor and conspired to have him captured (Benedict Arnold). Many generals were wary of Washington’s expertise (or lack thereof) and would have fought the war differently. Just as now, everyone becomes an expert (and Monday morning quarterback) during a war—think journalists and members of Congress. Washington learned on the job and the argument is made that he learned well. He initially used the state-art-art tactics he learned from the British only to learn he could not win against a major European power using their playbook. He adapted and was accused of Fabianism: Fabian being the Roman general who prevented Hannibal from conquering Rome—which is different than defeating Hannibal. A war of attrition and avoidance of pitched battles was not glorious, but it worked. Examples: In September of 1776 after New York City was taken, the British had 31,600 soldiers in the field. By February of 1777, there were only 14,000 that remained functioning. That is an impressive attrition after only five months. Imagine waging a war now and facing those numbers in our press! Once more, Washington had bloodless victories: The British withdrew from Philadelphia (then, the capital of our resistance) after only 8 months. While he gets credit for the victory at Trenton, a minor engagement militarily, the psychological value of Trenton as well as the withdrawal was immense. Loyalists remaining faced a now more hostile revolutionary presence with punishment to follow—loss of property or status—-and their cooperation if not support of the revolution was enhanced greatly.
After Washington. When our national figurehead voluntarily stepped down after two terms, competing factions felt free to openly engage in political conflict. It disgusted Washington but he (we) faced something inevitable: The revolution was led by an aristocracy, classically trained, and that viewpoint was holding on to power through John Adams, now president. John Adams was a Federalist and these were in fact reactionaries who wanted their version of the country to be realized and anyone not on board was an enemy who should be shut out or put into prison. One judge, a Federalist, who questioned some aspects of the Alien and Sedition act (the law that is most closely associated with John Adams’ administration made opposition to his policies a crime) was soon placed in jail for simply verbalizing his concerns.
The third president, Jefferson rode a wave of populism to the White house. A tip of this iceberg had been seen in Shay’s rebellion many years before when rural veterans revolted over taxation and marched on the Federal armory in Springfield Massachussets. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no army or money to resist this rebellion—it was a bit like the European Union dithering about what to do in Serbia. The Governor initially called out militias in Western Massachusets to put this revolt down—they joined the opposition! He then got merchants from Boston to fund a militia locally to put down this rebellion. People died. The Governor prevailed. This event in part catalyzed the thinking of those same aristocrats to have a national government with more power to influence events across the breadth of the nation. Populists after Jefferson would chip away at this was they do to this very day.
Religion and Populism: One of the difficulties mediating many people’s desire to reconcile the Old Testament qualities of how we regard the Constitution as a foundation or a source of authority and religion as commonly practiced in the United States lies, in the opinion of historian D Staff, “…part of the understanding of the Enlightenment is seeing that to its thinkers, there was fundamental irrelevance of religious revelation to the great issues of public life…”. A cultural Historian H Jones concludes that from 1775 to 1815, religion had less influence in American life than it did in any later such forty year period. This changed and was reflected as the classically educated Aristocracy was voted out of power. That the United States was unusual for its time, lacking a hierarchy determined by birth coupled with a free market for commerce, politics, and religion was important. Religion would make a great comeback, in many forms in the first half of the 19th century: Shakers, Mormons, Millerite millennials, utopian socialists, temperance movements and of course, the Abolition movement.
The religious awakening of the early 1800’s was tied to the classical world falling into disrepute—as did the enlightenment. References to ancient Greece were often negative, alcohol use and homosexuality being cited as examples. The orientation for new American leaders not to mention citizens in general, was looking forward and not looking back at “those old white men.”
A lack of formal education did not hold populists back. As with the Old Testament, they could take their ancient history and the Constitution and make of it what they needed to to achieve their goals. The Romans were famous for developing a strong and modern infrastructure with a strong central government. When the Erie Canal’s funding was debated in Congress, Southerners would resist— thinking a national government strong enough to execute this would be strong enough to outlaw slavery…..regional needs were (and are) in conflict with a national sense of purpose not to mention its economic progress in the modern world.
Aristotle, a pagan, would be cited with fundamentalist religious views regarding slavery: “the master holds his place not because he is more skilled at the tasks at hand….rather, this authority is founded on the general superiority of his character…..”
Thomas Dew, president of William and Mary in the 1830’s would note, “In the ancient republics of Greece and Rome, where the spirit of liberty glowed with the most intensity, the slaves were more numerous than freemen. Aristotle and the great men of antiquity believed slavery necessary to keep alive the spirit of freedom.”
The quoting of ancient examples became less popular with time. After the war of 1812, Thomas Jefferson offered to sell his library to Congress as the old Congressional Library had been burned. A Federalist from Massachusetts questioned whether the nation would benefit from such an injection of infidel philosophy that had no connection to Christianity. A New Hampshire newspaper complained that many of the books in the his library were in a foreign language and whole unintelligible to 9/10 of the members of Congress………things had changed and the new leaders had to deal with slavery as the proxy for regionalism.
I close with none other than Davy Crockett: when critiquing the statue of Washington garbed in a roman toga: “They have a Roman gown on him and he was an American; this ain’t right.”
Comentarios