Most of us havea sense of the relationship between the Roman Republic and the government ofthe United States. For example, our Senate is named for the senior legislativebody of the ancient republic. But there is more to the relationship than namesas you will see below as we describe how the founders viewed ancient politicalsystems in their efforts to fashion a government for America.
The our founderswere educated men. Most could read Latin and Greek -- most had studied thehistory of governments and were well versed in ancient history. The Romansstood out as their chosen model for a political system, not the Greeks. TheAthenian and Spartan systems were seen as inappropriate for the new country –the former because it gave too much power to the people and the latter becauseit operated in a non-economic model (a closed society with no trade).
The founderswere guided by four basic principles which were applied to the design of thenew government: 1) the need to protect life, liberty, and property, 2) acommitment to republicanism, 3) the lessons of history, as seen in the ancientworld and modern Europe, and 4) contemporary political theory including thephilosophy of Locke and the checks and balances system of Montesquieu.
Theybelieved that only a republican model would be acceptable to the American peoplebecause only it operated without the hereditarymonarchy and aristocracy so abhorrent to them. Beyond that unifying principle,the framers had varying beliefs about the definition of “republic”. Prior to1776, most would have defined a republic as something like their current colonialgovernments which typically contained two legislative bodies and a chiefmagistrate.
As theConstitutional Convention approached, however, the founders did additionalresearch to refine their understanding of a republican political system. Two nuanceddefinitions emerged from this thought process which are commonly labeled puritanand agrarian. Both attempted to address the mortality of republics, that isunderstanding the causes of their eventual decline. The puritan view, popularin the north, was based almost completely on ancient political theory and heldthat the longevity of a political system needed to be based on morality – creategood citizens and you will create a better government. Men should adhere to apublic virtue encompassing firmness, endurance, industry, and dedication to thepublic good like the Greeks.
The agrarianview, popular in the south, held that a prosperous socio-economic system wouldcreate wealth and happiness for all, resulting in a stable and long lastingpolitical system. If a man owned land, he would be free from the trials of lifewhich could cause him to be impoverished. This philosophy was dovish in itsmilitancy – believing that a landowning class was a kind of utopia that did notneed to protect itself from decay.
As theconvention opened, delegates were faced with the decision of how best to adaptthe Roman system to a modern Unites States. There were certainly fundamental differencesbetween America and the Roman Republic and these influenced by the span of timeand the evolution of western culture over two millennia.
Rome had twohouses in its legislature: the Senate and the Assembly. The Senate was aaristocratic body made up of patrician families who held a connection to thethree ancient tribes of Rome. The assembly (there were several of these overtime) was a public gathering of the people who voted individually forcandidates or laws. The Senate had 300 members for most of its existence, whilethe assembly comprised all property owning citizens who attended its meetings. Thechief magistrates of the Republic were the consuls. Two were elected for a oneyear term and had the right of veto over each other. This veto right wasdesigned to prevent an abuse of power.
As the American Constitutional Conventionapproached, two camps of framers developed – nationalists who believed that acentral government was essential to the longevity of America and republicanideologues who were only willing to grant federal control under certainrestrictions such as separation of powers. These polarizing views formed thebattle line of the convention and dictated the way the new American politicalsystem would be designed. The majority of the debates were centered on the seatof power – whether it would be with the people, with the government, orsomewhere in between.
The longest(over a month) and most contentious debate involved the structure of thelegislature. Although a consensus on the bicameral model was achieved fairlyquickly, the convention bogged down over the method of representation . Theoriginal proposal had both houseselected based on population districts. This plan was opposed by the smallstates who felt their interests would be dominated by the large states. On theopposite side were those who pointed out the failings of the Articles ofConfederation due to deadlocks created from a system which allowed only onevote per state. A compromise was eventually reached when the delegates agreedto set up an equal number of senators for each state and only use the districtmethod for electing representatives.
The RomanAssembly used a direct voting system, impractical in the United States becauseof the vast geography and the difficulty of assembling the people. Instead theconvention opted for a representational system featuring elected officials asrepresentatives of the people. The founders felt that representatives trainedto serve in the government would be better equipped to take care of the needsof the public than the people themselves.
With the structureof the legislative branch finalized, theconvention when on to debate the office of chief magistrate or president. Someadvocated a dual president like the Roman consuls; some wanted one executiveper region to protect the interests of each region; others were opposed to any executivebecause he would represent a dangerous concentration of power.
Again, as inthe case of the legislature, the convention got into a heated debate about thelength of the president’s term and the method of electing him. An early proposalargued for the president to be elected to one term of seven years, and thedelegates labored to balance the time needed by the president to achieve hisgoals with avoiding a concentration of power in the office. Many term lengthswere debated from four years to sixteen years before the convention decided tolet the president serve for terms of four years. Then the debate moved to themethod of election. Three choices were initially offered: letting the Congresspick the president, letter the state legislatures pick the president, andletting electors chosen by the people elect the president. The latter won outas being the fairest way to allow the people to control who would becomepresident of the land.
Letus now summarize how the model of government described in the Constitutioncompares to the Roman Republic:
Two houses in the legislature – both.
A senior body of experienced men and ajunior body close to the people – both
Senators elected by the people - neither
A senior magistrate as executive –United States one; Rome two.
One male landholders can vote – both
At the time of the Constitution’sratification, our government was as close to the Roman Republic as it wouldever be. And then things began to change as we moved in the direction of ademocracy. The property qualification was steadily reduced until about 1850 whenit was removed completely; the electors came to be chosen by the people insteadof the state legislatures, giving the people a direct say in electing thepresident; and finally, in 1910, the law for electing senators was changed toallow the people to elect them directly.
The differences between the twoRepublics was dictated by the difference in culture and time, but ourattraction to the ancient system because it had no monarch led us to thecreation of a new version designed to withstand the modern age.
