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).