Ancient Rome and the Constitution, Part III: Moral Lessons the Founders Learned From the Romans

Commentary

This is the third installment in the “Ancient Rome and the Constitution” series. The first installment examined the place of Roman history and literature in Founding-era education. It also described the interest in Rome among the general population. The second installment thumbnailed the course of Roman history and listed six authors particularly influential to the founding generation’s political thinking: Polybius, Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Tacitus, and Plutarch. Polybius and Plutarch were Greeks, but they were Roman citizens and wrote extensively on Roman subjects.

The Constitution’s Adoption

In 1786, the delegates at a convention of states meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, recommended to their home states that they call a wider convention for the following May in Philadelphia to “take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”

The surrounding history makes it clear that the delegates used the word “constitution” to refer to the entire political system (as the word was used in the Declaration of Independence), not merely to the Articles of Confederation. In December 1786, Virginia—one of the states represented at Annapolis—issued the formal convention call for Philadelphia. All the other states except Rhode Island agreed to participate, although the Confederation Congress, Massachusetts, and New York tried unsuccessfully to limit the agenda to amending the articles.

The convention proceedings continued from May 25 through Sept. 17, 1787. Despite frequent modern comments about the “long hot summer,” in fact, the summer of 1787 was a relatively cool one.

On the last day of the proceedings, the convention sent its proposed Constitution to Congress, which unanimously transmitted it to the states. Eventually, elected conventions in all 13 states ratified it, culminating in its approval by Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. The Republic of Vermont ratified it in January 1791 and became the 14th state.

The new Federal Congress met in 1789 and, pursuant to a “gentlemen’s agreement” by which the Constitution was ratified, proposed 12 amendments as a new Bill of Rights. By the end of 1791, the requisite number of states had approved 10 of them.

When these essays refer to “the constitutional debates,” they mean the public debates over the entire period of 1786 through 1791. They included discussions leading up to the Constitutional Convention (1786–1787), the convention itself (1787), the ratification debates (1787–1790), and the proceedings in 1791.

Lessons in General

Lessons from ancient Rome impacted the constitutional debates at every stage. They included lessons in morality, constitutional history, and rhetoric.

A disproportionate share of these lessons derived from the six classical authors discussed in the second installment of this series: Polybius, Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Tacitus, and Plutarch. But some participants in the debates learned them from intermediate sources rather than reading those authors directly. For example, Montesquieu’s “Spirit of the Laws” was one of the most quoted works during the constitutional debates. But Montesquieu’s book relied very heavily on Roman authors.

Moral Lessons

Although both Roman and modern authors have frequently depicted Romans as morally depraved, with some exceptions (gladiatorial contests, for example), basic moral standards were not that different from those prevailing in America before 1960.

Romans, like the authors of the Bible, often interpreted history from a moral point of view. The American Founders drew inspiration from the heroism depicted by Livy, accepted instruction from the “Moralia” (moral essays) written by Plutarch, and shuddered in revulsion at the depravity described by Tacitus.

Livy told of republican virtue: how people facing oppression, danger, and other challenges persevered and overcame. But he also related how, during times of crisis, the two consuls could be paralyzed by their differences, forcing the Senate to grant a six-month appointment to a single “dictator.”

Livy related the story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus: how he came out of retirement to save Rome from the hostile armies surrounding the city. He accepted the office of dictator, rallied his country’s troops, defeated the enemy, and then laid down his power—all in a period of 16 days.

Livy also related how the general Quintus Fabius had frustrated Hannibal by avoiding pitched battles (which Hannibal always won) and adopting guerrilla tactics instead.

Tacitus, by contrast, told of the moral depravity of emperors who were selected for their family connections and remained in office for life.

In statues and in other ways, members of the founding generation portrayed George Washington as “the American Cincinnatus”—because he left his plow to save his country and then returned to his plow—and as “the American Fabius”—because he won the Revolutionary War largely by tactics of avoidance and delay.

Washington, however, did not model himself on either Cincinnatus or Fabius, preferring yet another Roman moral hero: Cato the Younger.

The moral lessons taught by Roman authors help explain the sentiment expressed by some Founders to the effect that a republican government can survive only as long as the people remain virtuous. Despite that sentiment, however, the Founders shaped the Constitution to account for the fact that people often are not virtuous.

Roman Moral Examples in the Ratification Debates

During the debates over whether to ratify the Constitution, participants on both sides—the pro-Constitution “Federalists” and the anti-Constitution “Antifederalists”—often called on Roman moral illustrations to underscore their messages. Cicero was viewed as the archetype of the wise and good statesman, who showed wisdom and courage in suppressing the evil, insurrectionary Catiline. Accordingly, a Pennsylvania Antifederalist, writing under the pseudonym “Cicero,” announced that he would respond to a Federalist “Catiline.” And a Massachusetts Federalist branded an anonymous opponent a “MODERN CATILINE.”

Participants, particularly Antifederalists, employed the writings of Tacitus to demonstrate the risks of power and corruption. Thus, a Virginia Antifederalist writing as “Brutus” recounted abuses by the emperors Tiberius and Nero. A Rhode Island Antifederalist, writing as “Cato junior,” relied on Tacitus to show that corrupt governments endeavor to corrupt the people:

“Ill governments, subsisting by vice and rapine, are jealous of private virtue, and enemies to private property. … Hence it is, that to drain, worry, and debauch their subjects, are the steady maxims of their politics, their favourite arts of reigning. In this wretched situation the people to be safe, must be poor and lewd.”

“Cato junior” said the contagion is mutual. A corrupted people idolize corrupt leaders.

“Even Nero (that royal monster in man’s shape) was adored by the common herd at Rome. … Tacitus tells us, that those sort of people long lamented him,” he said.

Can you think of modern American political leaders who have sought to retain power by corrupting the people? 

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution” (4th ed., 2025) and is a contributor to the Heritage Foundation’s “Heritage Guide to the Constitution.” He also authored the scholarly article, Virgil and the Constitution, whose publication is pending in Regent University Law Review.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.