The Roman Republic Fell...Will Ours?

The comparison between the Roman Republic and the United States of America is not a new one. Countless historians such as Nick Holmes, to the numerous Christian preachers, to even the founders of Unificationism, all recognize the United States as the world's greatest power. 

And yet, balooning power is what led the Roman Republic to fall.

The Roman Republic started out as an assembly of 7 tribes on seven hills in the Italian penninsula. These 7 tribes sought to survive the harsh ancient world. Their King,, Tarquin the Proud, was disliked. In 509 B.C, the Romans overthrew their Etruscian king and created a republican form of government.

Not the republican party. A republican form of government. The Bill of Rights Institute defines it a Republic as: 

"One in which the people – directly or indirectly – are the ultimate source of authority, electing representatives to make laws that serve their interests and advance the common good."

Rome had several branches of government, like the United States. However, they are much different in nature. The consuls presided over the senate and commanded the army. Each year, two consuls were elected, with either one having the ability to veto the other consul's decision. Although the term for a consul was one year, they could be elected to multiple terms. Additionally, you had the senate, which was a body of 200 men that advised the consuls and the assembly of centuries, the body of the people, on passing laws. The praetors, who served as judges and interpreters of the law, also helped command the military. The Council of the Plebs appeared later in the mid-200s, and offered representation to Rome's non-land owners for the first time.

In the early days of the Republic, the Romans gained territory strictly through diplomacy. It did not have enough resources to provide for a strong army and weapons. yet it united the various groups around the Italian peninsula under the Roman banner. These peoples largely kept their cultural identity and autonomy of governance. As long as they served in the Roman army, the Romans gave them the benefits of Roman government and (to varying degrees) citizenship. 

Looking at the history of the United States, after the Revolutionary War, territories were bought through diplomacy, rather than strictly conquered. The Louisiana Purchase is one notable example. The annexation of Texas, although partially gained through the Mexican-American war, also did not require a massive military campaign. Additionally, states in the union had large amounts of autonomy to govern. This was due to the the principle of federalism: the principle of sharing power between state and federal governments. The U.S. government itself explains how the Founding Fathers viewed this shared power:

"By allocating power among state and federal governments, the Framers sought to establish a unified national government of limited powers while maintaining a distinct sphere of autonomy in which state governments could exercise a general police power" (constitution.congress.gov).

The 10th amendment is perhaps the clearest definer of the the shared power between states and the federal government: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution of the United States gives limited powers to the federal government. Anything not stated in the constitution was relegated to the states. 

Looking back to Rome, its population allowed them to finally face a world power head on for the first time: Carthage. As one of the four major empires resulting from the breakup of Alexander the Great's Macedonian empire, Carthage had a powerful army and vast amounts of resources. Yet, over the course of 80 years and 3 Punic Wars, the Romans eventually defeated Carthage. As a result, by the mid 100s B.C, Rome had gained control of the entire Western Mediterranean Sea. For the first time, it had major power. 

Similar to Rome, American imperialism began the United States' entry into the world as a major power. Through taking territories such as the Philippines and Hawaii and its booming economy, American influence began to spread across the world.  It had dug out of its past isolationism and was becoming a political and economic powerhouse. 

The domestic results of Rome's victory in the Punic Wars were a mixed bag. As the Republic grew, the senator's vies for power grew as well. Rome was known for its strong national identity, commitment to representation, and was grounded in Greek philosophy and culture, as well as its own religion. Senators and consuls began exerting more control on its population. Senators began acting more and more corrupt. 

One such example is the Senate's attitude towards Scipio. As the leading general of the 2nd Punic War, Scipio held onto Roman identity and ingeniousness despite going against a great foe like Hannibal. Notably, he showed mercy over taking slaves and profits from sacking Carthage's cities, and fought alongside his soldiers in battle. His objective was not profit, but the defense and prosperity of all of Rome. Scipio's success was treated not as a victory for Rome, but as a threat to senatorial power. Even after the war, as Scipio's success led to being elected consul, senators plotted for Scipio (and his brother's exile). They got just that. 

Eventually, a string of dictators (who, unlike the modern day, were appointed by the Senate in times of crisis) arouse in the Republic's final years. This was almost never done in Rome's early days. Eventually, a general named Sulla fought a civil war during his time of consulship against Marius. Sulla, to secure his power, had the senate declare him dictator. This system was expanded during the First Triumvirate until, finally, Julius Caesar was declared Dictator for Life. The Republic had ended. An Empire had begun. Augustus made sure of that. The Senate became a farce, with Augustus and his various offices controlling all Roman affairs. The true meaning of "Roman" was sacrificed for ultimate power. 

In concert with the United States' rise to global power, federal power increased, particularly in the executive branch. The New Deal brought the federal government into every part of a citizen's life.  Regulatory agencies making up the federal government grew to the hundreds. The executive branch gets around Congress' power to declare war (officially, World War II was the U.S' last war). The executive branch distributes welfare and grants, and even has tried to make healthcare mandatory. This only scratches the surface.

This was all done by skirting around the Constitution and the principle of federalism. At what point does the federal government amass too much power? At what point does the American republic, as Rome's, fall because of a rapid influx and attempts to grab power?

Commentators like Cato the Younger and Cicero arouse to defend Rome's original republican principles. Cicero applauded Caesar's assassination, saying: "Our tyrant deserved his death for having made an exception of the one thing that was the blackest crime of all. Why do we gather instances of petty crime - legacies criminally obtained and fraudulent buying and selling? Behold, here you have a man who was ambitious to be king of the Roman People and master of the whole world; and he achieved it!" Unfortunately for Cicero, Rome never transitioned back to republican principled, and instead embraced its opposite for the rest of its history.  

People cry "there's so much corruption in Washington!" Has anyone asked why?

It's an easy answer: power. Humanity's oldest and most dangerous foe. The solution: go back to federalism. Return power to the state and local governments. Allow for the least amount of power to be obtained as possible. Rule like the early Romans tried to. 

The United States can still be at the top of the world. Only maybe, America can keep, not sacrifice, what it means to be American while doing it. To be American has to mean more than just the values of personal liberty and freedom. With great power comes great responsibility--not just to serve America citizens, but the world as well. 

To the degree the United States garners global power, the more it must do to the world that has brought it such power. The counter to power is selflessness, living for the sake of others. That is America's true responsibility. All the while holding onto its sacred calling of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The question is, will America fulfill its great calling, or stoop deeper into corruption and a loss of values.