by Scott Powell
We left off in Part 2 of this series (see the August newsletter) with the story of the Athenian democracy, whose flaws were punctuated by the infamous trial of Socrates. By the state-sanctioned murder of this one individual, the oppressive potential of an unrestricted governing majority becomes tragically clear to all who study history.
It is appropriate that it is in the violation of the rights of a single individual--the smallest possible minority--that we see the flaw in unlimited majority rule. As one of history greatest oppressors once put it "One death is a tragedy" whereas "one million is a statistic." The dramatic story of Socrates has precisely the kind of indelibly tragic aura to it that vast numbers sometimes cause us to lose sight of. The dramatic injustice of the moment is rendered even more vivid, if one has made a careful study of the dialogs of Plato and the famous painting of Socrates's death by Jacques-Louis David.
Sadly, the equally dramatic triumph of Roman governance represented by the protection of the rights of individuals--rather than the violation of them--cannot offer the same type of signal moment upon which to anchor our understanding and appreciation of the concept "republic." Evidently, it's just not as stirring when someone merely continues to live and pursue their happiness because he was protected by a good government instead of having his life snuffed out by a terrible injustice perpetrated by it!
This is not to say that there is no drama in the story of the world's first republic. Indeed, the story of the creation of the Roman Republic begins with a massive protest during a time of war, which nearly cost Rome its very existence!
In 494 BC, not long after the Romans had overthrown the rule of the Tarquin kings, the "patrician" aristocracy that had emerged as the ruling class had proven itself just as oppressive. In particular, the aristocratic rulers who looked down upon the "plebeian" commoners were prone to the exercise of arbitrary political power against them. They felt justified in doing so because of the privileged status their forebears had achieved for them via military service to the state.
The plebeians grew tired of the abuses of patrician government, however, and rebelled in what is known as the "First Secession of the Plebeians" (of 494 BC). It is said that the bulk of the plebeian citizenry literally left Rome, with the intention of establishing another city, which is why the event is known as a "secession."
They had chosen a particularly opportune time to do so. Rome was at war against neighboring cities. With the plebeians in rebellion, the patricians faced the prospect of having to defend Rome themselves. They realized that their situation was militarily untenable and they were forced to give in to the political demands of the plebeians.
It is these demands that set Roman political history apart The plebeians did not demand a share of power, i.e. they did not demand the right to participate in the government, or the right to vote. They demand something quite extraordinary and ingenious. They demanded the establishment of a kind of police force whose job it would be to protect them--against the government! This institution was known as the tribunate.
The tribunes were appointed as plebeian peace officers chosen by the plebeians whose sole function was to protect the plebeians against the initiation of force against them by the patrician-dominated government. The tribunes had no legislative or executive power, i.e. they could neither make nor impose laws on the populace. They could do only one thing: protect the rights of plebeians, most important, the right to avoid arbitrary arrest and imprisonment -- which today we refer to as "habeas corpus."
A tribune could stop any patrician official dead in his tracks, by simply inserting his person in between that official and the individual plebeian who was the object of the government's attention. A tribune's body was considered sacrosanct. The initiation of force against a tribune made of the aggressor an instant outlaw, subject to summary execution! Indeed, the inviolability of the tribunes became such a highly regarded principle in Roman culture that from the period of the initiation of the tribunate no tribune was ever harmed or hindered in the execution of his legal duties for over 350 years of early Roman political history!
What is so special about this, one might be inclined to ask? Americans certainly still feel that they possess certain inalienable rights -- most notably to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- and they expect to be protected in their rights by the government, especially by means of the police, the courts, and the army.
What is so special is that the Romans invented this idea that we all take for granted. Unlike the Greeks, whose progress towards democracy consisted solely of distributing power to a wider and wider base of the population, the Romans originated an entirely new principle: the principle of the protection of individual rights against all aggressors -- including the government!
Without this historical example, it is unlikely that the great political minds of the Enlightenment such as John Locke and Montesquieu could have developed their unique political theories, or that the architects of America's government, the Founding Fathers, could have originated a government that applied the idea of protecting rights to such an unprecedented level.
The world owes an amazing debt of gratitude to Rome's plebeians for their remarkable rebellion against Patrician rule, and for their initial discovery of the priceless truth that government are only rightly instituted among men to secure individual rights.
Scott Powell is a historian living in Houston, TX. He is the creator and teacher of HistoryAtOurHouse, a homeschooling curriculum for students from 2nd to 12th grade. Follow his blog at www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com for more information about teaching your child about Ancient history.
We left off in Part 2 of this series (see the August newsletter) with the story of the Athenian democracy, whose flaws were punctuated by the infamous trial of Socrates. By the state-sanctioned murder of this one individual, the oppressive potential of an unrestricted governing majority becomes tragically clear to all who study history.
It is appropriate that it is in the violation of the rights of a single individual--the smallest possible minority--that we see the flaw in unlimited majority rule. As one of history greatest oppressors once put it "One death is a tragedy" whereas "one million is a statistic." The dramatic story of Socrates has precisely the kind of indelibly tragic aura to it that vast numbers sometimes cause us to lose sight of. The dramatic injustice of the moment is rendered even more vivid, if one has made a careful study of the dialogs of Plato and the famous painting of Socrates's death by Jacques-Louis David.
Sadly, the equally dramatic triumph of Roman governance represented by the protection of the rights of individuals--rather than the violation of them--cannot offer the same type of signal moment upon which to anchor our understanding and appreciation of the concept "republic." Evidently, it's just not as stirring when someone merely continues to live and pursue their happiness because he was protected by a good government instead of having his life snuffed out by a terrible injustice perpetrated by it!
This is not to say that there is no drama in the story of the world's first republic. Indeed, the story of the creation of the Roman Republic begins with a massive protest during a time of war, which nearly cost Rome its very existence!
In 494 BC, not long after the Romans had overthrown the rule of the Tarquin kings, the "patrician" aristocracy that had emerged as the ruling class had proven itself just as oppressive. In particular, the aristocratic rulers who looked down upon the "plebeian" commoners were prone to the exercise of arbitrary political power against them. They felt justified in doing so because of the privileged status their forebears had achieved for them via military service to the state.
The plebeians grew tired of the abuses of patrician government, however, and rebelled in what is known as the "First Secession of the Plebeians" (of 494 BC). It is said that the bulk of the plebeian citizenry literally left Rome, with the intention of establishing another city, which is why the event is known as a "secession."
They had chosen a particularly opportune time to do so. Rome was at war against neighboring cities. With the plebeians in rebellion, the patricians faced the prospect of having to defend Rome themselves. They realized that their situation was militarily untenable and they were forced to give in to the political demands of the plebeians.
It is these demands that set Roman political history apart The plebeians did not demand a share of power, i.e. they did not demand the right to participate in the government, or the right to vote. They demand something quite extraordinary and ingenious. They demanded the establishment of a kind of police force whose job it would be to protect them--against the government! This institution was known as the tribunate.
The tribunes were appointed as plebeian peace officers chosen by the plebeians whose sole function was to protect the plebeians against the initiation of force against them by the patrician-dominated government. The tribunes had no legislative or executive power, i.e. they could neither make nor impose laws on the populace. They could do only one thing: protect the rights of plebeians, most important, the right to avoid arbitrary arrest and imprisonment -- which today we refer to as "habeas corpus."
A tribune could stop any patrician official dead in his tracks, by simply inserting his person in between that official and the individual plebeian who was the object of the government's attention. A tribune's body was considered sacrosanct. The initiation of force against a tribune made of the aggressor an instant outlaw, subject to summary execution! Indeed, the inviolability of the tribunes became such a highly regarded principle in Roman culture that from the period of the initiation of the tribunate no tribune was ever harmed or hindered in the execution of his legal duties for over 350 years of early Roman political history!
What is so special about this, one might be inclined to ask? Americans certainly still feel that they possess certain inalienable rights -- most notably to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- and they expect to be protected in their rights by the government, especially by means of the police, the courts, and the army.
What is so special is that the Romans invented this idea that we all take for granted. Unlike the Greeks, whose progress towards democracy consisted solely of distributing power to a wider and wider base of the population, the Romans originated an entirely new principle: the principle of the protection of individual rights against all aggressors -- including the government!
Without this historical example, it is unlikely that the great political minds of the Enlightenment such as John Locke and Montesquieu could have developed their unique political theories, or that the architects of America's government, the Founding Fathers, could have originated a government that applied the idea of protecting rights to such an unprecedented level.
The world owes an amazing debt of gratitude to Rome's plebeians for their remarkable rebellion against Patrician rule, and for their initial discovery of the priceless truth that government are only rightly instituted among men to secure individual rights.
Scott Powell is a historian living in Houston, TX. He is the creator and teacher of HistoryAtOurHouse, a homeschooling curriculum for students from 2nd to 12th grade. Follow his blog at www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com for more information about teaching your child about Ancient history.
