862. First Principles by Thomas E. Ricks. Mr. Ricks wrote this book because of his shock and dismay at the election of Mr. Trump in 2016. Thus his initial push was to alienate one half of his potential readers. So he asked the question- what is America supposed to be? Then he equates Republicans with white supremacy. He apparently looked for another way to make sure to alienate half of his potential reading audience, in case he failed the first time. In his introduction and throughout the book, he is perplexed by the fact the early Americans lived with a paradox- that liberty is essential for a worthwhile life and yet allowed slavery to exist.
He seems to be unaware that Virginia, for example, tried twice with the Crown in England to end slavery, but was prevented from doing so. That Virginia had nearly one half million free blacks at the beginning of the Civil War. That slavery was something initially accepted by every single colony. I am convinced that it will be sometime before this country can have a reasoned discussion about slavery. Not in my lifetime but perhaps someday. But Ricks assessment of slavery was cursory at best and judged from the high ground of arrogance and self-righteous superiority.
He assesses the first four presidents in terms of virtue as presented and interpreted by these men. But here is where his problems begin. He has not read any Classical author in the original and he does not seem to have any extensive readings in any of them in translation. When it comes to assessing Cicero, for example, he relies on Plutarch. Plutarch wrote a great deal and much survives. He also wrote a series now called Parallel Lives. There is much in these of value to modern scholarship and the study of ancient history. However, one must be careful with Plutarch because the life of a famous Greek is pared with that of a Roman. Characteristics, personalities are often curved to fit his desire to create a parallel life set. Thus he often selects those stories which reflect the view he wished to project. For example, I could easily select stories, quotes and events from the life of Mr. Obama to depict someone shady and even immoral. Or I could select only those events and words to make him look like a saint. Neither approach would be fair or honest and certainly not very scholarly. He quotes, cites Plutarch enough to indicate that this was his main author for antiquity.
So with John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others once a tone is set, those anecdotes by and large are selected which fit the image Mr. Ricks wanted to present.
When I began the book, after two chapters, I mentioned to my wife that I had the feeling that he spent much time on the internet hacking, chopping bits and pieces from the web. And near the end of the book, Mr. Ricks does indeed mention how much time he spent in front of a computer. Yet, he boasted that he spent many hours in dusty libraries doing research. I do not think so.
He covers Thomas Jefferson’s long interest in Epicureanism. Then launches onto numerous references to Epicurus’ devotion to the four cardinal virtues: Truth, Justice, Courage and Temperance. The problem is that he talks of these as though these were a creation by the Epicureans. The main problem here is that he clearly was not very well informed on the fine points of Epicureanism. And Cicero’s devastating criticisms of Epicurus was merely brushed aside. I doubt Mr. Ricks had any kind of serious grasp of the system. Had he done so he may have been able to figure out or at least guess why Jefferson had so little interest in poetry of any kind. Epicureans were famous in antiquity for lack of any sophisticated appreciation for poetry or the fine arts, because these had nothing to do with the real atomic world.
He mentions that Mr. Witherspoon who became the President of Princeton brought a new and bold educational system from Scotland. He did indeed and was without question an impressive man in every sense of the word. But Mr. Ricks seems completely unaware that what Mr. Witherspoon introduced was a slightly modified version of the quadrivium (geometry, music, arithmetic and astronomy) and trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) which was so integral and the heart and soul of the Renaissance. It is indeed to the great credit of Mr. Witherspoon that he did so, but Mr. Ricks could have derived even more mileage out of the fact, if he had indeed spent hours, days, months and years in those dusty libraries.
Mr. Ricks assertion that Mr. Jefferson’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is due to Epicurean philosophy is presented as fact. There is no way that this enjoys universal agreement. Aristotle talks extensively of this in his Politics. Happiness is a concept common in antiquity, it is not something that is the sole possession of Epicureanism. Again, Mr. Ricks knowledge of antiquity is cursory and way, way too keyboard based.
In fact Cicero wrote De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (On the Ends of Good and Evil)) in which he presents Epicurus’ view of happiness, the Stoic view of happiness and the Peripatetic view of happiness. Each view presented is followed by someone in the dialog pointing out flaws in argument or contradictions. Had he read this one work, he could have expanded his understanding of the idea of happiness.
Here is another example of my criticism that Mr. Ricks did not actually spend hours and hours in ‘dusty libraries’. He mentions that Mr. Jefferson constructed underground passage ways for his slaves to keep them out of sight as much as possible. He apparently is unaware that Mr. Jefferson had a deep interest in Hadrian’s Villa, located near modern Tivoli. This fascinating complex also has underground service areas which Hadrian had constructed. These made it easier to access areas of the villa much more easily by slaves and workers and provided cool comfort for those working. It may be that Mr. Jefferson did it at Monticello for the same reasons.
Mr. Ricks seems to see the ancient views of virtue and dedication as somewhat naive. Yet, Cicero and others clearly realized that “perfection falls not to the share of mortals” (quote from Mr. Washington). In fact Cicero in his De Legibus (On the Laws) specifically defends the value of the Tribunes with their power of veto. He realized that such a veto or other mechanisms designed to bring government to a halt were of great value. Why? To prevent hasty decisions based on emotions of the moment. We call this grid lock. It is built into the Constitution and wisely so. Mr. Madison read Cicero with great care.
He assumes that the inclusion of slavery in our Constitution guaranteed a bloody war. That is a conclusion simply accepting history as some done deal with unavoidable outcomes. As one of Mr. Lincoln’s Secretaries remarked after the South’s defeat: surely we could have found another solution other than destroying half of the country.
Mr. Ricks mentions in several ways the compromises and flaws in our Constitution. This, too, indicates lack of reading. The formation of any government requires compromise, because each system must reflect the character and nature of the people making it. That is the road to ‘perfection’ as envisioned by Mr. Madison. He realized the need for making changes to the Constitution, thus the Amendment system. But he also realized that people are not perfect, thus there are three branches which constantly watch any power encroachment by the other. He wanted to safeguard our freedoms and this was the solution- one which works slowly, can easily be brought to a halt and creates tensions between each branch of government. This is a reflection of the nature of people, BUT also the nature of Americans.
He also does not seem to know that Rome had only one republic. It lasted longer than any in Greece by far and our Republic has many years to go to surpass the longevity of the Roman.
He mentions that Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. ranted about each setting up a despotic system or damaging the Constitution or destroying the country. Yet, he never seems to connect this with remarks made by Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, etc. Politics is a rough activity in this country. It always has been and hopefully will be.
His take on Adams is weak. Yes, there are the Sedition Acts, the Alien Acts which now are easy targets for complaint. But Mr. Adams was only the 2nd President in a system untried, new and very experimental. Plus, Mr. Ricks seemed unaware that Mr. Jefferson hired a hit man in journalism to make ceaseless attacks on Mr. Adams, while he, Mr. Adams, was President. Mr. Adams did not know about this until much later, but the pressure on President Adams was immense. Yes, he could be sensitive, but so was Mr. Jefferson, et al.
And Mr. Ricks never mentioned that one of Mr. Adams finest achievements was keeping us out of a war with England. A war which we would have had difficulty winning. My gripes here and elsewhere are an historian’s lack of appreciation for dilemmas faced by Presidents.
Toward the end he writes something weird when he mentions that Noah Webster wrote the first dictionary in order to control language. It is left at that. There is no supporting facts, no examples. It was just plain weird.
He equates, near the end of his book, slavery with white supremacy as conceived in modern times. Another statement without anything to back it up. There is an additional problem with any discussion of white supremacy today- it is so broad in scope that any mention of the great achievements of Western Civilization carry the label. Combine this with his introductory remarks, remarks at the conclusion and it is clear that Republics are white supremacists. He never defines white supremacy. Very odd for someone who spent so much time in those dusty libraries.
His work lacks a bibliography. Serious omission for someone aspiring to be a scholar.
His work lacks an index making it impossible to reference topics.
His Epilogue has some points of value, but these are reduced in value by his obvious prejudices and biases. Weird for someone who saw these so readily in others.
Mr. Ricks’s biases and prejudices created a haze which his lack of scholarly pursuit could not disperse.
