That is quite broad, and not related to the piece. I don't disagree with you, but it sounds like you're wandering far afield to make some other point not even c

That is quite broad, and not related to the piece. I don't disagree with you, but it sounds like you're wandering far afield to make some other point not even close to where the article is going. Banging on your own drum as it were. The well-educated of the time were taught classics, so yes, Romans had an influence, as did the Greeks. They were protestants, more of a deist nature, but protestants. So there's that influence. Wars of religion were recent for them. Up until 1776 or so, they considered themselves Englishmen. It was a time of great philosophical minds. You can't talk about the founding of the U.S. without talking about John Locke, for instance. It's not that the Roman metaphor is completely inaccurate, it's that it's only a tiny slice of a very complex picture. Looking at the U.S. as some modern-day version of Rome can lead to all kinds of silliness. It's fun to do, sure, but best used very sparingly. It can lead to having all sorts of huge gaps in knowledge while assuring yourself that you understand the important parts of what happened.