Talk:Republicanism in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brook597.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More editing on intro[edit]

This sentence tortures the language: "Republicanism is a type of democracy, but if protected by a Bill of Rights, may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as a Bill of Rights asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, unless the other type of democracies are also protected by a Bill of Rights." I mean when you spend a few minutes you can suss out what is intended... This is a freshmen in high-school quality run-on sentence. Also it should read "Republicanism in the United States is a type of democracy...." because as the talk indicates this is an article about a specific type of republicanism not republicanism in general because people want the word to mean something that it probably really doesn't mean. If we are going to create a population of "republicanisms" we should indicate within the article what we are talking about. I still think that this article treats the concept too generally and tries to incorporate everything in American history under the rubric of a concept. The concept becomes pregnant with so many ideas that it is like Echidna. Zoratao (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix this sentence since it has been nearly a year.--Zoratao (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it remains unfixed.
My opinion is that this entire paragraph should go. It says that democracy may be protected by a Bill of Rights, and if it is so protected, then it can be distinguished from other democracies. And it notes that republicanism is a type of democracy. These are vacuous assertions, and add no useful information about the nature of republicanism. The citation is to a printed book to which I do not have access. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes it got garbled. I tried to fix it. Rjensen (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Democracy[edit]

This section is laughably historically inaccurate. The glaring problem is that the FIRST political party in the United States was the Democratic Republican party founded by Jefferson. The term democratic has never been perjorative in the US. THe authors of this article are trying to make it so! I won't try to fix this article because its sucha flaming pile of horse crap. Zoratao (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Federalists were the first party. In the 1790s Federalists used the term "democrat" to ridicule the Jeffersonians and so they avoided it until the Federalists collapsed. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article on William Grayson, As an Anti-Federalist (one of the men who in Virginia called themselves "Republicans"), he joined George Mason, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry in opposing ratification of the United States Constitution at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Grayson WithGLEE (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was being a bit reactionary and had zeroed in on this particular section. After some retrospect and research I think that you are, of course, correct in your assertion. This articles is incomparably better than it was a year ago. While your point is well made I think you would have a difficult time arguing that the term was "mostly" used as a pejorative, it clearly was by Washington and Hamilton, but those are two of many. I think you'd have to take a look at a broader social sample than that. Anyway, after a careful reading I am pleased with the improvement in quality, mea culpa on the inflammatory remarks above.68.92.226.252 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I think this wikipedia page makes my point clearly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Societies....Zoratao (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.226.252 (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mitigate my previous apology by still insisting that the Democracy section is seriously flawed. Another point, Jefferson's "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for," is about preventing de-facto oligarchy by seperation of powers and doesn't bolster the point that is supposed to be supported. Also, Washington in particular was anti-"Democrat" but there were plenty of people who were against Washington and Hamilton and would have used the moniker Democrat with pride with the exception of the ten year period between 1790 - the whiskey rebellion and 1800. During this period the practice of having "Democratic" clubs died down specifically because Washington charged the clubs with having incited the rebellion. The use of the word "mostly" in this section is a gross over use. If you want to describe the tension between the aristocratic federalists and the democratic Republicans then you should have a section on that. Right now this section is completely one sided. I will edit as time permits if there are not stated objections. Zoratao (talk)

re "the tension between the aristocratic federalists and the democratic Republicans". "Aristocratic" is a very nasty term used by Republicans but not by the Federalists & not by historians. (aristocrat = inherited status & power of dukes, earls & counts; it did not exist in USA). The Jeffersonian Republicans were indeed more democratic (small-d) in the North, but not in the South where they had a base among plantation owners and leaders like the aristocratic John Randolph or Roanoke. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your point. You've ascribed the use of the term "aristocratic" to the wrong person. My personal feelings about Hamilton and Washington, which happen to be more favorable than towards Jefferson et. al., are not what's at question here. My point is that this section promotes one side of the tension between the Republican's and the Federalists, namely the Federalist position, and ignores the other. Aristocracy is amongst other things an oligarchy, and literally means "rule by the excellent" and since the gents that we are talking about were well versed in Greek and Latin I am sure they new the etymological roots and real meaning of the words they used. Factors such as birth are the cultural connotation added to the word later, the original concept was more meritocratic, of course Greeks thought merit was inborn. But, I really digress. As you've pointed out, '"Aristocratic" is a very nasty term.' I would disagree that it is as nasty as you claim, unless you were particularly republican, or anti-monarchy. In the American psyche the terms monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy are closely related, mostly because of the historic context and rebellion the founded the nation. My point is that "democrat" was used as an epithet by the Federalists and "aristocrat" was used as an epithet by the Republicans and its level of negativity was contingent on your vision for what the US should have been. To put too fine a point on it, Washinton's quote states that there are "professed democrats." (spelling mine) So I still contend that the term wasn't "mostly" pejorative, or at least it hasn't been established. Was it used as a pejorative? Sure. But people who self-described as "democrats" also saw the other side as being "anti-republican" or "aristocratic." If that's what you want to get at in this section, fine, then make the full point. Otherwise this section is NNPOV. Zoratao (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Washington launched a very strong attack: "George Washington in 1798 complained, "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country" -- he is saying the Jeffersonians are trying to overthrow the elected government of John Adams. As far as "oligarchy" that needs careful handling. Jeffrey A. Winters - (2011) says Jefferson, "was obsessed only with the European version of oligarchy based on birth and continuing across generations." -- ie inherited power as seen in the European nobility/aristocracy. The Federalists never endorsed or practised inherited political power; both sides were OK with inherited landed wealth. However Jefferson opposed primogeniture because it would concentrate a family's wealth in one son, and one grandson & one greatgrandson. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph, Great[edit]

As of 12:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time (USA) of the 14th of June 2010, the opening paragraph to this article is outstanding, perfectly detailing what a republic is and how a republic is clearly different than a democracy. Preserve it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COUNTERPROPOSAL Actually the first paragraph has several flaws in its presentation. The essay assumes an anachronistic fact. In the beginning there was no "republicanism', or a philosophy of Republicanism as such. Operating in the social background were the concepts of Scottish Common-sense philosophy and Calvinistic thought. It was these concepts which united the Anglo-American men led them to figure out how to keep their local government from falling apart. Qualitynotquantity (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current researchers in American Intellectual History (History of Ideas) are modifying or rejecting the "Republican Synthesis" ideas put forth by historians of the 1940's and 1950's.

I offer Dr. Richard Candida Smith as an authority on this issue. You may hear lecture #3 (Sept2, 2010) here: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2010-D-2057%7C2010-D-39639&semesterid=2010-D

To suggest that your current version is perfect is ... wrongheaded. Qualitynotquantity (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the Smith undergraduate survey lecture and it is reasonably close to the text here--where is the deviation. Smith does reject Qualitynotquantity's argument that these were "ideas put forth by historians of the 1940's and 1950's."Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have proofread my statement prior to publishing. Because I should have said that current historical research is affirming a republican synthesis. However, there exists a space in which ideas may be modified, expanded and perfected. My argument with the essay, as it now stands, is two-fold: It subsumes and/or incorporates elements of thinking that would be better if they were delineated into Calvinistic and Scottish Common-sense philosophy. This should highlight the historical process, I mean here that Republicanism would be shown to have roots in Protestant religious thought and commonsense.

Second, the essay neglects to point out that Republicanism is an ideology. An important element which Robert E. Shalhope spoke about in his article: 'Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergences of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography" William & Mary Quarterly Jan 1972. Shalhope emphasized this fact several times and in several ways. 71.251.226.194 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says: "republicanism is a political ideology." As for the Scottish Common Sense business, most historians date its influence much later. For example Shalhope and Bailyn do not not emphasize them.Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse Influences[edit]

The intro paragraph is unnecessarily narrow in focus and scope (which Founders were you referring to specifically?), leaving out a wide range of influences, especially from Greek democracies, Italian republics, and a myriad of writers from France, Germany, and other countries. This will require significant change. Skyemoor 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening follows Bailyn and especially Pocock--who should we be following here? Rjensen 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which one states, "were primarily influenced by the "country" party in British politics"? My references for Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin, and Adams do not show such a tilt. Perhaps more depth is needed here, or at least less reliance on one or two sources. Skyemoor 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Banning (Jeffersonian Persuasion) also covers the ground esp re Jefferson, Adams and Madison. Likewise see Gordon Wood in several books (incl recent one on Franklin) and don't miss the major Shalhope articles. Rjensen 11:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

This needs to be a major entry. I have sketched a skeleton and included a previous article on the word 'republic'. The bibiography needs to be trimmed and formatted (with dates added).Rjensen 17:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at the use of "republic" in the debates on the constitution - it pretty clearly means "not a monarchy". Also look at how many times the word appears in the Constitution - I think just once, IIRC. Whatever else it may have meant to the founders was pretty nebulous. I do not think they ever considered "democracy", as they understood it, much at all. Any actual democracy now is pretty much everywhere restricted to the representative type. Canada & the UK are NOT republics, though they have republican movements. Several countries that have "republic" in their name are hereditary dictatorships - while I personally consider those misusages of the word, they do present definitional problems --JimWae 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are to change the meanings of our words because certain dictators have misused them, do we not lose our language completely? Also... see "George Orwell" for some Doublethink, and let's please not make Wikipedia a Ministry of Truth.--69.253.92.203 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The very existence of this article is a form of historical revisionism, part of an effort to taint the word "democracy" for contemporary reasons. The "Ministry of Truth" quip above is a fine example of the mentality of those engaged in this effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.118.163 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Madison then suggested language "that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guaranteed to them respectively against domestic as well as foreign violence" whereas Randolph wanted to add to this the language "and that no State be at liberty to form any other than a Republican Govt." Wilson then moved, "as a better expression of the idea", almost the present language of the section, which was adopted. Id., 47-49.
\323\Thus, Randolph on June 11, supporting Madison's version pending then, said that "a republican government must be the basis of our national union; and no state in it ought to have it in their power to change its government into a monarchy". 1 id., 206. Again, on July 18, when Wilson and Mason indicated their understanding that the object of the proposal was "merely" to protect States against violence, Randolph asserted: "The Resoln. has 2 Objects. 1. to secure Republican government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessittetdrgtryryyupopty of both these provisions". 2 id., 47. Following speakers alluded to the dangers of monarchy being created peacefully as necessitating the provision. Id., 48. See W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Ithaca: 1972), ch. 2.

--JimWae 08:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This is an ideological tract, not an encyclopedia article. This passage is particularly regrettable, since it not only explains a historigraphical dispute, but takes sides in it:

However the word "liberalism" came into use in English more than thirty years after the Revolution. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school led by Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and (in Berlin) Willi Paul Adams and others read the voluminous pamphlet literature and argued that republicanism was even more important than liberalism in motivating the patriots to break with Britain. Some scholars, especially Isaac Kramnick continue to emphasize Locke, arguing that Americans are fundamentally individualistic and not devoted to civic virtue. The relative importance of republicanism and liberalism remains a topic of debate among historians.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a balancing viewpoint, why don't you add it, instead of leaning on the POV crutch? Skyemoor 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that statements like The relative importance of republicanism and liberalism remains a topic of debate among historians makes for a balanced article. What is the problem, exactly??? Rjensen 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is the first sentence quoted, about liberalism, which takes part in the argument rather than describing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point--I deleted sentence and rephrased. We should have a section comparing the Cambridge (Bailyn/Wood) model with the St Louis model (Pocock, Banning, Berthoff) Rjensen 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Neutrality of Language

Studying for an exam, came across this statement: 

     Thus, George Washington in 1798 complained, "that you could 
     as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles 
     of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted 
     to overturn the Government of this Country."[50]

While I'm sure this is an accurate quote, editorially its use here seems calculated to be inflammatory and thus a POV/neutrality violation, espas there's nothing intrinsically special in the quote (other than its shock value to modern readers) relative to the paragraph’s topic. It should be replaced with a more on-point quote or deleted.

Cynthisa (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

This approach produced a political ideology called "republicanism", which was widespread in America by 1775.
Called by whom?
  • By the men of 1765-1775? If so, Dahl denies it.
  • By Bailyn and the moderns? If so, this should be clearer.
(A few Americans did gain English titles, but they moved to London.)
  • Should be "British titles".
  • Who?
    • Lord Stirling?
    • Lord Fairfax?
  • This is the history of an idea. Frank Owsley should be in his chronological place, especially if his article is correct that he did not use "republicanism"; and so is not making claims about the republicanism of the yeomen of the 1830;s.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On nobility titles, there were English, Irish, Scottish titles-- all quite different. Two Americans named William Pepperell were made baronet (the younger became a Loyalist and went to England). Fairfax I think was one of a few Brits who came to US having a title already (as opposed to Americans given the title). Stirling was an odd case, he was an American who claimed to have an Scottish title but his claim was rejected by the House of Lords. He became a patriot. Rjensen 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we should use British; if there are enough instances to make up this generalization. ANB says Sir William Pepperrell died at his home in Maine; if his grandson left for England at the Revolution, that says nothing about society before it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "republicanism" gained currency circa 1972 thanks to Shalhope, but the idea was being used by others like Owsley and Morgan. Dahl's work in 1950s did not use the concept--I'm pretty sure he was unaware of it at the time. Rodgers (1990) and Shalhope (1972) cover the history of the term. Rjensen 04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Dahl, Robert A.. "James Madison: Republican or Democrat?". Perspectives on Politics (Volume 3, Issue 03, Sep 2005) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stop whining. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions? I've got heaps of 'em...
This reference isn't a reliable or neutral source... http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm ... and should be replaced. Have a look at 1215.org's links to freedom militias and that sort of far rightist thing. Also, didn't republicanism mean something to a sparsely populated agrarian America of the 18th Century that really can't be applied to 21st Century America? In that sense, shouldn't there be a section that explains the cultural context of the 1700s? Is republicanism consistently anti-majoritarian? What about anti-gay ballot initiatives that pass by very slim majorities and turn gay Americans into second-class citizens? What would Madison have thought of that loss of individual sovereignity? Also, is republicanism related to "states rights"?Ohaohashingo (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article justified?[edit]

As a foreigner, this article strikes me as an incredibly pretentious - and historically inaccurate - glorification of America. First of all, the country has not had one belief system since its foundation, for the dominant beliefs in American politics have changed considerably and the dominant philosophy of American politics in 1776 is not the same as in 2007. What has happened to the isolationism of the pre-World War II era - today eschewed by both major political parties? What about the racism that characterized an overwhelming majority of Americans just half a century ago? What about the founding father's belief that the "will of the people" had to be held in check because full democracy was irresponsible - and the institutions that they implemented to assure this which have since been eliminated, such as the indirect election of Senators? To characterize these all as minor changes in one fundamental philosophy is a flawed attempt at imposing historic uniformity, it makes "Republicanism" into so malleable a concept as to be incoherent. Furthermore, to assign to your nation a set of universally positive values ("liberties and rights," "strong opposition to corruption") is nationalist propaganda. Corruption exists in America, some forms of it are actually embraced by the dominant American political philosophy (such as the influence of money in politics), and "liberties and rights" are not so completely sacred, as the War on Terror and the unanimous passage of the Patriot Act have proven. This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.25.114 (talk • contribs)

Despite your obvious axe to grind, it's worth pointing out that the article isn't a history of the United States. It's about the ideals the Republican was founded on. Do you think it was founded on corruption? And your "will of the people" comment isn't a blast against the article, its part of the point of the article: Republicanism isn't rule by the mob. A Republic is not ruled by the mob. It's ruled by elected statesmen who, hypothetically, are the best qualified to be making decisions for the majority.
I suppose I could respond to the rest of your statements (especially the ridiculous part about the Patriot Act reflecting a rollback of liberties and rights) but you're obviously on an ideological bent and it wouldn't be worth it. Perhaps you should direct yourself to the "Human rights in the United States" article that makes the U.S. look worse than communist China. There's your incredibly pretentious neutral POV. (this unsigned comment was added on 27 February 2007 by 204.111.250.221)

I hope I'm not the only one to see an obvious, uneducated-American slant to the response above. Anyway, I was thinking the same thing. The article seems pretty heavy on ideology without actually saying it's ideology, and masquerading as 'history.' It could use a lot of touching up and clarifying, imo. Aceholiday (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aceholiday, perhaps you were intending to insult and belittle one Wikipedian, but your reference to an obvious "uneducated-American slant" was a nasty, prejudiced slam against a whole people. Please try to restrain yourself.
204.111.250.221, you've obviously been around Wikipedia a bit, and you have some excellent thoughts to contribute. So how about creating a Wikipedia ID, and signing your messages? There's no need to be shy!
72.82.25.114, if you are Aceholiday (as 204.111.250.221 assumes) then will you please insert a proper signature after your unsigned comment, so we'll know how many people we're conversing with? And if not, then please consider creating a Wikipedia ID, and signing your messages, too.
All, this is the first time I've seen this article, and I am impressed! Someone has put a lot of work into this, and it is much more interesting and educational than the vast, vast majority of Wikipedia articles. It is not jingoism to admit that the United States of America is unique, not because at the moment it happens to be the only superpower, but because it is based on an Idea, rather than on the common identities of particular people groups, or accidental borders left over from wars of conquest. In answer to the question asked in the subject of this section: Yes. The American Idea has had an enormous impact on the course of world history, and it is well worth an encyclopedia article. NCdave (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article has no mention of the republican party and seems to mention only the demicratic party, should not hte republican party also be incluided especialy because thier name use the word repunlic so I assume there is some conection. jowns

As an American, this article is justified. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic versus democracy[edit]

It is often heard that, "the U.S. is not a democracy - it is a republic". And just as often, the discussion stops there without explaining the difference. Wikipedia does not specifically discuss or address this difference. Henry Delforn (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does discuss the differences in the talk pages of Republic and Republicanism. Especially since the word republic simply means not a monarchy, which has nothing to do with potential structures of power or governing which is what democracy is. You can have a democratic republic, you can have a non-democratic republic, the word republic has no bearing. Zoratao (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading, there is a huge difference between a democratic form of government and a republican form of government. And that difference can simply be given by how decisions come to be made. In a democratic form of government, all participants (those who submit to being governed) have a voice. All participants are thus expected to have an interest and a knowledge about the subject matter. This of course is never the case ... that's why propaganda works so well. The decisions are made by majority rule. In a republican form of government, the participants (those who will submit to the government), give their participation in decision making over to representatives. These representatives, not the participants, study the issues and make the decisions. Such decisions may be made by various degrees of consensus. Regardless, it is a delegated authority that the representatives operate under. Propaganda is largely ineffective in this form of government but it is a fertile breeding ground for corruption. Our (the USA) government has slowly gravitated by being necessarily representative (republican) form ... necessitated by communication issues, to largely democratic form ... enabled by resolving those communication issues. However, with propaganda, and the concentration of the power to control communication, that has really delivered us to a largely authoritarian form of government ... a special kind of slavery where the participants really think they are participating. And again, improvements in communication, like the internet (obviating control) are again transitioning our form of government. WithGLEE (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the article is about the philosophy of republicanism. it's not about representation. Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen: How can it not be about representation? Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Republic Wikipedia A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. WithGLEE (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Republicanism" and "Republic" are different words with different meanings in different contexts. Basically, "Republicanism" is about the citizens, while "Republic" is about the government. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen: Maybe you need to tell these people about your new context: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republicanism WithGLEE (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do not give a definition of "republicanism." Perhaps they should purchase a copy of the Merriam-Webster 3rd unabridged dictionary. It has this definition, which does not use the word "republic": "1 : adherence to or sympathy for a republican form of government : republican practices or spirit : attachment to republican principles or institutions *republicanism, driven underground by the era of reaction, was kept alive— Times Literary Supplement* *popular democratic sentiment came forth as republicanism— Alfredo Mendiz*bal Villalbo* Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to be taken to task in the dictionary writing business. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican. (1) Republican : a member of the Republican party of the U.S. (2): a person who believes in or supports a republican form of government(3)Republican : a person from Northern Ireland who believes that Northern Ireland should be part of the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom. When you define a word with itself, you gain no ground. You can't get there from here. So we're left to go find the root word republic ... and we find: : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen. This suggests the distinction is in the word "elected". But the king or queen was originally put in place by a form of election (an election that is never repeated). The real distinction is in the word "representative". The election in a republic is by "representatives". If you form an organization made up of representatives taken from 50 people, and that has 6 levels, that organization can "represent" 2.5 times as many people as now exist on Earth (i.e 50 raised to the 6th power). And it would be possible for every person to know "personally" the representative they are electing. That is a true republican form a government. It's not republican if there is no practical way for the person you elect to know you or for you to know them. That is a democracy. In a democracy you can participate and be clueless about the subject matter. That is less possible with a republic ... and that "is" the issue. Once you know the concept of a republic, you know a republican, and you know republicanism. If you confuse, misuse, distort, or compromise the root word, you are lost. And we are seemingly lost, as from the Latin it "republic" seems to derive from "respublica" which evidently means wealth or thing of the public.WithGLEE (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article/Entry really needs work[edit]

This article/entry is really in need of work. It is awful. It needs to be attended to by people who have bothered to read up on the origins of republicanism. That means some study of the ancient Greeks and a fellow named Plato. Perhaps you've heard of him? I suggest this article, a speech actually, by conservative historian and academic Forrest McDonald, as a starting point

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=267&id=177&option=com_content&task=view


And this book by McDonald

http://www.amazon.com/Novus-Ordo-Seclorum-Intellectual-Constitution/dp/0700603115 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.68.98 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the notion of republic didn't come form Plato that is anachronistic, as the Roman Republic was established much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.92.15 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess[edit]

This article is a mess and really should be a candidate for deletion if it cannot be radically overhauled.

It seems to be based on the myth often heard in right-wing talk radio circles that "America is a republic (or 'Constitutional republic'), not a democracy." But as political scientists -- and everyone outside of the U.S. -- uses the words, a "republic" is simply a country with a president or other directly or indirectly elected head of state instead of a monarch. See the article republic. What the article describes -- a state in which the government rules by consent of the governed with civil rights and the rule of law -- is what political scientists describe as democracy or liberal democracy. This article's assertion that a "republic" differs from a "democracy" in that it has "unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters" is out-and-out wrong. A republic need not have any rights at all -- Cuba and North Korea are both republics. The citation used to support the sentence is Fareed Zakaria's book on illiberal democracy. But that such pseudo-democracies exist does not prove the sentence's claim about only republics having inalienable rights, a claim that certainly would catch most Canadians (who live in a monarchy, not a republic) by surprise. Anyway, some people say that "illiberal democracies" are not democracies at all. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is closely based on numerous cited reliable sources, especially in history and political science. Mwalcoff needs to cite the reliable sources that he is relying upon. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is a legitimate topic. J. G. A. Pocock has written about it. He is mentioned in the article, "The open question, as Pocock suggested, of the conflict between personal economic interest (grounded in Lockean liberalism) and classical republicanism, troubled Americans." Unfortunately some dubious statements have crept into the article. Ironically the Republicans opposed the bill of rights, while the democrats supported it. TFD (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Mwalcoff is right, then Gordon S. Wood (not exactly a right-winger) has misspent his career, and should perhaps give back his Pulitzer! —Kevin Myers 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

The lower sections of the article, which consist of some disconnected comments on the history of democracy (or "republicanism") in America, are all cited. But the definition of "republicanism" and its difference from "democracy" is not backed up at all. You have put a citation after the first sentence for a book which is actually made up of several different articles by various authors. You need to reference a specific article and (preferably) page number. The second and third sentences, which purport to define "republicanism," are not backed up at all. The third sentence, which again purports to show the difference between "republicanism" and "democracy," does no such thing, as I point out above. The fourth sentence has no citation.
As for documents showing what a democracy and republic really are, you can simply see the documents cited at democracy and republic. Here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "republic":
"A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy. Also: a government, or system of government, of such a state; a period of government of this type. The term is often (esp. in the 18th and 19th centuries) taken to imply a state with a democratic or representative constitution and without a hereditary nobility, but more recently it has also been used of autocratic or dictatorial states not ruled by a monarch. It is now chiefly used to denote any non-monarchical state headed by an elected or appointed president."
If you do a Google search for "become a republic," you can see how the term is used outside of Glenn Beck circles:
  • "A new poll reveals almost a third of Australians never want Australia to become a republic. ... Prime Minister Julia Gillard has suggested the issue should be considered after a change of monarchy and 34 per cent of those surveyed agreed. [1]
  • "Until 1946, Italy was a monarchy ruled by the House of Savoy, kings of Italy since the Risorgimento and previously rulers of Savoy. ... In 1946, Italy became a republic after the results of a popular referendum." (Italian constitutional referendum, 1946)
  • "With Queen Elizabeth's reign approaching its end, Stout is among a growing group of New Zealanders reluctant to allow Charles to become our king. ... Republicans say it is time to change the system before Charles ends up in charge." [2]
  • "Nepal is due to become a republic and end 240 years of royal rule. ... A newly-elected assembly is meeting in Kathmandu to discuss abolishing the monarchy. Voting is under way, after being delayed for several hours." [3]
  • "Swedes are generally open to change and some of the world’s fastest at adapting to new trends. Only one thing seems immune — the institution of the monarchy. But while the chime of royal wedding bells call for the public’s attention, the republicans stand apart to get their message of an elected president heard." [4]
Here is the Oxford definition of "democracy": "Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege."
And here are no less than 25 cited definitions of the term: [5]. -- Mwalcoff (talk)
Here is a good discussion from Philip E. Agre ([6]):
A republic is the opposite of a monarchy. A republic, in other words, is a polity that does not have a king or queen. This may not seem like much of a definition, but so long as most of the world was ruled by monarchs -- until well into the twentieth century -- it was a powerful idea. The very possibility of a society without a monarch was already well-known to the Greeks, however, and republicanism is a nearly continuous thread throughout the history of the West [11].
In the United States, however, attempts to discuss republicanism are frustrated by the widespread idea that the United States is a republic because it is not a democracy. This unfortunate dichotomy originates with an isolated mistake in Madison that is representative neither of his philosophy generally nor of the history of political thought with which he was certainly familiar (Everdell 2000: 5-6). In fact, the concepts of republicanism and democracy are logically unrelated. Conservativism is rule by an elite, or a stratified social order administered by that elite, as opposed to democracy, which is rule by the people. Republicanism (which can be either conservative or democratic), for its part, is opposed to monarchy (which also can be either conservative or, in the case of a constitutional monarchy, democratic). Conservative philosophy stereotypes democracy as rule by the mob, the erosion of culture and morals by demotic values, and the leveling of aristocratic excellence into a general mediocrity (Femia 2001). Democracy is held to lead inevitably to tyranny, and rule by elites (which is what conservatives mean by representative government) is understood as a counterweight to the mindlessness and degradation of the mass. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the concept of a republic. It is about a different concept, Republicanism. Just as we do not confuse the Republican Party with a republic, or the Democratic Party with democracy, we should not confuse Republicanism with republic. Republicanism does indeed reject aristocracy and hereditary rule, and in that sense it overlaps with republic. However, Republicanism has multiple other components that are covered in the article are example issues of the duty of citizens, the consent of the governed, and opposition to corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 18:57, 29 August 2010

Yikes. I am not sure if I want to vote for 'this article is a mess', but thought my comment would go here best. I deleted some text that seemed orphaned somehow. It is not clear what the intention might have been. The change took place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republicanism_in_the_United_States&diff=434848693&oldid=434813084 DeepNorth (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a mess, rather, extremely well written referenced with solid sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References to inalienable rights have no place here. There is no such thing as an "inalienable" right. A right is a "defended claim". Make no claim, you have no right. Make a claim but fail to defend it, you have no right. Thus, all rights are alienable ... their defense can be penetrated. Take the bill of rights for example. Those rights have, over time, failed defense. They now exist in words only. WithGLEE (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


If Pocock is the only academic source, why is this article titled Pocockian Republicanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.212.66 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illiberal democracy[edit]

This is the sentence I most object to:

Republicanism is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, whereas in a democracy the voters can terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

The citation is Fareed Zakaria's book Illiberal Democracy. However, the citation does not prove the point. In order to back up that sentence, you have to have someone actually saying how "republicanism" is different from "democracy," not just that democracy can be illiberal. Furthermore, as our article on "illiberal democracy" states, some people say Zakaria is wrong, or at least that his terminology is muddled. Indeed, many definitions of "democracy" include civil rights, meaning that, according to those definitions, a "democracy" that "terminates the rights of an unpopular minority" is not a democracy at all. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whose definitions of democracy restrict the powers of the majority? need more than "some people say". Of course the article is about republicanism & democracy in the US only. Here's a representative RS: "Thus, what Justice Story had feared when he opposed Jacksonian democracy had come to pass. Under the impact of a depression, the popular majority in several states had decided to regulate and restrict the minority's property rights." Democratic theories and the Constitution (1984) by Martin Edelman p 10 Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article democracy discusses this in detail, with many citations along those lines. If you're going to say "The difference between republicanism and democracy is that in a democracy, the rights of the minority can be legislated away," you need a quote that says that whole thing -- not in those exact words, necessarily. Zakaria's use of the term "illiberal democracy" doesn't do that, nor does your second-hand quote of Joseph Story's criticism of Jacksonian democracy. Furthermore, since you're no doubt aware that your viewpoint on this is clearly not universally accepted (unlike, say, the fact that the capital of Maine is Augusta), if you're going to bring it up, you have to provide a summary of all viewpoints on the issue. You can't, in Wikipedia, say straight-out that democracy means mob rule -- even if you can find a citation that agrees with that -- anymore than you can say that global warming is a myth and leave it at that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased it in terms of the tyranny of majority theme; and no, the "democracy" article deals with world history and does not say much about the issue re the U.S. Mwalcoff's complaints about there being a lot of different views are too vague to take seriously since he fails to cite any RS that endorses his position. If Mwalcoff does have the RS then he can please add them to the article, rather than subtract information that is based on several RS.Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that the definition of democracy (the rule of the people) includes protection of the individual against the majority. As it happened democracy developed after liberalism and liberal democracies do provide protection for individuals against the majority. TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correct me if im wrong but i belive Abraham Lincoln had a role in republican history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonekowld (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Zakaria statement makes sense, although, the U.S. Constitution can be amended by the people. Maybe that could be addressed in the article. For example, Prohibition, was repealed in the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious error in article[edit]

What is the source for saying that taxpaying requirements for exercising the franchise were defunct by 1855? My grandfather was denied the vote for failing to pay the poll tax in the 1920s; the Poll Tax Amendment (Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution) wasn't ratified until the 1960s. 75.201.45.51 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Political Inheritance: My family had inheritance value for quite some time. Usually the passed such as the early 1600's and even 1700's was a strong as the previous 1000 years based on land inheritance. Usually land will provide for an economical status. If the family has military values along with the land then these values are now more public. Being involved with the public will invite other talents in which will be shared through a political public. Usually every public is a politic, just based on the reasons such as ordinance, trade, and correspondence. Political Inheritance has been in most cases the higher up of whom has, seeks, and excepts political values. Most values for the past several hundred years has been in college education or any knowledge based institute. Researching the DeLancey Faction in study and value of correspondence this family may appear to be political in an inheritance value, although their status of representation and correspondence with the public seems to limit any inheritance connection other then certain family members leaving land to another on on death or by gift. How far back can we date a Political Inheritance, if not only based on Thomas Jefferson, and how secure is that theory. Keeping in mind an inheritance will have to be based on a family. Representation of this will have to be extreemly cautious. Maybe there could be some examples of families whom have acted on this inheritance value. It would be most important to only base the political inheritance from the creation of the United States to the 1800 era of Thomas Jefferson explaining the Political Inheritance being extinguished.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Openly propagandistic, does not belong on Wikipedia[edit]

This article is ridiculous, citing ideologically radical think tanks like the Ayn Rand Institute and the Liberty Fund to advance a specious minority review. Delete.66.57.57.178 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Ayn Rand link was to an article that did not deal with republicanism, so I deleted it. The Liberty Fund item is an essay by Eric Foner a leading historian, former president of the American Historical Association & last year's winner of the Pulitzer prize, so it stays. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More weird propaganda not befitting this article (or Wikipedia)[edit]

In trying to copyedit this article for style consistency, I got hung up on this passage:

“The commitment of most Americans to republican values and to their property rights helped bring about the American Revolution.[citation needed *I added this by hand - I don't know how to do it correctly?] Britain was increasingly being seen as corrupt and hostile and that of a threat to the very idea of democracy; a threat to the established liberties that colonists enjoyed and to colonial property rights.[21] The greatest threat to liberty was thought by many to be corruption – not just in London but at home as well. [This sent. is an UNSUPPORTED OPINION, not a fact. Doesn't belong; recommend DEL.] The colonists associated it with luxury and, especially, inherited aristocracy, which they condemned.

Historian Thomas Kidd (2010) argues that during the Revolution Christians linked their religion to republicanism. He states, "With the onset of the revolutionary crisis, a major conceptual shift convinced Americans across the theological spectrum that God was raising up America for some special purpose."[22] [Similarly, why include some modern writer's “argument” here? He does NOT support his assertions with any FACTS, i.e., contemporaneous quotes made by a founding father, for example. As such, this passage barely rises above the level of mere pro-Christian propaganda. A bias Wikipedia seeks to avoid.] Kidd further argues that "new blend of Christian and republican ideology led religious traditionalists to embrace wholesale the concept of republican virtue."[23] As virtuous republicans, citizens had a growing moral obligation to eradicate the corruption they saw in the monarchy.[24] [Again, ARGUMENTS with NO supporting FACTS = OPINION.]

In all, I'd recommend deleting this whole passage, it has perishingly little to do with CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR (as written). If original Wiki author sees this, I would invite him/her to rewrite section using actual historical sources to support these arguments, if they wish to maintain they DO, in fact, belong in this article. Till then, I remain unconvinced.

What say my fellow Wikipedians?

Cynthisa (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Republicanism and the American Revolution is based on Bernard Bailyn, J.G.A. Pocock, Gordon Wood and Thomas Kidd -- leading scholars (all alive) who have had a major influence on the hundreds of other historians who have written on the topic. As for "opinions" Their analysis has been studied by hundreds of historians who cited all the time. They are reliable sources and Wikipedia is based entirely on reliable sources. Cynthisa Does not tell us what reliable sources they are using for their critique--. The scope business about propaganda, facts, and opinion is entirely the personal approach of one Wikipedia editor. One place for the editor to start reading would be Craig Yirush, "Bailyn, the Republican Interpretation, and the Future of Revolutionary Scholarship." Eighteenth-Century Studies 50.3 (2017): 321-325. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize[edit]

Perspectives on Republicanism in the United States in this article appear to be from the point of view of American authors. As the topic is America but the perspective is not fixed, I encourage the improvement of the article so that this template may be removed. Universaladdress (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you want the article on Republicanism, from which this is a spinoff. For a European perspective see the Becker, Clark, Everdell & Kramnick books, which are cited. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template was removed without discussion and will be replaced. Please add additional perspectives to deal with the real issue the template is meant to address in good will. Thanks. Universaladdress (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is pretty confused --apparently Universaladdress does not realize that Becker, Clark, Everdell & Kramnick (all cited in article) do provide a global perspective on the topic.Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that tag. Without specifics of what should be added, it will not result in an improved article. Please don't just put the tag back without some direction on what need to change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just removed it again. Perhaps those adding it could explain more clearly what they think the problem is? What the article 'appears' to be and 'encouraging improvement' aren't really adequate. The onus is on you to explain why you added it. Specifics? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is junk[edit]

As many others have noted this article is a complete mess. It appears to be a vanity project run by one person pushing a specific fringe POV that does not comport with any mainstream political science usage. What's worse is that this article is infecting other legit articles with links pointing to this nonsense. This article represents the worst of wikipedia and should be deleted. 70.131.159.45 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anon does not provide the RS he is using on republicanism to make his personal judgments. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not junk. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in fact junk. How is it possible that every program in every era is attributable to American republicanism? I mean prohibition is the bolstering of liberty? It defines everything that happened in the US as republicanism and in this way the term itself is vacant of meaning. This is a vanity piece and is really terribly executed. I'm glad that it has been moved off of the main Republic and Republicanism pages into its own page so that at least this bizarre thinking is concentrated.Zoratao (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and Indians[edit]

This article seems to exclude the issue of slavery in the United States. Slaves did not have any rights in the Republic. They were considered Constitutionally 3/5 of a person or human property. Indians were excluded from the United States citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln and many other antislavery leaders said (before 1861) slavery was a violation of republicanism (which requires consent of the governed). Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the Three Fifths compromise edited from the article. The Three Fifths Compromise is an established historical issue that took place at the Constitutional Convention. The current article omits that there was slavery in the United States and that slaves were not citizens. There is archeological evidence that slavery took place during the times of the Founding Fathers. There are valid historical sources that state slavery took place in America as early as the 1620's. Why is this subject excluded from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit deserves to be put into the article since the Founding fathers were considering representation in Congress. Representation by the people is part of Republican values. The current article reads as if only whites lived in the United States. This is not true. There is archeological evidence that Indians and Africans lived in the British Colonies and the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we only put in what the reliable secondary sources cover. As for slaves, they were represented by their masters (as were white wives and children). In 1787 New England did not want slaves to have 100% representation (they wanted zero) so the 60% was a compromise. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for using the T. Spencer Adams as a source, since apparently his book, Man of the People is a novel. However, the subject of slavery and Indians has not been addressed. Even if slaves, women, and children were represented by White males, this has not been put into the article. However, no laws were passed that protected slaves. The constitution viewed slaves as property, however, this was why the three fifths compromise was used. There at least needs to be mentioned African slaves were viewed as property. The only law that was passed was that you could hunt slaves if they escaped. Indians were certainly not represented by Congress. The three-fifths clause deserves to be mentioned since slaves directly affected Southern representation. Most of the slaves were in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief section on slavery with two solid sources. I believe the reader needed to understand that Republican values set up by the Founding Fathers had incorporated slavery out of a compromise agreement. I added that slavery was predicated by race, i.e. black Africans. I have no desire for any edit wars. Thanks for your input Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

opening statement needs correction[edit]

It stresses liberty and unalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.[2]

This is not an accurate description of the republican party in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.140.253 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right and it shouldn't because this article isn't about the Republican Party. The hat note says:

This article is about a political and social philosophy. For the United States political party, see Republican Party (United States).

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


New Deal Era to present[edit]

This section doesn't talk about the New Deal Era or anything for that matter. Why is it named so? Dumaka (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy was part of the New Deal era (1933-68) Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion for the opening statement...[edit]

I propose a rewrite of the first paragraph, as indicated below, for both textual purposes as well as to improve accuracy and precision. As written, the opening paragraph fails to adequately address elements where it differs significantly from other streams of thought, such as Hamiltonian and/or modern Federalism, and Social Liberalism.

Suggested rewrite: "Republicanism is a political philosophy and system of social values that has been one of the mainstreams of American thought and culture since the Colonial and Revolutionary period. While the relative emphasis placed on any one component has varied, sometimes considerably, over time, Republicanism generally has stressed liberty and "unalienable" rights as central values, structural and constitutional restraints on unfettered majority rule, the view of the people as a whole as sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, generally has inclined away from an emphasis on an overly strong Federal government and towards a greater degree of freedom for the states in legislative and regulatory matters, and emphasizes civic virtue and individual responsibility as necessary in a successful polity.[2] American republicanism developed as a more or less coherent idea during the 18th century, based on ideas drawn from ancient Greek, Roman, Renaissance, English, and French Revolutionary models and sources.[3] It was generally elaborated and refined in the political commerce and commentary during the decades immediately succeeding, during, and after the revolution. It formed the basis for the Declaration of Independence (1776), the justification for the American Revolution, and eventually the Constitution of 1787." (End of suggested rewrite)

The text as currently written leaves out some important points (restraints on majority rule, French Revolutionary influences, and the inclination away from an overly-powerful Federal government in particular), and neglects to take into account the manner in which the concept has evolved and changed, at times somewhat significantly, over time. More recently - since the about the 1920's and the communist revolution in Russia, and especially since the more recent ascent of Keynesian economics - an inclination towards "Free Market Capitalism," has developed as a significant component of Republican thought. I left this latter consideration out of my suggested rewrite only because I am not sure of whether it really fits into the historic concept of the idea of "Republicanism;" it may more accurately be described as part of the philosophy of the modern republican party, rather than as an element of "American Republicanism” as such. Regardless, if it were to be included, perhaps the phrasing above should be amended to read "... towards greater degree of freedom for the states in legislative and regulatory matters, >>favors "Free Market" solutions over governmental intervention<<, and emphasizes civic virtue and individual responsibility as a necessity in a successful polity.”

Some other questions that perhaps should be addressed: How narrow is the definition of “American Republicanism? Were the Hamiltonian Federalists also adherents to the ideals of American Republicanism, but from a different perspective? Do the values of the modern Democratic party include, ironically, the ideals of American Republicanism?

The inclusion of the suggested rewrite will require some additional footnoting, to reference relevant sources for the amended narration.

Comments anyone? Kenwg (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments: I object to "The text as currently written leaves out some important points (restraints on majority rule, French Revolutionary influences, and the inclination away from an overly-powerful Federal government in particular)." The restraints on Majority rule come later; there was zero influence from the French Revolution of the 1790s; and "the inclination away from an overly-powerful Federal government in particular" was only in Jefferson's later post 1790 versions and did not appear in Hamiltonian versions. I think virtue/anti-corruption themes are **** (and indeed they still are today). To say "one of the mainstreams" is wrong (how many other mainstreams are there??) The "Free Market Capitalism," theme comes from Adam Smith not the 1920s. (Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland expressed it clearly). Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comments: Your comments highlight one of the main questions I have about the concept of American Republicanism in general: Are we talking about it, in this article, only as it existed during the revolutionary period, or as something that has continued and evolved over time? The "Free-Market Capitalist" component certainly wasn't even on the horizon during the revolutionary period; it was incorporated much later - if, indeed, at all. In my comments I, in fact, question whether it is a component of "Republicanism" at all, as opposed to simply an ideal of the modern day republican party. It appears your answer is "no, it is not." So then, your concept of Republicanism remains rooted in the past - it is the same today as it was then - and I don't disagree. The non-inclusion of the French influence is probably correct - Jefferson did favor the French revolutionary regime as an ally at the time, as opposed to the British, but that was not a contributory element to the development of the concept of Republicanism, but rather more a result of Jefferson's strongly anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic political leanings. However, as for the "inclination away from an overly-powerful Federal government," that certainly was an issue at the time; it was the position held by the Jeffersonians in particular, and for many decades after. Was that a component of Republican thought overall? Or just the view held by Jefferson and his partisans? I believe the former. The Hamiltonian/Federalist view ("Federalist,", in this instance, indicating a bias in favor of a more powerful central government) was not part of the mainstream view of Republicanism (and still isn't) - that's why John Adams only served one term, and was turned out by Jefferson's election. And I will definitely argue with you about the skepticism the founding fathers had about majority rule, and their concern for its restraint; it was a regular theme of the writings at the time; manifested primarily in debate and commentary about the necessity for a balance of powers between different branches of government, and usually specifically mentioning the role of the courts in balancing the power of the executive. It was certainly on the minds of the framers, and was the reason the states only ratified the Constitution with the proviso that a separate Bill of Rights would be attached, limiting the power of the government to encroach on important civil liberties such as free speech and the right to bear arms.
Another thought, a bit late - what about the sentiment that if the government begins to ignore the will of the people, the people are entitled to assert the right to overthrow the government? That was certainly a component of the commentary at the time - Jefferson's belief in the necessity of occasionally "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" and all that? I don't recall seeing mention of this in any of my readings about republicanism, so is probably best left out...but perhaps I'm wrong? Finally, if we're talking about a view of American Republicanism that was dominant during the nation's first few decades, but is no longer widely held by the people, at least in the same unmodified form, then shouldn't the article say so? If what we call "republicanism" is not in line with the major tenets of what we today would call a generally modern "Republican" point of view (and I believe that to be the case), then that fact should be made clear. I should probably add that I'm a concerned about this, because of the tendency of some today, on the right in particular, to claim their views on issues are the same as the founding fathers, when in fact that's often not at all true. The attempt by the John Birch society, for example, a few years ago trying to redefine the term "Republic" to include the idea that individuals actually have the right to ignore laws and regulations that they didn't personally support or vote for - that laws and regulations are merely "advisory". There are still comments to that effect that arise in the discourse today. That, and similar ideas, certainly were never a component of American Republicanism (or any Republicanism that I'm aware of) and any such contemporary attempts to hijack the ideals of American Republicanism for such partisan political purposes should ideally be precluded in this article as clearly as possible.Kenwg (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Jeffersonian version of republicanism stands opposed to Hamilton all right, but historians now include Hamilton and Washington and Marshall as republicans. How can the coauthror of the Federalist Papers be called non-Republican? Republicanism, I suggest, remains at the core of American political values (eg civic virtue, inalienable rights, anti-aristocracy, anti-corruption). The modern GOP got its name in 1854 to remind Americans of Jefferson's Republican Party which was in power 30 years earlier. It's hard to take the John Birch Society seriously. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a reality in 2013 and it harps constantly on Republicanism themes to the point of choosing its name (Boston Tea Party 1773) and even wearing costumes from the 1770s.Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

This article looks like it is just propaganda for the GOP party. "Republicanism" as an "American system of values" rather than "favoring a republic" does not actually seem to exist and is just something people who like the GOP assign all kinds of positive values to. Who defines what "Republicanism" even is? This article is idealization of a concept which does not even exist. Zozs (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which reliable sources are you using? Today both major parties fully endorse republicanism,. The GOP (led by Greeley) in 1854 named itself after Jeffersonian Republicans, and they named themeselves after the concept. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using common sense. This article unquestionably glorifies "Republicanism" and ascribes anything good to it. Any democratic political ideology at all can be said to "make the people sovereign", "stress liberty", "villify corruption" or "protect unalienable rights". Is it even accepted that "Republicanism" is an "actual ideology" rather than just the specific politics of the old Republican party and the new GOP which claims to follow them? Zozs (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a recent textbook (Foner, "Give Me Liberty" (2006) vol 1 p 126): He writes: REPUBLICAN LIBERTY: Liberty was central to two sets of political ideas that flourished in the Anglo American world. One is termed by scholars "republicanism"....Republicanism celebrated active participation in public life by economically independent citizens as the essence of liberty. Tracing its lineage back to Renaissance Florence and beyond that to the ancient world, republicanism held that man reached his highest fulfillment in public service. Republicans assumed that only property-owning citizens possessed "virtue"-defined in the eighteenth century not simply as a personal moral quality but as the willingness to subordinate self interest to the pursuit of the public good. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin. etc etc Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that addresses my point. So you do not agree that this article talks about Republicanism as an overly good thing? This article makes it look like Thomas Jefferson et al. invented protection of minorities and other things which are actually part of any modern democracy. Basically this article is based on making anything which defines a modern democracy like it originated in America and "Republicanism". Zozs (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the article never says where R is good or bad. Did modern republicanism (democracy) originate in US? not quite (the IDEA was European but the US was the first to put it into practice in 1776, followed by France in 1789. Britain reformed in 1830s Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I still partly don't agree with how this article is written up but I guess I can't really blame the "neutrality" here. Thinking over it the actual problem doesn't belong here but with other articles that were pushing this "Republicanism" ideology as something that is exclusively and accurately represented by the modern Republican party in the US and refer to this article and thus makes this article appear as propaganda for that party. I'll go take the concern up to the right place. Cheers. Zozs (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes I generally agree with your last post. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the word for representative (contrasted with direct or democratic) government?[edit]

The first line of any article on "republicanism" should be ... a corruption of the word republic ... because it has nothing to do with "public wealth". Rather, it has to do with group control. Nobody ever thought a "Whig" was a person who didn't have real hair. Nobody every thought a gaily wrapped gift was wrapped by a sexually confused person. We openly corrupt our language.

I have always thought the distinction between a democratic form of government (mob rule) and republican form (delegated mob rule) was in the delegated or represented part. I have also never seen the delegate as being more powerful than the delegator (a new word?). I have never liked the democratic form because it is obvious, all the people that are weighing in on issues are not informed, even if they are interested. They seem to be compelled or desire to weigh in, but they're under no obligation to know why they choose one way or another. They are putty in the hands of propagandists.

Representatives, on the other hand, are selected by those who agree to benefit and be controlled by a collective (rather than behave strictly as individuals). As such, individuals are at the top of an inverted pyramid and "delegate down" those things they can not handle themselves. They should not delegate down those things they can decide and control themselves. They can not delegate an authority they don't have. A person delegating responsibility should (1) have the responsibility and authority to delegate and (2) know the delegate and (3) the delegate should know them.

This suggests several levels if large numbers of people choose to share control effectively. If you have groups of 25 people who elect and fund a representative and activities at the next lower level, you can represent the entire world's population with 7 levels, each level choosing a member to represent them and funding them in the next lower level. Bringing the group to 30 people, you can represent 3 times the current world's population. A major issue is "how are the groups formed"? In my opinion, you should be free to join any group at the top level that you please ... but of course only one group. No group should exceed nor be deficient in its limit in size by more than some margin (like 5). Once in a group, you can't leave and join another group for a substantial period of time (like a couple years). Lower levels should have a constant number of members, immediately replacing members chose from the leaving member's group, by the members of that group. A delegate gains no power over his delegators, because his delegators can remove him any time they choose (employing mob rule). Thus, the pay to the delegate does not escalate as he moves to a lower layer.

So, what is the word for a representative form of government I describe and would like to obtain (if it is not "the republican form")? WithGLEE (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Representative democracy, with the alternative being direct democracy. - SimonP (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since both must use some form of voting to settle issues, I don't see the need for the word democracy with two distinctions. One is a direct form of government ... the other is representative form of government. The alternative would be dictatorship ... a monarchy being a form of dictatorship with family transition of power. WithGLEE (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WithGLEE needs to read this article more carefully. It's about American ideology, not procedural rules. It derives from "republican" not "republic." It comes from Paine, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson,Hamilton, Madison, Washington etc who built on British "outsiders" ("country" writers) and designed a value system in opposition to what they saw as the evils of the British system. WithGLEE keeps referring to entirely different issues not related to the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen: It derives from "republican" not "republic." . WithGLEE needs to embrace the new "illogical think". Republican derives from republic. And republicanism derives from republican. But republicanism does not derive from republic. Go figure. When you corrupt the language, you corrupt your ability to reason with it. WithGLEE is an old person. He has personally witnessed the near total collapse of reason in his lifetime. Rjensen needs to read Maclay's journal. There he can see the decay starting as soon as the republic began to form ... in much the same fashion as Rjensen is demonstrating here. Interestingly as I read this journal and look into who W.Grayson was, I trip over this: As an Anti-Federalist (one of the men who in Virginia called themselves "Republicans"), he joined George Mason, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry in opposing ratification of the United States Constitution at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Grayson WithGLEE (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Republican" was probably the single most important political term for the founding fathers. Two of Americans most important political parties adopted the word for their name. This article has many footnotes to show how the leading scholars of the last half-century explain how that happened come about. This Wikipedia article summarizes the work of those scholars. WithGLEE has not cited any of them. Nor has he read this article closely. Instead he wants to share with tells us what his personal understanding of what a different word ("republic") means to him. I strongly suggest he read the famous article which tells how historians managed to figure it out: Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography" (1972) online here. Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of this Article[edit]

In the second paragraph, sentence 2, I removed repeated ands, adding commas instead to help the initial author's idea flow instead of being a run-on sentence. I also re-worded part of the third sentence in the first paragraph to make it easier to read. Brook597 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on how to reword this sentence, so that it's more accurate?[edit]

"Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters."

I've made two edits to this sentence, trying to make it more accurate, but by trying to make it more accurate, it seems that the sentence ends up having no purpose.

"Republicanism is a type of democracy, but if protected by a Bill of Rights, may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as a Bill of Rights asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, unless the other type of democracies are also protected by a Bill of Rights."

This is the odd, mess of a sentence I've turned it into. I was about to make a third edit to it, but realized that it would negate the premise of "Republicanism being distinguished from other forms of democracy", if I made the third edit.

Republicanism is, in fact, distinguished from other forms of democracy, but a Bill of Rights is actually the reason why people have unalienable rights. Republicanism doesn't have to have a Bill of Rights, and so it doesn't have to assert that each individual has unalienable rights. Furthermore, we know from the experiences of our country that, even with a Bill of Rights, those ideological "rights" aren't actually Rights, until the people democratically elect representatives in to change a law, or else discrimination continues. If the people oppose a group from getting Rights, while continuing to pass laws targeting the group they oppose, then they just have to keep voting in representatives who will do as they desire. Even the 3-branch system doesn't insure unalienable rights.

Furthermore, even simply having a Constitutional Bill of Rights, under a Federal Republic, doesn't guarantee your rights, under the law. (See: Dred Scott v. Sandford).

So then, if we're going to be honest here, shouldn't that original sentence actually be deleted, since it holds no truth to it? Or is there a way it can be reworded?

The only thing which can guarantee unalienable rights is an actual adherence to those unalienable rights – no matter what form the government takes. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 08:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil War and Reconstruction" needs work[edit]

"According to Owsley, the position of the South vis-à-vis the North was created not by slavery, cotton, or states' rights, but by the two regions' misunderstanding of each other.[62] J. Mills Thornton argues that in the antebellum South the drive to preserve republican values was the most powerful force, and led Southerners to interpret Northern policies as a threat to their republican values.[63]"

This is ridiuclous. It is highly unlikely that most historians would argue that "slavery, cotton, or states' rights" played no major role in pre-Civil War North-South relations.

"Republic of the United States of America" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Republic of the United States of America and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Republic of the United States of America until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Privybst (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow[edit]

There is a section whose heading is "South, slavery, Jim Crow, and women's suffrage", which contains no mention of Jim Crow. Readers (particularly non-US readers) cannot be expected to know what Jim Crow means. Adam1729 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republicanism_in_the_United_States&oldid=1212784916"