C. Michael Barry is a highly interested retiree of middle class heritage who possesses college degrees that provide him with a solid foundation to analyze the workings of government. In a quest to understand the true nature of government in the United States, he examines original sources in order to analyze letters of conversations with Thomas Jeferson and other Founding Fathers and scholars. Join Michael as he explores why the world wants to consider the United States of America a democracy when the Framers of the Constitution worked to ensure a mixture of three forms of government. He examines the details behind the national and federal system that seek to ensure the United States maintains a republican form of government, as well as how the Framers sought to keep out defeciencies in government by applying the most useful principles from monarchies, aristocracies and democracies while leaving out their most serious pitfalls. Break free from dangerous assumptions and develop a arm understanding of what the Founders intended for the United States and how to stay true to their principles with The American Republic.

THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC

The Fourth Form GovernmentBy C. Michael Barry

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2011 C. Michael Barry
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4620-0416-4

Contents

Preface...........................................................................................ixIntroduction......................................................................................xiiiChapter 1: Montesquieu: On the Nature and Principles of the Three Governments.....................1Chapter 2: Modern Influences on Republicanism.....................................................15Chapter 3: Differences between Jefferson and Jackson..............................................25Chapter 4: On Democracy...........................................................................31Chapter 5: On Republics...........................................................................45Chapter 6: Property in Our Republic...............................................................57Chapter 7: On Representation......................................................................63Chapter 8: Founders of America's Republics........................................................81Chapter 9: Jefferson's First Inaugural Address....................................................104Chapter 10: Republican Principles.................................................................115Chapter 11: Republican Form Today.................................................................123Chapter 12: Voices from the Past..................................................................155Wrap-up...........................................................................................174Epilogue..........................................................................................179Appendix A: The Republican Principles.............................................................185Appendix B: Table of Government Powers............................................................187Appendix C Glossary...............................................................................189Appendix D: Table of Constitutional Convention's Principles of Government.........................211Appendix E: Bibliography..........................................................................219Endnotes..........................................................................................225Index.............................................................................................249

Chapter One

Montesquieu: On the Nature and Principles of the Three Governments

Montesquieu provides a survey of insights that the Framers referenced. He described the three forms of government and he set out their nature and principles that express its character. In studying the papers of the Framers, we discover how much they read and relied upon Montesquieu's writings, but they did use many other writers. While, his three forms are not consistent with other writers who use some different terms in their list of forms, his extended discussion of democracy covers essential differences between a republican form and a democracy. The Framers use monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy as the ancient forms. The commonality between Montesquieu and the Framers is the term republican. Our focus in Montesquieu is his description of a democratic republic, an economic democratic republic, and a republic. In the Framers, our focus is on the three primary forms that lead to evils and their modifications that introduce the fourth form of government.

Section 1: Montesquieu's Three Forms of Government

Montesquieu names three forms of government, which are Republican, Monarchical, and Despotic. He defines republican government as one in which the people either as a body or some portion of the people possess sovereign power. Under the Republican head, Montesquieu lists democracy, so we find that he includes a democratic republic. Key to our understanding is that both a republic and a democracy vest power in the people. Our various authors herein cited, define the essential idea of democracy by a variety of definitions, which we deal with as they arise. My treatment of democracy revolves around the Framers definition, which Madison provides and we discuss later.

Each form of government has a nature and a principle and these emit fundamental laws. The Framers refer to these three forms consistently, but their evaluation of democracy coincides with that of Montesquieu's. I narrowed my focus to Montesquieu's pictures of government to the democratic and republican forms because I juxtapose democracy and a republic. In America, Jackson's Era of Democracy produced a split, which introduced the Democratic Party. The word democratic became associated with the Democratic political party in 1829 in America, three years after Jefferson's death. Actually, the Democratic Party was pro-slavery and some states promoted it. Some say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party in 1792 to defend "agrarian interests and states' rights". Some also say that in 1854, the Republican Party was reformed and Jefferson's party became an anti-slavery coalition. However, we might view this as an early testimony to the confusion of the nature and principles of our form of government as early as 1829. As we shall demonstrate, Jefferson represents a constitutional republic, which is the form the Framers developed and considered worthy to emulate.

Section 2: Nature and Principle of Government

Montesquieu recognizes that the nature of government makes it what it is by its structure. Its principle makes it act. This principle is the human passions. My intention is to demonstrate that the American Republic is not a democracy, so I reference the Framers' prolific writings for their collective conclusions from which I draw my thesis. I look to James Madison for his definitions of democracy and republics that he presents in his various papers to demonstrate the character and principles that the Constitutional Convention delegates relied upon. John Adams' study of ancient and modern constitutions provides us with an understanding of their nature and their principles, which identifies their form of government. In addition, I consult many diverse papers from not a few Framers. I use direct quotes with references for you to examine more fully at your leisure. The Glossary provides 18th century terms and definitions juxtaposed with modern terms and definitions to flavor the feast of ideas we investigate.

Section 3: Pure Democracy

Since the states leaned towards democracy, the Framers spent considerable energy to define its meaning and to present their case against it for the Federal system.

Madison states this:

"A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."

Democracy unmixed is a dangerous form of government for the people. Madison distinguishes between a republic and a democracy, which informs us that democracy was a direct representational form of government, while our republic is an indirect representational form, but both forms give the government to the people through different structures and principles. The Framers concluded that although the ancients knew about representation, they attempted it only with the executive, but even this was rare. Great Britain tried indirect representation first, which the Framers modified. We find three ideas that are sprinkled throughout the Framers' discourses. First, they attempt to separate the mixing of concepts of a republic with a democracy. Secondly, we have the structural distinction between a republic and a democracy. Thirdly, we have innovative ideas that apply to the United States only. In the quote below, Madison clarifies the first two of these ideas.

"The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

A. On Democracy:

"As for democracy, I believe it can suit only with the convenience of a small town, accompanied with such circumstances as are seldom found. But this no way obliges men to run into the other extreme, in as much as the variety of forms, between mere democracy and absolute monarchy, is almost infinite. And if I should undertake to say, there never was a good government in the world, that did not consist of the three simple species of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, I think I may make it good. This at the least is certain, that the government of the Hebrews, instituted by God, had a judge, the great Sanhedrim, and general assemblies of the people. Sparta had two kings, a Senate of twenty-eight chosen men, and the like assemblies. All the Dorian cities had a chief magistrate, a Senate, and occasional assemblies ...

"It is conferred, that a pure democracy can never be good, unless for a small town, &c."

B. Popular Government:

"As to popular government in the strictest sense, that is, pure democracy, where the people in themselves, and by themselves, perform all that belongs to government, I know of no such thing; and, if it be in the world, have nothing to say for it."

"If it be said, that those governments, in which the democratical part governs most, do more frequently err in the choice of men, or the means of preserving that purity of manners which is required for the well-being of a people, than those wherein aristocracy prevails, I confess it, and that in Rome and Athens, the best and wisest men did for the most part incline to aristocracy. Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, Cicero, and others, were of this sort. But if our author there seek patrons for his absolute monarchy, he will find none but Phalaris, Agathocles, Dionysius, Catiline, Cechegus, Lentulus, with the corrupted crew of mercenary rascals who did, or endeavoured to set them up: these are they, quibus ex honesto nulla est spes: they abhor the dominion of the law, because it curbs their vices, and make themselves subservient to the lusts of a man who may nourish them."

"Being no way concerned in the defence of democracy, &c. I may leave our knight, like Don Quixote, fighting against the phantasms of his own brain, and saying what he pleases against such governments as never were, unless in such a place as St. Marino, near Siniglaglia in Italy, where a hundred clowns govern a barbarous rock that no man invades, and relates nothing to our question. The republic of St. Marino, next to that of Millingen in Switzerland, is the smallest republic in Europe. The limits of it extend no farther than the base of the mountain on which it is seated. Its insignificance is its security. No neighbouring prince ever thought it worth his while to destroy the independency of such a Beehive. See Blainville's Travels, vol. ii. p. 227. Addison's Remarks on several parts of Italy."

Mr. Adams cautions against using the label democracy for mixed governments:

"However, more ignorance cannot be expressed, than by giving the name of democracy to those governments that are composed of the three simple species, as we have proved that all the good ones have ever been: for, in a strict sense, it can only suit with those, where the people retain to themselves the administration of the supreme power; and more largely, when the popular part, as in Athens, greatly overbalances the other two, and the denomination is taken from the prevailing part."

How Democracy arises, Mr. Adams says,

"Democracy is next to be considered, in what manner it arises, and what kind of man it produces when arisen. The change from oligarchy to democracy is produced through the insatiable desire of becoming as rich as possible. As those who are governors in it govern on account of their possessing great riches, they will be unwilling to restrain by law such of the youth as are dissolute, from having the liberty of squandering and wasting their substance; that so, by purchasing the substance of such persons, and lending them on usury, they may still become richer, and be held in greater honour. While they neglect education, and suffer the youth to grow licentious, they sometimes lay under a necessity of becoming poor, such as are of no ungenerous disposition: these sit in the city, some of them in debt, others in contempt, hating and conspiring against those who possess their substance, and with others very desirous of a change. But the money-catchers, still brooding over it, and drawing to themselves exorbitant usury, fill the city with drones and poor. They neglect every thing but making of money, and make no more account of virtue than the poor do. When these governors and their subjects meet on the road, at public shows, in military marches, as fellow soldiers or sailors, or in common dangers, the poor are by no means contemned by the rich. A robust fellow, poor and sunburnt, beside a rich man, bred up in the shade, swoln with flesh, and panting for breath, and in agony in battle, thinks it is through his own and his fellows fault that such men grow rich, and says, Our rich men are good for nothing. The city soon grows into sedition between the oligarchic and democratic parties; and the poor prevailing over the rich, kill some and banish others, and share the places in the republic, and the magistracies, equally among the remainder, and for the most part the magistracies are disposed in it by lot. In what manner do these live, and what sort of republic is this? A democracy. The city is full of all freedom of action and speech, and liberty to do in it what any one inclines: every one will regulate his own method of life in whatever way he pleases. In such a republic will arise men of all kinds. This is the finest of all republics, variegated like a robe with all kinds of flowers, and diversified with all sorts of manners. The multitude, it is likely, judge this republic the best, like children and women gazing at variegated things. In truth it contains all kinds of republics, and it appears necessary for any one, who wants to constitute a city, as we do at present, to come to a democratic city, as to a general fair of republics, and choose the form that he fancies: he will not be in want of models. Is not this a sweet and divine manner of life for the present? To be under no necessity to govern, although you were able to govern; nor to be subject, unless you incline; nor to be engaged in war when others are; nor to live in peace when others do so, unless you be desirous of peace; and though there be a law restraining you from governing or administering justice, to govern nevertheless, and administer justice if you incline? Have you not observed, in such a republic, men condemned to death or banishment continuing still, or returning like heroes, and walking up and down openly, as if no one observed them? Is not this indulgence of the city very generous, in magnificently despising all care of education and discipline, and in not regarding from what sort of pursuits one comes to act in public affairs, but honouring him, if he only say he is well affected towards the multitude? These things, and such as these; are to be found in a democracy; and it would be a pleasant sort of republic, anarchical and variegated, distributing a certain equality to all alike, without distinction."

Adams finds no comfort in the ability of democracies to safeguard the people. Their final vote against democracy came with the ratification of our Constitution, which is a settled opinion by majority will of those who signed our Constitution. The majority will of the people came with ratification.

C. Democracy in the Debates:

Mr. Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton does not use the word democracy in any of his Federalist Articles. On the other hand, he uses "republic" (or a derivative) approximately, 16 times, Republican 13 times, Republicanism 3 times, Republican government 27 times, and Republican principles 3 times. See below his misgivings regarding both the "vices of democracy" and the "weakness of a republican government" on the floor of the Convention. He was an advocate for a government modeled after Great Britain with the Executive reflecting a monarchy.

Mr. Gerry

"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but they are the dupes of pretended patriots."

(Continues...)

Excerpted from THE AMERICAN REPUBLICby C. Michael Barry Copyright © 2011 by C. Michael Barry. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.