The Great RW myth about the Founders' meaning of 'Republic'.

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Hillary lost. Get over it and move on with your life.

off topic personal attack lol.

This thread isn't about Hillary.


I am still confused why you are so mad?

Yeah I know you are mad the founding fathers didn't make slaves free and didn't give women the right to vote..

I don't get why you can't comprehend the reason?

Don't you ever travel out side of New York? Didn't you ever watch shows like Andy Griffin? Mayberry
 
We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Hillary lost. Get over it and move on with your life.

off topic personal attack lol.

This thread isn't about Hillary.


I am still confused why you are so mad?

Yeah I know you are mad the founding fathers didn't make slaves free and didn't give women the right to vote..

I don't get why you can't comprehend the reason?

Don't you ever travel out side of New York? Didn't you ever watch shows like Andy Griffin? Mayberry

What are you even trying to talk about?
 
And that democracy is inherently evil toward minority populations. Maybe that's why you fight for it so hard?

You're an idiot. How does that work? Democracy evil towards minorities.

The majority becomes self serving. That's democracy dim wit.

Do you even realize what majority rules means?

So ideally when a bill goes through Congress, if only a minority of legislators vote for it,

it should become law?

You're a child aren't you?

The whole "checks and balances" issue flys out the window in a democracy.

All of it dimwit.

Why? The majority can't legislate a judiciary? An executive? Laws that protect rights?

Then you don't want a democracy. It's obvious you don't have a clue as to what a democracy is.
 
It seems that many of the framers and founders believed the people should be involved in government, sort of a, we the people thing, but were also afraid people would vote themselves too much largess. So the Constitution was a compromise. But the thought was always there, that a nation needed the people and was established for all the people. Since that time we have grown more democratic and will continue to do so. Many of our political battles today is the battle over who is the government for, the elites or the people.
 
They were trying to solve the dilemma of needing popular support while retaining power and privilege in the hands of a few; some 5,000 men controlled politics and most of the money in those times, and they all disagreed and argued over how to divvy it up. The compromises worked out pretty well considering nobody liked it at all and didn't think it would last 20 years, but it was a start and better than nothing. The people gained a lot of leeway and personal freedoms as a result, and haven't looked back, so it's turned out relatively well for such a diverse and anarchic social experiment among so many conflicting interest and ethnic groups. Lots of contradictions, obviously, and of course there can never be 'equal outcomes' in real life, some fare better than others, but at least some sort of meritocratic principles got lip service and occasionally practice , which was far more than Europe or Asia ever offered its common peoples. The Anglo-Saxon legal codes combined with the Protestant work ethic and moral idealism created a pretty unique foundation for a small country just starting out, and proved to be the best combo in history.

And yes, it was clearly a Republic, not a democracy; I don't know why some astro-turfers have started peddling the nonsense otherwise, probably some modern gimmick to invent a history for some agenda or other.
 
Last edited:
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.
 
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.

Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.
 
Good thing there were Founders, and not a Founder...huh?

But none the less, I understood what TJ said, hopefully you will try harder to...

what did he say? Did he not equate 'democracy' and 'republic'?
The articles of confederation were he first blueprint to get far enough away from the mob rule of democracy....but it was not far enough, as the FF were keep a close eye on the correct bounds of limited .gov in order to establish Liberty for all....

Mob rule? You are calling american voters a mob?
How about yourself?
Sounds like you would like to turn it into a dictatorship.

You say you believe in a limited government but I am sure you are all in on a huge military budget.
 
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.


Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.

It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
Military forces have always desroyed democracies. it's what they do, since the beginning of history.
It's like "planet of the apes."
 
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.


Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.

It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
Military forces have always desroyed democracies. it's what they do, since the beginning of history.
It's like "planet of the apes."

Partly true, but there are times when some form of it was necessary in order to organize against invasions, and also the reverse, to get enough support for raiding somebody else. The Greeks and Vikings for instance had some variations of it, even if only for specific campaigns. Most of the successful Republics were organized from the top down, in power sharing agreements, sometimes militarily imposed, like the Magna Carta, sometimes by consensus among the various leaders of factions, as in Rome and Greece, and of course in the founding of the U.S.. Those that were a result of collapsed states and mobs all failed. The oppressed almost invariably become worse than those who oppressed them.
 
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.


Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.

It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
Military forces have always desroyed democracies. it's what they do, since the beginning of history.
It's like "planet of the apes."


Except in this case the U.S. and it's military grew and protected democracys across the globe time's a 100 fold since the beginning of the 19th century ...

BTW why do you hate high paying Union jobs?


.
 
'Republic' is a sub-set of 'democracy'. There is no 'republic' outside a democratic context.


Actually it's the reverse of this in the case of Greek, Roman, and the American versions, and also the old Soviet Union for that matter. There has never been a successful pure democracy for long, even in the tribal eras before city states developed.

It all boils down to survival of he fittest.
Military forces have always desroyed democracies. it's what they do, since the beginning of history.
It's like "planet of the apes."


Except in this case the U.S. and it's military grew and protected democracys across the globe time's a 100 fold since the beginning of the 19th century ...

BTW why do you hate high paying Union jobs?


.

Reagan sure the hell did along with a majority of republicans.
 
However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted. The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.

If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.

Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.

They didn't create the Electoral College out of a highminded ideal. It was done to increase the relative power of slave states.
 
However, this type of election defines what the Founders wanted. The states and regions with their unique situations are to have equal or superior quality to that straight popular vote.

If they did not think that, they would have not had an EV but a straight PV majority as the requirement instead.

Be glad that the GOP does not have a 2/3ds majority in the House and Senate, or the GOP would send out an even more restrictive requirement of giving each state one vote and dropping the EV and PV altogether.

They didn't create the Electoral College out of a highminded ideal. It was done to increase the relative power of slave states.
That's an opinion with no evidence, so give it the weight your argument is worth.
 

Forum List

Back
Top