Talk:Republicanism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republicanism in the United States article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Diverse Influences

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)

The opening follows Bailyn and especially Pocock--who should we be following here? Rjensen 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Untitled

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
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 necessity 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)

[edit] Neutrality

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Questions

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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

[edit] Is this article justified?

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)

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)