Changes

Republicanism (view source)

Revision as of 02:39, August 20, 2013

22 bytes removed , 02:39, August 20, 2013

m

no edit summary

Line 19: Line 19:

==The American Revolution==

===Republican opposition to corruption ===

−

The intellectual and political leaders in the 1760s-1770s closely read history to compare governments and their effectiveness of rule.<ref>Colbourn, ''The Lamp of Experience'' (1965) </ref> They were especially concerned with the history of liberty in England, and were primarily influenced by the "country" party in British politics, which roundly denounced the corruption surrounding the "court" party in London. This approach produced a political ideology called "[[republicanism]]", which was widespread in America by 1775. "Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation."<ref>Robert Kelley, "Ideology and Political Culture from Jefferson to

+

The intellectual and political leaders in the 1760s-1770s closely read history to compare governments and their effectiveness of rule.<ref>Colbourn, ''The Lamp of Experience'' (1965)</ref> They were especially concerned with the history of liberty in England, and were primarily influenced by the "country" party in British politics, which roundly denounced the corruption surrounding the "court" party in London. This approach produced a political ideology called "[[republicanism]]", which was widespread in America by 1775. "Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation."<ref>Robert Kelley, "Ideology and Political Culture from Jefferson to

−

Nixon," ''American Historical Review,'' 82 (June 1977), 536 </ref> Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:<ref> Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment'' p 507 </ref>

+

Nixon," ''American Historical Review,'' 82 (June 1977), 536</ref> Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:<ref> Pocock, ''The Machiavellian Moment'' p 507 </ref>

:"The Whig canon and the neo-Harringtonians, [[John Milton]], [[James Harrington]] and [[Algernon Sydney|Sidney]], [[John Trenchard (writer)|Trenchard]], [[Thomas Gordon (writer)|Gordon]] and [[Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke|Bolingbroke]], together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance masters of the tradition as far as [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]], formed the authoritative literature of this culture; and its values and concepts were those with which we have grown familiar: a civic and patriot ideal in which the personality was founded in property, perfected in citizenship but perpetually threatened by corruption; government figuring paradoxically as the principal source of corruption and operating through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies (opposed to the ideal of the militia), established churches (opposed to the Puritan and deist modes of American religion) and the promotion of a monied interest—though the formulation of this last concept was somewhat hindered by the keen desire for readily available paper credit common in colonies of settlement. A neoclassical politics provided both the ethos of the elites and the rhetoric of the upwardly mobile, and accounts for the singular cultural and intellectual homogeneity of the Founding Fathers and their generation."

Line 26: Line 26:

===Cause of Revolution===

−

In a larger sense the tax issue was part of the representation question, which was increasingly defined by Americans as an issue of republicanism. The commitment of most Americans to republican values caused the [[American Revolution]], for Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt and hostile to republicanism, and a threat to the established liberties that Americans enjoyed.<ref> Bernard Bailyn, '' The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution'' (1967)</ref> The greatest threat to liberty was increasingly seen as "corruption"--not just in London but at home as well. The colonists associated it with luxury, Royal appointees not answerable to the people, a standing army, unconstitutional taxes, and, ultimately, an system of rule by an inherited aristocracy.

+

In a larger sense the tax issue was part of the representation question, which was increasingly defined by Americans as an issue of republicanism. The commitment of most Americans to republican values caused the [[American Revolution]], for Britain was increasingly seen as corrupt and hostile to republicanism, and a threat to the established liberties that Americans enjoyed.<ref>Bernard Bailyn, '' The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution'' (1967)</ref> The greatest threat to liberty was increasingly seen as "corruption"--not just in London but at home as well. The colonists associated it with luxury, Royal appointees not answerable to the people, a standing army, unconstitutional taxes, and, ultimately, an system of rule by an inherited aristocracy.

−

For women, "[[republican motherhood]]" became an ideal, as exemplified by [[Abigail Adams]] and [[Mercy Otis Warren]]; the first duty of the republican woman was to instill republican values in her children, and to avoid luxury and ostentation.<ref> Kerber 1997</ref>

+

For women, "[[republican motherhood]]" became an ideal, as exemplified by [[Abigail Adams]] and [[Mercy Otis Warren]]; the first duty of the republican woman was to instill republican values in her children, and to avoid luxury and ostentation.<ref>Kerber 1997</ref>

The "Founding Fathers" were strong advocates of republican values, especially [[Samuel Adams]], [[Patrick Henry]], [[George Washington]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], [[John Adams]], [[Thomas Jefferson]], [[James Madison]] and [[Alexander Hamilton]].<ref>Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis," 1972, pp 49-80</ref>

Thomas Jefferson defined a republic as:

−

:"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 the direct action of the citizens.... Governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient."<ref>Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj110172%29%29 online] </ref>

+

:"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 the direct action of the citizens.... Governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient."<ref>Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj110172%29%29 online]</ref>

−

The Founders discoursed endlessly on the meaning of "republicanism." John Adams in 1787 defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws."<ref>[http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4I.html Republican Government]. </ref>

+

The Founders discoursed endlessly on the meaning of "republicanism." John Adams in 1787 defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws."<ref>[http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4I.html Republican Government].</ref>

===Virtue vs. Commerce===

−

The open question, as Pocock suggested,<ref> Pocock, (1972).</ref> of the conflict between personal economic interest (grounded in Lockean liberalism) and classical republicanism, troubled Americans. [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[James Madison|Madison]] roundly denounced the Federalist for creating a national bank as tending to corruption and monarchism; [[Alexander Hamilton]] staunchly defended his program, arguing that national economic strength was necessary for the protection of liberty. Jefferson never relented but by 1815 Madison switched and announced in favor of a national bank, which he set up in 1816.

+

The open question, as Pocock suggested,<ref>Pocock, (1972)</ref> of the conflict between personal economic interest (grounded in Lockean liberalism) and classical republicanism, troubled Americans. [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[James Madison|Madison]] roundly denounced the Federalist for creating a national bank as tending to corruption and monarchism; [[Alexander Hamilton]] staunchly defended his program, arguing that national economic strength was necessary for the protection of liberty. Jefferson never relented but by 1815 Madison switched and announced in favor of a national bank, which he set up in 1816.

[[John Adams]] often pondered the issue of civic virtue. Writing [[Mercy Otis Warren]] in 1776, he agreed with the Greeks and the Romans, that, "Public Virtue cannot exist without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics." Adams insisted, "There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights

−

of society."<ref> Adams quoted in Paul A. Rahe, ''Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution. Volume: 2'' (1994) P. 23.</ref>

+

of society."<ref>Adams quoted in Paul A. Rahe, ''Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution. Volume: 2'' (1994) P. 23.</ref>

−

Adams worried that a businessman might have financial interests that conflicted with republican duty; indeed, he was especially suspicious of banks. He decided that history taught that "the Spirit of Commerce . . . is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for an happy Republic." But so much of that spirit of commerce had infected America. In New England, Adams noted, "even the Farmers and Tradesmen are addicted to Commerce." As a result, there was "a great Danger that a Republican Government would be very factious and turbulent there."<ref> Adams 1776 quoted in Rahe, ''Republics Ancient and Modern 2:23.</ref>

+

Adams worried that a businessman might have financial interests that conflicted with republican duty; indeed, he was especially suspicious of banks. He decided that history taught that "the Spirit of Commerce . . . is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for an happy Republic." But so much of that spirit of commerce had infected America. In New England, Adams noted, "even the Farmers and Tradesmen are addicted to Commerce." As a result, there was "a great Danger that a Republican Government would be very factious and turbulent there."<ref>Adams 1776 quoted in Rahe, ''Republics Ancient and Modern 2:23.</ref>

Jefferson and [[Andrew Jackson]] likewise were embattled enemies of national banks, which they feared were fronts of corruption. The theme continued in 1896, when [[William Jennings Bryan]] crusaded against the corruption of the banks as represented by the [[bimetallism|gold standard.]]

====Other influences ====

−

A second stream of thought growing in significance was the liberalism of [[John Locke]], including his theory of the "[[social contract]]". This had a great influence on the revolution as it implied the inborn [[right to revolution|right of the people to overthrow their leaders]] should those leaders betray the agreements implicit in the sovereign-follower relationship. Historians find little trace of [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]'s influence in America.<ref> Nathan Schachner concluded, "Rousseau, whose romantic and egalitarian tenets had practically no influence on the course of Jefferson's, or indeed any American, thought." ''Thomas Jefferson: A Biography.'' (1957). p. 47. Actually, Rousseau had an influence on [[Noah Webster]] (in terms of educating children) and some of the Transcendentalists like [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]. </ref> In terms of writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]]'s analysis of the ideally "balanced" British Constitution. But first and last came a commitment to republicanism, as shown by many historians such as [[Bernard Bailyn]] and [[Gordon S. Wood]].

+

A second stream of thought growing in significance was the liberalism of [[John Locke]], including his theory of the "[[social contract]]". This had a great influence on the revolution as it implied the inborn [[right to revolution|right of the people to overthrow their leaders]] should those leaders betray the agreements implicit in the sovereign-follower relationship. Historians find little trace of [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]'s influence in America.<ref>Nathan Schachner concluded, "Rousseau, whose romantic and egalitarian tenets had practically no influence on the course of Jefferson's, or indeed any American, thought." ''Thomas Jefferson: A Biography.'' (1957). p. 47. Actually, Rousseau had an influence on [[Noah Webster]] (in terms of educating children) and some of the Transcendentalists like [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]].</ref> In terms of writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]]'s analysis of the ideally "balanced" British Constitution. But first and last came a commitment to republicanism, as shown by many historians such as [[Bernard Bailyn]] and [[Gordon S. Wood]].

===Historiography===

For a century historians have debated how important republicanism was to the Founding Fathers. The interpretation before 1960, following [[Progressive Era]] historians such as [[Charles Beard]], [[Vernon L. Parrington]] and [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.]], downplayed rhetoric as superficial and looked for economic motivations. [[Louis Hartz]] refined the position in the 1950s, arguing [[John Locke]] was the most important source because his property-oriented [[liberalism]] supported the materialistic goals of Americans.

−

In the 1960s and 1970s two new schools emerged that emphasized the primacy of ideas as motivating forces in history (rather than material self interest). The "Cambridge School" led by [[Bernard Bailyn]] and [[Gordon Wood]] and the "St. Louis School" led by [[J.G.A. Pocock]] emphasized slightly different approaches to republicanism.<ref> Rodgers (1992)</ref> However, 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.

+

In the 1960s and 1970s two new schools emerged that emphasized the primacy of ideas as motivating forces in history (rather than material self interest). The "Cambridge School" led by [[Bernard Bailyn]] and [[Gordon Wood]] and the "St. Louis School" led by [[J.G.A. Pocock]] emphasized slightly different approaches to republicanism.<ref>Rodgers (1992)</ref> However, 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.

==New Nation: The Constitution==

−

The [[Founding Fathers]] wanted republicanism that would guarantee liberty, and most were afraid that a "democracy" (by which they meant a [[direct democracy]]) would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties; the most formidable of these potential majorities being that of the poor against the rich. That is, they saw democracy as [[mob rule]] that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a supermajority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states,<ref>When [[Alexander Hamilton]] proposed at the Constitutional Convention to drastically reduce the power of the states, he won no support and dropped the idea.</ref> gave the control of the upper house (Senate) to the states, and created an [[Electoral College]] comprising a small number of elites to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. Not expected by the founders was the emergence of the Supreme Court under [[John Marshall]] as the final arbiter of the Constitution and indeed of all political rules. In 1776 most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction, and was dropped state by state in the early 19th century.<ref> Alexander Keyssar, ''The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States'' (2001)</ref>

+

The [[Founding Fathers]] wanted republicanism that would guarantee liberty, and most were afraid that a "democracy" (by which they meant a [[direct democracy]]) would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties; the most formidable of these potential majorities being that of the poor against the rich. That is, they saw democracy as [[mob rule]] that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a supermajority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states,<ref>When [[Alexander Hamilton]] proposed at the Constitutional Convention to drastically reduce the power of the states, he won no support and dropped the idea.</ref> gave the control of the upper house (Senate) to the states, and created an [[Electoral College]] comprising a small number of elites to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. Not expected by the founders was the emergence of the Supreme Court under [[John Marshall]] as the final arbiter of the Constitution and indeed of all political rules. In 1776 most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe restriction, and was dropped state by state in the early 19th century.<ref>Alexander Keyssar, ''The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States'' (2001)</ref>

==="Republican" as party name===

Line 65: Line 65:

===Military Service===

−

In colonial days the Quaker elite established a monopoly on political leadership in Pennsylvania based on what they believed to be their inherent civic virtue grounded in their religious and social class. By 1760, this view had been discredited and replaced with the general consensus that civic virtue was an achieved, not an inherent, attribute and that it should be determined by the display of appropriate manliness and the valor of men who were willing to take up arms for the common defense of the colony. Pennsylvanians came to believe that all white men, not just wealthy property owners, were equally capable of achieving political voice. Martial masculinity, therefore, became the defining characteristic of the ideal citizen and marked a significant transformation in the way individuals understood their republican rights and duties.<ref> John Smolenski, "From Men of Property to Just Men: Deference, Masculinity, and the Evolution of Political Discourse in Early America." ''Early American Studies'' 2005 3(2): 253-285. Issn: 1543-4273 Fulltext: in [[Ebsco]]</ref>

+

In colonial days the Quaker elite established a monopoly on political leadership in Pennsylvania based on what they believed to be their inherent civic virtue grounded in their religious and social class. By 1760, this view had been discredited and replaced with the general consensus that civic virtue was an achieved, not an inherent, attribute and that it should be determined by the display of appropriate manliness and the valor of men who were willing to take up arms for the common defense of the colony. Pennsylvanians came to believe that all white men, not just wealthy property owners, were equally capable of achieving political voice. Martial masculinity, therefore, became the defining characteristic of the ideal citizen and marked a significant transformation in the way individuals understood their republican rights and duties.<ref>John Smolenski, "From Men of Property to Just Men: Deference, Masculinity, and the Evolution of Political Discourse in Early America." ''Early American Studies'' 2005 3(2): 253-285. Issn: 1543-4273 Fulltext: in [[Ebsco]]</ref>

−

Civic virtue required men to put civic goals ahead of their personal desires, and to volunteer to fight for their country. As [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] put it, "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe."<ref> Randolph quoted in Banning (1978) p. 262. See Lawrence D. Cress, "Republican Liberty and National Security: American Military Policy as an Ideological Problem, 1783 to 1789." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' (1981) 38(1): 73-96. ISSN 0043-5597 Fulltext at Jstor</ref> Scott (1984) notes that in both the American and French revolutions, distrust of foreign mercenaries led to the concept of a national, citizen army, and the definition of military service was changed from a choice of careers to a civic duty. <ref>Samuel F. Scott, "Foreign Mercenaries, Revolutionary War, and Citizen-soldiers in the Late Eighteenth Century." ''War & Society'' 1984 2(2): 41-58. ISSN 0729-2473 </ref> Herrera (2001) explains that an appreciation of self-governance is essential to any understanding of the American military character before the Civil War. Military service was considered an important demonstration of patriotism and an essential component of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was a voluntary, negotiated, and temporary abeyance of self-governance by which they signaled their responsibility as citizens. In practice self-governance in military affairs came to include personal independence, enlistment negotiations, petitions to superior officials, militia constitutions, and negotiations regarding discipline. Together these impacted on all aspects of military order, discipline, and life.<ref>Ricardo A. Herrera, "Self-governance and the American Citizen as Soldier, 1775-1861." ''Journal of Military History 2001'' 65(1): 21-52. ISSN 0899-3718 Fulltext in SwetsWise and Jstor</ref>

+

Civic virtue required men to put civic goals ahead of their personal desires, and to volunteer to fight for their country. As [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] put it, "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe."<ref>Randolph quoted in Banning (1978) p. 262. See Lawrence D. Cress, "Republican Liberty and National Security: American Military Policy as an Ideological Problem, 1783 to 1789." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' (1981) 38(1): 73-96. ISSN 0043-5597 Fulltext at Jstor</ref> Scott (1984) notes that in both the American and French revolutions, distrust of foreign mercenaries led to the concept of a national, citizen army, and the definition of military service was changed from a choice of careers to a civic duty. <ref>Samuel F. Scott, "Foreign Mercenaries, Revolutionary War, and Citizen-soldiers in the Late Eighteenth Century." ''War & Society'' 1984 2(2): 41-58. ISSN 0729-2473 </ref> Herrera (2001) explains that an appreciation of self-governance is essential to any understanding of the American military character before the Civil War. Military service was considered an important demonstration of patriotism and an essential component of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was a voluntary, negotiated, and temporary abeyance of self-governance by which they signaled their responsibility as citizens. In practice self-governance in military affairs came to include personal independence, enlistment negotiations, petitions to superior officials, militia constitutions, and negotiations regarding discipline. Together these impacted on all aspects of military order, discipline, and life.<ref>Ricardo A. Herrera, "Self-governance and the American Citizen as Soldier, 1775-1861." ''Journal of Military History 2001'' 65(1): 21-52. ISSN 0899-3718 Fulltext in SwetsWise and Jstor</ref>

==Civil War and Reconstruction==

−

Historian [[Frank Lawrence Owsley]] depicted antebellum Southern society as a broad class of yeoman farmers who stood and worked between the slaves and poor whites at one end and the large planters at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Owsley asserted that the real South was liberal, American, and Jeffersonian, not radical or reactionary. It reflected the best of republican principles (though Owsley did not use the word "republicanism.") Agrarianism in the 20th century was a response to the industrialism and modernism that had infiltrated the South. 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.<ref>Wood 1995</ref> 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.<ref> Thornton, ''Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860'' (1981)</ref>

+

Historian [[Frank Lawrence Owsley]] depicted antebellum Southern society as a broad class of yeoman farmers who stood and worked between the slaves and poor whites at one end and the large planters at the opposite end of the economic spectrum, Owsley asserted that the real South was liberal, American, and Jeffersonian, not radical or reactionary. It reflected the best of republican principles (though Owsley did not use the word "republicanism.") Agrarianism in the 20th century was a response to the industrialism and modernism that had infiltrated the South. 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.<ref>Wood 1995</ref> 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.<ref>Thornton, ''Politics and Power in a Slave Society: Alabama, 1800-1860'' (1981)</ref>

In reaction to the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, antislavery forces in the North formed a new party. The party officially designated itself "Republican" because the name resonated with the struggle of 1776. "In view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican government," resolved the Michigan state convention, "and against the schemes of aristocracy the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans."<ref>McPherson, ''Battle Cry of Freedom'' (1988) p 126; Lewis L. Gould, ''Grand Old Party'' (2003) p 14</ref>

==Gilded Age==

−

Krause (1992) argues the "Battle for Homestead" in Pittsburgh in 1892 represented a struggle between two competing, contradictory, and irreconcilable versions of American Republicanism. One was [[Andrew Carnegie]]'s belief in the inalienable right to private property and the right to accumulate capital and manage enterprise. Individual entrepreneurship was the republican way to wealth for the individual and for society as a whole. In opposition was the version personified by labour reformer Thomas 'Beeswax' Taylor, which saw in the ideology of republicanism the guarantee of the workers' right to dignity and security as a group. The strikers' republicanism viewed labor as the inalienable property of the individual worker, rejected the "law" of supply and demand and sought the group action by unions to assert the rights. They were not socialists and did not want government ownership, but they did want to control the work patterns on the factory floor regardless of the owner and his foremen. The unions were still thinking in terms of iron, when their expertise was decisive. In the age of steel the white collar engineer made the critical decisions, not blue collar workers. The union defeat in 1892 did not simply mark the end of the steelworkers' union's power, it more importantly destroyed the hopes of realizing the aims of radical republicanism. After 1900 [[Samuel Gompers]] and the [[AFL]] unions worked inside the owners' model of republicanism and sought higher wages, while the rejected republicanism vision was incorporated into the Socialism of [[Eugene Debs]], who argued the workers should have full control by nationalizing industry and having a labor party run the government.<ref> Paul Krause, ''The Battle for Homestead, 1880-1892: Politics, Culture, and Steel.'' U. of Pittsburgh Pr., 1992. 548 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Homestead-1880-1892-Politics-Pittsburg/dp/0822954664/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191910902&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]</ref>

+

Krause (1992) argues the "Battle for Homestead" in Pittsburgh in 1892 represented a struggle between two competing, contradictory, and irreconcilable versions of American Republicanism. One was [[Andrew Carnegie]]'s belief in the inalienable right to private property and the right to accumulate capital and manage enterprise. Individual entrepreneurship was the republican way to wealth for the individual and for society as a whole. In opposition was the version personified by labour reformer Thomas 'Beeswax' Taylor, which saw in the ideology of republicanism the guarantee of the workers' right to dignity and security as a group. The strikers' republicanism viewed labor as the inalienable property of the individual worker, rejected the "law" of supply and demand and sought the group action by unions to assert the rights. They were not socialists and did not want government ownership, but they did want to control the work patterns on the factory floor regardless of the owner and his foremen. The unions were still thinking in terms of iron, when their expertise was decisive. In the age of steel the white collar engineer made the critical decisions, not blue collar workers. The union defeat in 1892 did not simply mark the end of the steelworkers' union's power, it more importantly destroyed the hopes of realizing the aims of radical republicanism. After 1900 [[Samuel Gompers]] and the [[AFL]] unions worked inside the owners' model of republicanism and sought higher wages, while the rejected republicanism vision was incorporated into the Socialism of [[Eugene Debs]], who argued the workers should have full control by nationalizing industry and having a labor party run the government.<ref>Paul Krause, ''The Battle for Homestead, 1880-1892: Politics, Culture, and Steel.'' U. of Pittsburgh Pr., 1992. 548 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Homestead-1880-1892-Politics-Pittsburg/dp/0822954664/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191910902&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]</ref>

==Progressive Era==

[[Jane Addams]] stressed that women--especially middle class women with leisure and energy -- as well as rich philanthropists, had a civic duty to become involved in municipal affairs as a matter of "civic housekeeping." Addams thereby enlarged the concept of civic duty as part of republicanism to include roles for women beyond republican motherhood (which involved child rearing).

−

A central theme of the Progressive era was fear of corruption, one of the core ideas of republicanism since the 1770s. The Progressives restructured the political system to defeat corrupt bosses (for example, by the direct election of Senators), to remove corrupt influence like saloons (through prohibition) and bringing in new, purer voters (woman suffrage).).<ref> Richard Jensen, "Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885-1930," in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (U of Kansas Press, 2001) pp 149-180.[http://www.uic.edu/~rjensen/rj0025.htm online version] </ref> Debate erupted in 1917 over [[Woodrow Wilson]]'s proposal to draft men for the U.S. Army. Many said it violated the republican notion of freely given civic duty to force people to serve. The solution was to set it up so that each draftee voluntarily "stepped forward" to perform his civic duty.<ref> John Whiteclay II Chambers,''To Raise An Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987) </ref>

+

A central theme of the Progressive era was fear of corruption, one of the core ideas of republicanism since the 1770s. The Progressives restructured the political system to defeat corrupt bosses (for example, by the direct election of Senators), to remove corrupt influence like saloons (through prohibition) and bringing in new, purer voters (woman suffrage).).<ref>Richard Jensen, "Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885-1930," in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (U of Kansas Press, 2001) pp 149-180.[http://www.uic.edu/~rjensen/rj0025.htm online version]</ref> Debate erupted in 1917 over [[Woodrow Wilson]]'s proposal to draft men for the U.S. Army. Many said it violated the republican notion of freely given civic duty to force people to serve. The solution was to set it up so that each draftee voluntarily "stepped forward" to perform his civic duty.<ref>John Whiteclay II Chambers,''To Raise An Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America'' (1987)</ref>

[[Image:Jdr-king.jpg|thumb|300px|Rockefeller as an industrial emperor, an affront to republican ideals; 1901 cartoon from ''Puck'' magazine]]

Masterbratac

1,237

edits

Changes

Republicanism (view source)

Revision as of 02:39, August 20, 2013

Navigation menu

Search