Changes

'''Republicanism''' is a [[political]] [[ideology]] in opposition to [[monarchy]] and [[tyranny]].  Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the [[rule of law]], the [[rights]] of individuals, and the [[sovereignty of the people]].  It is also closely connected to the idea of [[civic virtue]], the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician.

'''Republicanism''' is a [[political]] [[ideology]] in opposition to [[monarchy]] and [[tyranny]].  Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the [[rule of law]], the [[rights]] of individuals, and the [[sovereignty of the people]].  It is also closely connected to the idea of [[civic virtue]], the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician.

==Europe==

==Europe==

Republican emerged first in [[Ancient Greece]], particularly [[Athens]]. It flourished during the [[Roman Republic]] aboutt a century before Christ, led by such statesmen as [[Cicero]] and [[Cato the Younger]].   

Republican emerged first in [[Ancient Greece]], particularly [[Athens]]. It flourished during the [[Roman Republic]] aboutt a century before Christ, led by such statesmen as [[Cicero]] and [[Cato the Younger]].   

===Machiavelli===

===Machiavelli===

Republicanism was revived during the [[Renaissance]], especially by political thinkers who promoted [[Civic Humanism]] in Florence such as [[Niccolò Machiavelli]].   

Republicanism was revived during the [[Renaissance]], especially by political thinkers who promoted [[Civic Humanism]] in Florence such as [[Niccolò Machiavelli]].   

The republican ideal of civic duty was succinctly expressed in 1961 by the Democrat [[John F. Kennedy]]: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

The republican ideal of civic duty was succinctly expressed in 1961 by the Democrat [[John F. Kennedy]]: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

==The American Revolution==

===The American Revolution===

===Republican opposition to corruption ===

====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>  

Americans above all feared the corruption generated by a royal court, with its favoritism, grasping ambition, bribery, patronage, lavish luxury and disregard of civic virtue. They watched anxiously so that these evils could be scotched immediately should they appear in America—a watchfulness that persists into the 21st century.

Americans above all feared the corruption generated by a royal court, with its favoritism, grasping ambition, bribery, patronage, lavish luxury and disregard of civic virtue. They watched anxiously so that these evils could be scotched immediately should they appear in America—a watchfulness that persists into the 21st century.

===Cause of Revolution===

====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 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===

====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.

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.]]

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 ====

=====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===

====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.  

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==

===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===

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

In 1792-93 Jefferson and Madison created a new party they called the "Republican party" in order to promote their version of the doctrine and to indicate that Hamilton's version was illegitimate. According to [[Noah Webster]], the linguist who was also a Federalist editor, the choice of the name "Republican" was "a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party.... The influence of names on the mass of mankind, was never more distinctly exhibited, than in the increase of the democratic party in the United States. The popularity of the denomination of the Republican Party, was more than a match for the popularity of [President George] Washington's character and services, and contributed to overthrow his administration."<ref>quoted in John C. Miller, ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959) p. 320. Webster, like many Federalists, called the Jeffersonian Republicans "democrats" as a term of ridicule.</ref> Jefferson's party broke apart in the 1820s; one faction became the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]] led by [[Andrew Jackson]], the other became the [[Whig Party]]. The Whigs, led by [[Henry Clay]] chose a name derived from the Patriots of the 1770s who started the [[American Revolution]]. Both of these new parties proclaimed their devotion to republicanism.

In 1792-93 Jefferson and Madison created a new party they called the "Republican party" in order to promote their version of the doctrine and to indicate that Hamilton's version was illegitimate. According to [[Noah Webster]], the linguist who was also a Federalist editor, the choice of the name "Republican" was "a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party.... The influence of names on the mass of mankind, was never more distinctly exhibited, than in the increase of the democratic party in the United States. The popularity of the denomination of the Republican Party, was more than a match for the popularity of [President George] Washington's character and services, and contributed to overthrow his administration."<ref>quoted in John C. Miller, ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959) p. 320. Webster, like many Federalists, called the Jeffersonian Republicans "democrats" as a term of ridicule.</ref> Jefferson's party broke apart in the 1820s; one faction became the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]] led by [[Andrew Jackson]], the other became the [[Whig Party]]. The Whigs, led by [[Henry Clay]] chose a name derived from the Patriots of the 1770s who started the [[American Revolution]]. Both of these new parties proclaimed their devotion to republicanism.

As late as 1800 the word "democracy" was in ill repute and was mostly used to attack an opponent. 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."<ref>{{cite web |title = George Washington to James McHenry, September 30, 1798 |url = http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage113.db&recNum=107 |accessdate = 2007-01-08}} [http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/collection/post_pres_1798sep30.html Transcript].</ref> The [[Federalist Papers]] are pervaded by the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. Thus Madison argued in Federalist #10, a special interest may take control of a small area, but it could not easily take over a large nation.  Thus the larger the nation the safer is republicanism.

As late as 1800 the word "democracy" was in ill repute and was mostly used to attack an opponent. 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."<ref>{{cite web |title = George Washington to James McHenry, September 30, 1798 |url = http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage113.db&recNum=107 |accessdate = 2007-01-08}} [http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/collection/post_pres_1798sep30.html Transcript].</ref> The [[Federalist Papers]] are pervaded by the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. Thus Madison argued in Federalist #10, a special interest may take control of a small area, but it could not easily take over a large nation.  Thus the larger the nation the safer is republicanism.

===Military Service===

====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==

===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>

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==

 

===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==

===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).  

[[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>

Another form of corruption was the trust—the giant business enterprise that crushed its competition. Some reformers adopted the "Iowa idea" that linked the cause of the trusts to high tariffs. Others denounced "robber barons," artfully combining crime and aristocracy. [[John D. Rockefeller]] and his [[Standard Oil Company]] were favorite targets.<ref>Roger M. Olien and Olien, Diana Davids.  ''Oil and Ideology: The Cultural Creation of the American Petroleum Industry.'' (2000) p. 103</ref>

Another form of corruption was the trust—the giant business enterprise that crushed its competition. Some reformers adopted the "Iowa idea" that linked the cause of the trusts to high tariffs. Others denounced "robber barons," artfully combining crime and aristocracy. [[John D. Rockefeller]] and his [[Standard Oil Company]] were favorite targets.<ref>Roger M. Olien and Olien, Diana Davids.  ''Oil and Ideology: The Cultural Creation of the American Petroleum Industry.'' (2000) p. 103</ref>

==New Deal Era to 2007==

===New Deal Era to 2007===

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" cried out President [[John F. Kennedy]] in a dramatic call for the American people to honor the core republican value of civic duty.<ref>Gary Hart, ''Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America'' (2002) p. 7; Michael Tomasky, "Party in Search of a Notion," ''The American Prospect'' (May 2006) online at [http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=11424] . James Patterson, "Modern Era" in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (U of Kansas Press, 2001)</ref>  

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" cried out President [[John F. Kennedy]] in a dramatic call for the American people to honor the core republican value of civic duty.<ref>Gary Hart, ''Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America'' (2002) p. 7; Michael Tomasky, "Party in Search of a Notion," ''The American Prospect'' (May 2006) online at [http://www.prospect.org/web/view-web.ww?id=11424] . James Patterson, "Modern Era" in Byron Shafer and Anthony Badger, eds, ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (U of Kansas Press, 2001)</ref>  

As the limitations on democracy were slowly removed, senators were made directly electable by the people (1913); property qualifications for state voters were eliminated (1820s); and initiative, [[referendum]], recall and other devices of direct democracy became widely accepted at the state and local level (1910s).  Thus, at present most people refer to the United States and its system of government as a democracy.

As the limitations on democracy were slowly removed, senators were made directly electable by the people (1913); property qualifications for state voters were eliminated (1820s); and initiative, [[referendum]], recall and other devices of direct democracy became widely accepted at the state and local level (1910s).  Thus, at present most people refer to the United States and its system of government as a democracy.

==Further reading==

==Further reading==

* Wood, Gordon S. "Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution," ''The William and Mary Quarterly'' 3rd Ser., Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1966), pp.&nbsp;3–32 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28196601%293%3A23%3A1%3C3%3ARARITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M in JSTOR]

* Wood, Gordon S. "Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution," ''The William and Mary Quarterly'' 3rd Ser., Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1966), pp.&nbsp;3–32 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28196601%293%3A23%3A1%3C3%3ARARITA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M in JSTOR]

 

====Notes====

====notes====

<references/>

<references/>

{{Conservatism}}

{{Conservatism}}