Republicanism

Republicanism is the word historians use to describe the ideology of the American revolutionaries. The term derives from the Latin phrase res publica, which means the public thing or the commonwealth. Today we define a republic as any form of representative government. In the 18th century, at least before the independence of the United States, a republic could be any government for the common good. It was thus possible to have a monarchy that, since the king was guardian of the public good, was a republic. From this perspective the ideal form of government was one in which there existed a balance between various elements in society: the one (monarch); the few (aristocrats); and the many (the demos, or the people). In theory, the English government of the 18th century could be considered a republic because the king represented one element of society (monarchy); the House of Lords another (aristocracy); and the House of Commons the third (democracy). Of course this theory did not reflect the reality of English politics. The House of Commons was packed with aristocrats—but not nobility—the House of Lords was not that important, and government operated as a series of compromises between Commons and the king worked out after the Glorious Revolution (1688-89). Many colonists believed that their own colonial governments mirrored this mythical balance with the governor representing the monarchy, the council representing the aristocracy, and the lower house representing the demos. But, as in England, this ideal was a pale reflection of reality.

Whatever the reality, the theory held that the balance between these various elements ensured that no one element would become corrupt and take away the liberty of the people. A corrupt monarchy would be despotism, a corrupt aristocracy would be an oligarchy, and a corrupt democracy would be a mobocracy and lead to anarchy. Each of the corrupt forms would threaten the sanctity of property, which was closely connected in 18th-century minds to liberty.

Beyond balancing these various elements, a republic depended on the virtue of each element of society. Virtue in the 18th century could be defined as a willingness to put aside your interests for the public good. The opposite of virtue was corruption. In the 18th century, corruption was pursuing your own interests at the expense of the public interest. The best safeguard of a republic was having virtuous individuals at all levels of society. Since the 18th century was a period of intense study of the classics, republican thinkers cited the example of the Roman general Cincinna-tus as the virtuous citizen par excellence. Cincinnatus lived in the early years of Roman history, when Rome was a small city-state. He was working in the field when a neighboring state invaded. Knowing his reputation as a great warrior and leader, the people of Rome came to Cincinnatus and asked him to beat back the invaders. Cincinnatus left the plow and, at the head of the Roman army, defeated the invaders. Upon his return, the people hailed Cincinnatus and wanted to make him a king. But Cincinnatus put aside the riches and personal glory that the crown would provide—his own interest—and returned to his plow in his field. This image was extremely important to revolutionary Americans and George Washington strove to live up to it.

Republicanism also entailed a cyclical view of history. All nations were seen as organic, that is, they were perceived as having a life cycle. In youth they were strong and vigorous; at maturity they were powerful and wise; in old age they were decrepit and ready to die. This vision of history was sustained by example from antiquity. Israel, Greece, and Rome all were seen as following this basic cycle. The key in each instance was that when a state had become too large and too powerful, it was liable to corruption and the loss of virtue. Edward Gibbon demonstrated this progression in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776).

The problem for American revolutionaries became determining where they as a society fit into this cycle. Great Britain could be labeled as on the downswing, having conquered a huge empire it had passed maturity and was entering its last stages before it collapsed. Colonial America, on the other hand, was a new country, with rigor and youth still before it. One of the arguments for independence held that the colonies should separate from Great Britain before its corrupting influence destroyed the virtue of the American people.

With republican ideas as a starting point, revolutionary Americans sought to establish new state governments and eventually created the national government of the United States Constitution in 1787. In the process, many Americans came to believe that a republic could only exist without a king. This idea was best articulated by Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776). Paine and others believed that by its very nature, kingship was a corrupting influence and threatened virtue throughout society. Paine also attacked the idea of an aristocracy. Many revolutionaries ended up agreeing with him on this point as well. They argued that aristocrats depended on their title from the king and by their intrinsic nature were sycophants who pursued their own interests at the expense of the public good. Having rejected dependence upon the king and the aristocracy, the revolutionaries had to find a new rationale for their understanding of the balance among the different branches of government. The idea that the revolutionaries ultimately hit upon, and which was used to defend the creation of the government under the United States Constitution, was that all elements of the government represented the people. The president was thus not akin to the king, who had represented the one; instead, regardless of the fact that he was chosen by the electoral college, he represented the people. Similarly, the Senate did not represent the aristocracy even though they too were not popularly elected under the original procedures of the Constitution; as a body, the Senate represented the people. Finally, members of the House of Representatives were elected by the people (at least adult white male property holders) and represented the people (and three-fifths of each slave). With this logic underpinning the new form of government, a new understanding of the word republic began to emerge, equating it with a representative form of government.

Together with these changes there also occurred another important shift. Virtue was no longer seen as simply sacrificing your own personal good for the public good. As Americans adjusted to the new republicanism and a new democratic egalitarian competitive society, virtue came to be seen as working hard for your own good. But since everyone was theoretically on the same playing field and competed as equals, out of this competition, as if guided by some unseen hand, the greater good of all in society would somehow be met. This shift was never complete, and Americans still debate how much restraint should be placed on open competition in the market place and in politics.

See also commonwealthmen; Constitutional Convention; constitutions, state.

Further reading: Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967, 1992); Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1991).