Posted on 04/15/2019 1:28:29 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Subtitle: John Adams Reconsiders Republican Government.
The American Revolution wasn’t a simple colonial rebellion against English imperialism. It was first and foremost a social revolution. We can hardly imagine today the leap in men’s minds from a stratified social order in which all honors were gifts from a King, to that of free and equal republican citizens. In his 1776 Thoughts on Government, John Adams viewed politics as a straightforward struggle between rulers and the people. Cast off monarchy, and indeed all executive authority, and let a virtuous people govern themselves. The Articles of Confederation reflect this reliance on public virtue and abhorrence of executive power.1
Yet, given the poor track record of republics, could America pull off these radical changes without falling into history’s deadly traps? Being without a unifying hereditary monarch to bind the nation, what sort of social glue could possibly prevent infighting, disorders, and eventual dissolution among thirteen distinct peoples?
History had taught that public virtue is the necessary foundation of republics. No republican government could last, said John Adams, unless there was a “positive passion for the public good, the public interest” in the minds of the people. Yet, could America keep this spartan sense of sacrifice?
[snip]
Adams accepted the reality that Americans were as driven by the passions for wealth and precedence as any people in history. The difference between then and now is that once men like Adams realized the situation, they advocated and took measures to deal with man’s nature. Article V opponents’ reliance on public virtue is a blind alley.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Did those previous republics have anything like our Constitution or Bill of Rights?
Excellent articles. Thank you for sharing.
The more we understand the larger picture from a historical perspective, the less likely we will be to destroy this great nation.
With the exception of state constitutions, no. Like the unwritten Brit constitution, which is whatever the King-in-Parliament says it is.
It's hard for me to believe that Constitutional Amendments or the restoration of appointed Senators can resolve anything for long.
Problem One - A country of 330 million wildly diverse people is un-governable.
Problem Two - Respect for the “Rule of Law” has essentially collapsed.
I don’t have the time to search at the moment. Is that 330 million only Americans, or does it include legal immigrants as well as an estimated number of illegal aliens? Respect for the “rule of law” has collapsed on multiple fronts.
Well, for one thing, a senate of the states will not consent to judges hostile to the 9th and especially the 10th Amendment.
The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Bump for after work...
A quick glance at some stats suggest there are about 275 million native-born citizens in the US and somewhere around 25 to 75 million foreign-born legal residents and illegal aliens in the US.
Our American system seems to reserve much of such power to make major changes to an unelected Supreme Court.
States have wittingly or unwittingly relinquished their powers to the black hole of federal power.
As for the claim that republican governments had developed a poor reputation for stability, it would probably come as a something as a surprise to someone with the author's apparent level of education that the Venetian Republic had, quite famously, lasted for eleven centuries, and loomed large in the imaginations of our founders.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218
The USA grows about 1% per year, so I rounded up to 330 million.
I think the Constitution actually states that the once-per-decade Census must count “all persons present” in the USA.
Before every Census, the Republicans talk tough about EXCLUDING illegal immigrants from the final count, but they never do anything serious to stop it.
Trump wants an illegal immigrant question box on the 2020 Census, and the Democrats are currently blocking it in court.
Trump sends pro-immigrant Democrat lawyers from the Department of Justice to argue all his immigration cases in federal court, so he will most likely lose the Census case, too.
I would say “wittingly.”
The Democrats support massive, powerful, highly centralized government, and most RINOs support that, too.
Personally, I think repealing the 17th Amendment [Senate Elections] would have almost no impact on U.S. Senate decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.