Posted on 07/15/2003 3:51:19 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99
Ok. I just got off the phone with my communist brother who asserted that our nation is a democracy, I told him that it was a republic. I forgot where it says officially that we're a republic. I blame lack of sleep. Can anyone kindly help me out with a link to the text so I can email him.
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
September 25, 1998 from the Congressional Record)
MR. BYRD:
Mr. President, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government as a "democracy." I often talk with our Senate pages -- both Republican and Democratic pages. I tell them the story, "Acres of Diamonds," that Russell Conwell, one of the early chautauqua speakers, said he had given 5,000 times. I tell them the story that Tolstoy wrote, "How Much Land Does a Man Need?" I tell them various other stories, and I always try to help them to learn some things about the Senate, about our Constitution, and about our form of government. Recently, I said to the Senate pages, "Now, is this a democracy? What form of government is ours?" And I talked with them about the same things that I am going to say here with reference to a democracy versus a republic.
Again, Americans, commonly speaking, refer to our form of government as a "democracy." One reason for this is because politicians of all political parties generally refer to our government as a democracy. Politicians generally do that. Glib references are constantly being made anent our democracy. But our form of government, strictly speaking, is not a democracy. It may more properly be called a representative democracy, but, strictly speaking, ours is a republic. "We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands" -- not to the democracy for which it stands.
Incidentally, I was a Member of the other body when the House passed the law on June 7, 1954, inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Exactly 1 year from that day, on June 7, 1955, we passed a law requiring the words "In God We Trust" to appear on our currency and coins. There are the words on the wall in this Senate Chamber just below the clock, "In God We Trust." We passed that law in the House on June 7, 1955. I will always be proud that I was a Member of the House of Representatives when we passed those two pieces of legislation.
So we pledge allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic" -- not to the democracy, but to the Republic -- "for which it stands." We operate by democratic processes. Ours is a democratic society -- I have no quarrel with that -- but we do not live in a pure democracy. This is a Republic. We ought to get it straight. High rhetorical phrases referring to our form of government as a democracy constitute somewhat idle talk, and we politicians especially ought to know better.
I sent over to the Library and got a civics textbook by R.O. Hughes, vintage 1927. I studied civics in 1927. That was the year Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic and Jack Dempsey fought Gene Tunney to regain the heavyweight title, but he didn't regain it. That was the year when Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat, hit his 60th home run. So this civics textbook was vintage 1927, and it was right on the mark. Here is what it said: "We call the United States a federal republic." The textbook also defined a republic as "a government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, but is exercised through officials whom they elect." Now, there it is. The textbook also defined a democracy: "A democracy is a government in which all power is exercised directly by the people. It is next to impossible for this to be done except in small communities, but the spirit of democracy prevails in many republics and some monarchies."
That 1927 civics textbook had it right. In my hometown of Sophia, WV, 1,182 souls -- as of the last census -- could very well operate as a pure democracy. All of the people could gather together, and they could pass laws; that would not be difficult at all -- like the early city-states of Greece.
The 1927 civics textbook also defined a "monarchy" as well as an "oligarchy" and an "aristocracy." Curious as to what a modern textbook on civics would have to say on this subject, I picked up a book, copyright 1990 by Prentice-Hall, Inc., and found no reference -- none -- to republics and monarchies. Instead, the book referred only to dictatorships and democracies. The 1990 civics textbook states that one way to describe government "is by saying whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy." The book defined a democracy as follows: "Democracies are quite different from dictatorships. In a democracy the final authority rests with the people. Those who govern do so by permission of the people. Government is run, in other words, with the people's consent. The United States of America is an example of a democracy."
That is really inaccurate, "The United States of America is an example of a democracy." It is not. Let me quote what I would consider to be the ultimate authority. This definition does not square with Madison's definition. If Senators want an argument about this, don't argue with me, argue with Madison. This definition does not square with Madison's definition, yet this is what students who study from this 1990 civics textbook are being taught.
The same textbook goes on to state: "Democracies may be either direct or indirect. A direct democracy is one in which the people themselves, usually in a group meeting, make decisions about what the government will do. Direct democracies do not work very well in large communities. It is almost impossible to get all the people together in one place." That is what the book says.
Then the book proceeds. It says: "An indirect democracy is one in which a few people are elected to represent everyone else in the community. For this reason, indirect democracies are also called representative democracies."
It is kind of a convoluted way of getting around to saying the right thing, referring to a representative democracy.
Continuing to quote from the book: "These representatives are held responsible by the people for the day-to-day operation of the government. If the people are unhappy with the performance of their representatives, they may vote them out of office during the next election."
What a profound statement. That is the civics textbook of 1990. Until I opened up that textbook, I had never heard, I have to say, of "direct" democracies and "indirect" democracies. So now, my Pledge of Allegiance would have to be stated as follows: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the indirect democracy for which it stands," and so forth. Are you confused?
James Madison, one of the principal framers of the Constitution, alluded to "the confounding of a republic with a democracy" in the Federalist #14, written on November 30, 1787. He proceeds to delineate a true distinction between these forms: ". . . in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
Madison was confronting the critics of the Constitution, some of whom sought, by the artifice of confusing the terms democracy and republic, to maintain that a republic could never be established except among a small number of people, living within a small territory. As Madison so ably pointed out, this observation was applicable to a democracy only.
Madison describes the territorial limitations of democracies such as the "turbulent democracies of ancient Greece," saying: ". . .the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point, which would just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand; and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; . . ." He proceeds to say that the natural limit of a republic "is that distance from the center, which will barely allow the representatives of the people to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs."
Madison argues that the territorial limits of the United States do not exceed the limit within which a republic can operate and effectively administer the affairs of the people. Again, in the Federalist #10, where Madison discusses the sources and causes and dangers of faction, he defines a "pure" democracy as being "a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."
Let me say that again.
Madison defines a "pure" democracy as being "a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." And Madison indicates that such a form of government "can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."
Listen to this -- Madison again -- stating that, "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention," Madison proceeds to add that they "have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property." He adds: "Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
It is quite different with a republic, however. Listen to Madison as he extols this form as a better approach to dealing with faction: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the union."
Again, Madison clearly distinguishes between a democracy and a republic: "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are, first, the delegation of the government, in the latter," -- meaning in the republic -- "to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter" -- meaning the republic -- "may be extended."
Madison in the Federalist #10 then examines whether the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good in a small rather than in a large republic, and he comes down in favor of a more extensive republic as being "most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal." Madison clearly decides in favor of the larger territory. But let's let him speak for himself: "The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican, than of democratic government" is a "circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former" -- the republic -- "than in the latter."
In summation, Madison said, "Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction" -- George Washington, we will remember, warned us about faction in his farewell address. Madison said, "Hence it clearly appears, that the same advantage, which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."
Hamilton, in Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, referred to the "amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit." Madison himself, in his notes, referred to the dangers of a "leveling spirit," when he said: "No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarter to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles?"
Madison was probably referring to the Shays' Rebellion which had occurred just the year before the convention, in 1786, when he spoke of the symptoms of a "leveling spirit."
Madison was espousing the establishment of a Senate as "a body in the government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale."
Madison went on to observe "That as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operations would decide forever the fate of republican government -- talking about the constitution -- we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation could require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out."
What a wise, wise man, Madison. What wise men who gathered there in Philadelphia during those hot summer days between May 25, 1787 and September 17 of that year and hammered out the Constitution of the United States. What a document!
In the discussions concerning the mode of selection of members of the first branch of the national legislature, Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people.
We hear a lot about this "democracy" of ours. Many of the framers were concerned about democracy. Some of them didn't want any part of it. They didn't want a democracy.
Mr. Sherman opposed election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the State legislatures. According to Madison's notes, Mr. Sherman expressed himself accordingly: "The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the Government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled."
Roger Sherman, a delegate from Connecticut, was joined in this feeling by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts who, as Madison explained, averred: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. . . . He . . . had been taught by experience the danger of the leveling [sic] spirit."
George Mason of Virginia favored the election of the larger branch by the people. According to Madison, Mason "admitted that we had been too Democratic but was afraid we should incautiously run into the opposite extreme." They didn't want to go to the extreme on either edge.
Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who had offered the resolves, around which the debates would swirl throughout the Convention. These are Madison notes from which I am quoting Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia who had presented the resolves on the 29th day of May, 1787. It is so easy for me to remember that day because the 29th day of May is my wedding anniversary. It happens to be my wife's wedding anniversary also, naturally, May 29. We have seen 61 anniversaries already in our lifetime. And so here is the quote of Governor Randolph.
He "observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." He was of the opinion, therefore, that a check "was to be sought for against this tendency of our government," and he believed that a Senate -- a Senate would achieve this end.
In speaking of the Senate of Maryland, and the length of Senatorial terms in that State, Hamilton said: "They suppose seven years a sufficient period to give the Senate an adequate firmness, from not duly considering the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit. When a great object of government is pursued, which seizes the popular passions, they spread like wildfire, and become irresistible." This was Hamilton speaking, referring to the Senate of Maryland.
It is evident from Madison's notes on the Convention that a pure democracy, as a form of government, did not appeal to the delegates at the Convention, and that a fear of the "leveling spirit" of democracy was prevalent at the time and leading members of the Convention were aware of this concern.
Therefore, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated in "Democracy in America," "the Americans have a democratic state of society", we should be more careful than to allude to our form of government as a "democracy." If we want to say it's a representative democracy, that is one thing. But it is not a "democracy". To do so is to use our language loosely. And we all use our language loosely from time to time. I do. But I never refer to this government as a "democracy." I prefer to stick to the strict definition as explained by Madison and refer to ours as a republic -- which I proudly do.
The framers were wise men. As Butler of South Carolina said "We must follow the example of Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best government he could devise, but the best [government that] they would receive."
Our founding fathers gave us a republic.
As Dale Bumpers reminded me a moment ago -- a few minutes ago, when a lady approached Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the convention's proceedings on September 17, 1787, she said, "Dr. Franklin, what form of government have you given us?"
Franklin didn't answer saying, "A democracy, Madam." His answer was, "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
Our Founding Fathers gave us a republic, and we public officials, politicians and other molders of opinion should formulate our spoken and written language accordingly.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank Senators for their courtesy in listening. I yield the floor.
17th Ammendment - "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."
Now that the state legislatures no longer appoint Senators the states power has eroded into nothingness. The dems would like to eliminate the electoral college in favor of a popular vote effectively ending our "republic".
"We have given you a republic if you can keep it." - Benjamin Franklin
...all the blood 'ran south'. ;-)
lol
How could he possibly not know he's living in a republic as opposed to a democracy? Does he know the difference?
Not knowing what type of government your country is based on is bad enough, but to argue the point and be so wrong is really bad.
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.