10 Things You Might Not Know About America's Independence

[Valmy]

explain how they weren't the same.

It was based on the classical education everybody was getting.  A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens.  A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome.  The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.

[viper37]

In some mythical America that was loyal it seems likely slavery would have been abolished long before the 1860s.

I wonder if the South would have seceded from the British Empire then...

[viper37]

Wait there are people who do not know the Pledge is a 20th century thing and think George Washington said it with his army or something?

Same people who think the American flag was raised every day with the national anthem in 1776.

[viper37]

explain how they weren't the same.

It was based on the classical education everybody was getting.  A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens.  A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome.  The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.

Ah, I can see, now.  Thanks.  Democracy was only for direct representation.

[grumbler]

It was based on the classical education everybody was getting.  A Democracy would be something based on ancient Athens.  A Republic was something modelled on ancient Rome.  The American revolutionaries chose the latter so we called it a Republic.

  A republic is a state with a non-royal head of state.  It doesn't have to be democratic.  North Korea is a Republic.  At the time of the founding of the US, the United Provinces was famously a republic, as was the Swiss Confederacy, Genoa, and Venice.  You didn't call the US a republic because it was modeled on ancient Rome; you called it a republic because it was a republic, just as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Genoa, and Venice were republics.

The Republic established by the Founding Fathers was a democratic type of republic.  When Madison talks of the advantages of a republic over a democracy, he is careful to say "a pure democracy" the first few times he refers to democracies, before he shortens it to just democracy (having established what he refers to).

[grumbler]

Ah, I can see, now.  Thanks.  Democracy was only for direct representation.

Montesquieu was widely read on the subject, and his definition of a democracy certainly would have included the US at its founding.   In American political writings of the time, The Spirit of the Laws was cited more than any work bar the bible.  Montesquieu considered classical Athens to be a republic (he saw only three types of governments:  Monarchies, republics, and despotisms).

[Valmy]

The Republic established by the Founding Fathers was a democratic type of republic.  When Madison talks of the advantages of a republic over a democracy, he is careful to say "a pure democracy" the first few times he refers to democracies, before he shortens it to just democracy (having established what he refers to).

Madison also wrote under the name 'Publius' and not 'Cleisthenes' and he heavily draws on classical examples.  I am well aware that the definitions of 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are different today.  I was discussing how they were viewed at the time.

[Razgovory]

I was under the impression that the term "Democracy" had negative connotations at the time of the American Revolution.  At least amongst the Federalists.


I think a genuine lesser known fact about the American Revolution is that the not all the states had universal manhood suffrage.  I'm not talking about slaves not getting to vote, but ordinary white men.  Didn't know that property restrictions remained in many states well in the 19th century until I was in college.

[grumbler]

Madison also wrote under the name 'Publius' and not 'Cleisthenes' and he heavily draws on classical examples.  I am well aware that the definitions of 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are different today.  I was discussing how they were viewed at the time.

I was, as well.  Madison was of that time.

We could take, for example, The Federalist #10 as an example, because there Madison compares a pure democracy with a republic:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. 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.

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.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, 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 may be extended.

(my bold)

Now, the last sentence is the one often quoted to show that the US isn't a democracy, but in context we can see that Madison isn't referring to all democracies, but a particular form of democracy called by him "pure democracy," and that the type of republic he is referring to isn't all republics, but rather those republics in which there is a form of representation.  The latter definition is now the only one, but in Madison's time a republic was a non-monarchical non-despotism.   The Swiss had a republic in which they excercised almost pure democracy, for instance, and Madison had to show that this was not what he was referring to.

[dps]

I'm not sure why you'd have doubts about 3.  I don't necessarily know that the info in 3 is 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it seems right.

The date of 1774.  That people in their local assembly decided it would be a good thing to be independant before the Congress did, I think it's probably right.   But as early as 1774, 90 counties declared themselves independant?  It just seem a bit too much, given that as late as 1776, many Americans still hoped to solve their problems with England without going into rebellion.

That's why I said I wasn't sure the info was 100% accurate, but the general thrust of it was correct.  I don't know where the figure of 90 comes from.  Note though, that "local" would include individual citites, towns, and villages, not just states and counties, so there well might have been 90 or more.  Also, what the article doesn't say is that most (perhaps all, I'm not sure) of those local declarations of independence didn't actually proclaim independence per se--they were essentiall petitions to the Continental Congress calling on Congress to declare independence.

Whatever the number, I bet most of them were from New England.

5 is a matter of interpretation,

that's why I have doubts.  Rejecting the King and embracing a Republic would be somewhat seen as radical in the time.  In fact, just protesting the British parliament was seen as radical, given that the American patriots were branded as traitors by the motherland.

True, but they weren't seeking to change the social or economic order, in the main.  They were just wanting to change the political structure.  And even there, in a sense they were not only not radical, but reactionary.  Remember, the British government hadn't really concerned itself with administering the colonies;  they had been used to pretty much running their own affairs until the British government began to take a more active interest in the colonies after the French and Indian war, and many colonial leaders as much as anything else just wanted to go back to the status quo ante.



Grumbler has already covered the democracy question, and the other one isn't worth wasting any more time on.

[Neil]

But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.

[dps]

But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.

A good example, actually, though.  Before the French and Indian War, the British government didn't really do anything to try to check westward expansion--the barriers were the practical problems of exploring the wilderness and dealing with the natives and French explorers and traders, not legal barriers erected by the government.  After the war, the practical barriers were much reduced, but the British had put up legal barriers.

[Neil]

But not really a status quo, since the colonial leaders also wanted to be free to wage aggressive war to the west.

A good example, actually, though.  Before the French and Indian War, the British government didn't really do anything to try to check westward expansion--the barriers were the practical problems of exploring the wilderness and dealing with the natives and French explorers and traders, not legal barriers erected by the government.  After the war, the practical barriers were much reduced, but the British had put up legal barriers.

Yeah.  Britain started treating the natives like countries, whereas the colonies were determined to slaughter them.

[grumbler]

Yeah.  Britain started treating the natives like countries, whereas the colonies were determined to slaughter them.

Yeah, the British were a silly and naive people, for sure.

They got over it.

[viper37]

Also, what the article doesn't say is that most (perhaps all, I'm not sure) of those local declarations of independence didn't actually proclaim independence per se--they were essentiall petitions to the Continental Congress calling on Congress to declare independence.

that does make more sense than the article.