Is the United States a DEMOCRACY? and What is a Republic?

It's amazing how many people are under the false impression that the United States is a democracy. I have accumulated recently from various sources some information to back up this claim. I have attached this information below. Please take the time to read this material, especially if you genuinely think that the U.S. has always been a democracy.



Republic vs. Democracy
Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three banches of government, the Supreme Court and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. A more recent example was the failure of the US Senate to uphold their oath "to do impartial justice" and remove bill clinton from office. Those Senators should be removed themselves, for failure to uphold their oath and for aiding and abetting a known criminal.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,
"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...",
"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
DEMOCRACY:
• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,
"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".
United States Constitution
Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” [Not a democracy.]

Pledge of Allegiance – “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands …”

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied; “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” (Webster’s dictionary definition: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.)
Democracy: Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as “mobocracy”). Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.
Republic: Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation … a republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.
WARNINGS
John Witherspoon, signer - “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal text - “It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”
Benjamin Rush, signer - “ a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.”
John Quincy Adams - “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
Noah Webster - “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
James Madison - “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.”
John Adams - “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment - “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty !! NOTE … look at today’s sexual freedoms.
Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the Constitution - “We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate … as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism … Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.”
Samuel Adams – “… it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds …”
End of Warnings
What is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster: “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.”
In our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. In the American republic, principles that do not change and which are certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community of man were the principles of Biblical natural law … the basis of our Declaration, Constitution and legal system.
Professor Montesquieu, a French professor, author and legal philosopher who wrote the highly influential book, The Spirit Of The Laws, (which was read and studied intently in America) was the source of our division of power in our government. Baron Charles Montesquieu was the second most frequently quoted source, next to the Holy Bible, out of all the references used by our Founding Fathers.He was the source of our division of power in government; (i.e.. legislative, administrative, judicial) claiming Isaiah 33:22 as the source; the Lord is our King, the Lord is our Judge and the Lord is our Lawgiver. Montesquieu identified the rule of law as “natural law” which is based on the Holy Bible. He identified the rule of law as “principles that do not change”. Natural Law is the law God gave His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
In 1748, Montesquieu wrote; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.
Our Founding Fathers gave us an Electoral College because we are a Republic … not a democracy. The Electoral College follows the principle of elected representation. It was designed to further promote the ideals of balance, and of separation of powers. It gives the smaller States true representation in a fair and just manner by allowing their voices (as well as rural America) to be heard. It prevents the control of the Nation by highly populated urban centers, thus reducing the risk of elections being bought or won by fraud where power could be consolidated.
Noah Webster - “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a Republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a Republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.”
Jedediah Moore, Founding educator -“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation … in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom …All efforts to destroy the foundations of our Holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown our present Republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
George Mason, father of Bill of Rights - “We are now to rank among the nations of the world; but whether our independence shall prove a blessing or a curse must depend upon our own wisdom or folly, virtue or wickedness …Justice and virtue are the vital principles of a republican government.”
GOD’S LAW All our laws are arranged into two different classes.
1. Divine – coming from God’s natural laws and His ten commandments.
2. Human – Matters that are not commanded or forbidden by God’s natural law.
U.S. Supreme Court, 1892 – “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
Benjamin Franklin – “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution - “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.”
George Washington, father of our country – “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
AT THE CONVENTION
On the fourth of July 1787, the entire convention was assembled in the Reformed Calvinistic Church, assembled there by the direction of Edmond Randolph of Virginia. The sermon and prayer was conducted by Rev. William Rogers – a portion of his prayer; “We fervently recommend to the Fatherly notice … our Federal Convention … Favor them, from day to day, with Thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the whole; … that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous government…
May we … continue, under the influence of Republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society.”
John Witherspoon, signer, member of the Continental Congress, served on over 100 committees, a teacher who influenced students who included; a President -James Madison, a Vice President, three Supreme Court Justices, 10 Cabinet members, 12 Governors, 21 Senators, 39 Representatives as well as numerous delegates to the Constitutional Convention and state conventions. He served as President of Princeton University. His quotes;
1.“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
2.“Whoever is an avowed enemy of God; I scruple not [do not hesitate] to call him an enemy of his country.”
3. John Adams at Witherspoon’s death said: “A true son of liberty. So he was. But first, he was a son of the Cross.”
John Hancock, signer –“The very existence of the Republic … depends much upon the public institutions of religion.”
Alexis deTocqueville, the Principle of Sovereignty of the People in America - “ It dominates the whole of American society. The Americans applied this principle even before their Revolution. Its growth was a result of the Revolution … in America the sovereignty of the people is neither hidden nor sterile as with most other nations; mores recognize it, and the laws proclaim it; it spreads with freedom and attains unimpeded its ultimate consequences.”
Chairman’s comment; Our Founding Fathers chose a Republic over a Democracy for many reasons; primarily because they remembered the most infamous “democratic” vote in all history. [i.e.] The lesson of a bureaucrat some 2000 years ago who turned to a crowd and asked which prisoner should be released – the crowd yelled - “give us Barabbas”. The ‘will of the people’ spoke that day. When the bureaucrat asked the people what should be done with this innocent, this Jesus, the crowd responded with a loud – CRUCIFY HIM.
Jesus was crucified by a majority vote exercising pure democracy which was the emotional, changing rule of the mob or as we call it today mobocracy. This is the reason our Founding Fathers wanted a Republic, a government based on the rule of law which could not be changed by the whims of the people.
Samuel Huntington, signer and Governor of Connecticut - “While the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin.”

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
"Indisputably, this nation was founded as a republic and its leaders were justifiably afraid of a democracy,
lest it destroy the nation they had risked their lives to establish"
The author is secretary of Sons of Liberty (P.O. Box 44673, Boise, ID 83711-0673; phone 208-322-7863), a network of activist patriots whose goals is "the full and permanent restoration of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as their authors intended them" — The editors.
It was long ago speculated that the reason why so many Americans — especially new (naturalized) and working class Americans — register and vote as Democrats instead of Republicans is that they think this nation is a democracy. After all, that's what they've been told all their lives, and, wanting to be "good Americans," they opt to call themselves Democrats.
As a person who has never been able to understand how so many people with, supposedly, common sense would identify with and slavishly support the very party that bleeds their pocketbooks dry while enacting interminable tax loopholes for their very rich campaign contributors, that theory makes better sense than anything I have been able to come up with.
Alexander Hamilton said: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."

The redefining of "democracy" is one of the most disastrous and potentially fatal blows America has ever suffered, and the most frustrating thing about it is that it is such a blatant lie. The simple truth is that America is not now, never was, and was never intended to be a "democracy."
The political systems known as "democracy" and "republic" were created and named concurrently about 3,000 years ago in ancient Greece in what are known as "city-states": cities that were in bare-knuckle competition with each other even though their citizens were all the same nationality, Greek.
The one thing both systems had in common was the idea of self rule; that is, the absence of a "king" by any name. The distinction between them was that, in democracies, the qualified voters (which included every "free" citizen — yes, the ancient Greeks had their helots; lower, "serf" class people) met together and enacted all laws and made all decisions directly for the state. In the republics, the qualified voters elected representatives who, in turn, met together and enacted all laws and made all decisions for the state. Obviously, any political unit that got too large for all its qualified voters to meet together at one time in one place could not be a democracy, even if it wanted to be.
Also, keep in mind the fact that, contrary to what every 20th Century "liberal" (closet communist) propagandist tells you, "democracies" have never been classless societies, and have never been governments "of all the people."
Furthermore, even then, even 2,500 to 3,000 years ago, the dangers and failures of a democracy had revealed themselves, as shown by writers of the times.
About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."
And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants."
More than 2,000 years before this nation was founded, democracy had been recognized by its creators for the political and economic failure it is.
Colonial American Experience — Subsequent to declaring their independence from Britain, the colonies established their own, individual governments and, apparently in the enthusiasm of independence, most of them incorporated "democratic" standards for qualifying voters in their systems. According to some of the framers of the Constitution and to many 20th Century historians, this act very nearly caused the political death of the infant nation.
Specifically, most of the colonies voted themselves all manner of benefits without any apparent reflection on the ramifications of their acts. As a result, the individual colonies as well as the Confederation were confronted with massive debts and zero funds with which to pay them off. They had no credit — either financial or psychological — anywhere in the world. They were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and facing the very real threat of being taken over by some European nation.
This crisis, created by the financial and social irresponsibility of "democracy," compelled the convening in 1787 — barely four years after wining their war for independence — of the convention that led to the writing of our Constitution. During those debates, the danger and failure of democracy as a political system was known and pointed out.
Edmund Jennings Randolph, in debate, stated: "Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions."
Alexander Hamilton, in debate, said: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."
Elbridge Gerry, in debate, said: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots."
And after the Constitution had been adopted: Alexander Hamilton, in Senate: "It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: their figure deformity."
James Madison said: "...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."

John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor, wrote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
James Madison said: "...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."
Thomas Jefferson, in the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions, wrote: "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
(Yes, Democratic Party propagandists and their dupes insist that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat. And he did, in a response to a European correspondent, say, "...we are all democrats; we are democratic Republicans and democratic Federalist..." and explained that, to him, "democratic" was not a political system but a political condition; specifically, a system in which the government recognizes no social classes and creates no social classes. Where, as far as law go, "all men are created equal." Jefferson, of course, acknowledged that all humans are not equal, in hardly any way — he was just adamant that the laws should make no acknowledgment of these differences, should bestow no benefit or civil advantage to a part of the citizenry because of differences. That was as far as his "democratism" went, which, obviously, is the exact opposite of what "Democrats" today believe.)
John Adams, in a letter to William Cunningham in March 1804, wrote: "Democracy is Lovelace and the people is Clarissa" (an allegoric reference to popular literature of the time, in which Lovelace "did Clarissa wrong").
Not only were our Founding Fathers adamantly opposed to creating a "democratic" system, they were unanimous in giving this nation a republic as its political system.
Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1788, stated: "There are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly."
Alexander Hamilton, also in 1788: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part."
George Washington, April 30, 1789: "The...destiny of the republican model of government (is) justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally stacked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
Thomas Jefferson, March 11, 1790: "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
Thomas Jefferson, 1791: "Government in a well constituted republic requires no belief from man beyond what his reason authorizes."
Thomas Jefferson, July 30, 1795: "The revolution forced them (the "people of America" — author) to consider the subject for themselves, and the result was an universal conversion to republicanism."
Thomas Jefferson, March 12, 1799: "The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played upon by some fact with more fiction, they have been the dupes of artful manoeuvres, & made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."
Thomas Jefferson, March 4, 1801: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form..."
Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1802: "The body of our people ... have ever had the same object in view, to wit, the, maintenance of a federal, republican government..."
Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 13, 1813: "This is my belief of it; it is that on which I have acted...to administer the government according to its genuine republican principles..."
Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "He (John Adams — author) has since thoroughly seen that his constituents were devoted to republican government..."
Thomas Jefferson, in the Anas: "...and I fondly hope ... that the motto of the standard to which our country will forever rally, will be ‘federal union, and republican government..."
As historians Charles Austin Beard and Mary Ritter Beard wrote (1939): "At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of ‘We the people,' in the preamble ... When the Constitution was framed, no respectable person called himself a democrat."
Justifiably Afraid Of ‘Democracy' — Indisputably, this nation was founded as a republic and its leaders were justifiably afraid of "democracy," lest it destroy the nation they had risked their lives to establish.
And thus it officially was for a century and a half. As recently as in a 1928 U.S. Army training manual it was described thusly:
"Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of ‘direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards laws is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."
It is stated (I have been unable to verify it — author) that Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president who gave control of this nation's money to the Federal Reserve Bank and thus put America's economic destiny in the hands of foreign bankers, was the first public figure to proclaim this nation a "democracy."
One of the 1993 Merriam-Webster's definitions of "democracy" is: "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." Yet today, "democratic" America is riven by class distinction, class envy, and class warfare, and all of it has been deliberately created and fomented by "liberal" (closet communist) Democrats in order to facilitate their personal possession of political power! Not a single day passes today but some Democrat politician somewhere deliberately agitates the masses in class envy, ethnic envy, economic envy, etc. — all in the name of "democracy" which, by their modern definition, forbids the very sociopolitical condition they advocate."
While our "democracy" and its accompanying social self destruction are the planned and deliberate handiwork of the "liberal" enemies of free people, so successful has their redefinition of "democracy" been that the leaders of the opposition, i.e., "conservatism," aid and abet the liberals by their constant reinforcement of the idea that this nation is a democracy and that there is nothing wrong with that.
All of the "conservative" and Republican icons of the past 50 years — William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Robert Dole, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, Rush Limbuagh, and Gordon Liddy, to name just a few — invariably refer to this nation as a "democracy" without hesitation.
Today, America is 220 years old, and to call Congress' fiscal policy "loose" is an understatement of monumental proportions. Today, America's debt is several times as large as its total worth (in fact, America's total debt today — over $13 trillion — is, according to Ibbotson Associates, equal to 30 to 35 percent of the entire world's total worth) while chaos prevails in her streets and, like the cancer it is, is spreading to he countryside.
And all because of the successful definition and sanitization of the word "democracy."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" — George Santayana.
It may be too late to save America from its historically mandated fate, but that doesn't mean we can't try. And one thing we can all do is to quit propagating the "democracy" lie. We who know better can quit calling America a democracy and we can try to educate those who don't know any better. Oh, yes. We can also call on those public leaders who keep repeating the lie to cease to do so. When the very people who invented "democracy" learn the error of their ways, what excuse can a modern educated person have for not knowing?
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is a complete falsehood. The Founders were extremely well educated in this area and feared democracy as much as monarchy. James Madison (the acknowledged Father of the Constitution) said in the Federalist #10:
... 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.
The members of the Constitutional Convention understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life. The debates raged long and hard on how to structure a government strong enough to protect us, without it being too powerful to control, and we wound up with a Constitutional Republic.
A Constitutional Republic is similar to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between different branches. The idea was to hold the entire government in check by utilizing the jealousies of the people in each branch over their own areas.
It is also limited to certain specific areas. These are contained in Article 1, Section 8, and range from the power to coin money and regulate its value, to establishing a post office and roads. A lot of bad legislation has been passed using the supposed "general welfare" clause. Once again we go to the Federalist Papers, this time #41. James Madison again clarifies the original intent with this:
It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
As you can see, they gave Congress this directive, here is what we want you to do, and these are the powers you have to accomplish it, hence the so-called general welfare clause is only half-cited, as the rest of it limits the powers of Congress.
While majority rule sounds good on the surface, only our Constitutional Republic protects each individual's rights without regard to social or economic circumstances.
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.
The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?
• James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."
• At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
• John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
• Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.
Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.
An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that body:
"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).
The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
"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."
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.