A Republicanism Essay

The term 'republican' is so complex it has confused even those considered integral to the meaning of the word - the authors of The Federalist and Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, Paul Peterson argued that throughout James Madison's, Alexander Hamilton's and John Jay's writings, Publius (the alias under which each wrote) understood the term 'republic' in at least three different ways. Similarly, Jefferson wrote to John Taylor in 1816, noting that "the term republic is of very vague application in every language". This ambiguity meant that both Jefferson and Publius were free to define republicanism on their own terms. In creating visions of a republican society, both agreed a large republic which protected the rights of its people and divided the powers of government was fundamental. However, the imprecision of the term invariably prompted each to define it in ways personal to them. Thus, while Jefferson and Publius shared many republican ideals, they varied significantly in the extent and ways in which these values should be implemented, as well as the reasons behind such implementation. The republican societies formulated by Jefferson and the Federalist both relied on a large state, although each desired this for different reasons. In the Federalist No.10 Madison justified his need for a large republic by arguing that it would safeguard against the evils of faction, a term he defined as a group of citizens with a shared impulse "adversed the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent aggregate interests of the community". The fact that Madison had also argued that a regard for community, respect for character and trust in religion would not guard against faction, underlines his belief that the best hope of halting this hindrance to the public good was to enlarge the republic. This facet of Madison's vision of a republican society is one which breaks away from the works of Montesquieu and the traditional republics of Greek and Italian city states, which relied on their small size for effective governance. Indeed, Madison states in Federalist No.10 that these 'classical republics' "can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction". He chose instead to immerse himself in the works of David Hume. Hume dismantled Montesquieu's small republic theory before stating that in a large republic, everything is so distant it is difficult to quickly bring about "any measures against the public interest", a line of thought which greatly influenced Madison's writing in Federalist No.10 and reinforced the importance of a large state in his vision of a republic. Conversely, while Jefferson also saw benefits to a large republic, it was his desire for agrarian subsistence, rather than the prevention of faction, that drove this aspect of his vision. Jefferson viewed agrarianism as crucial to maintaining a morally uncorrupt society, as immorality within husbandry was a "phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example." An uncorrupt society was integral to a Jeffersonian republic, as if a ruler could corrupt citizens, they could be tyrannical over the corrupt, a flaw Jefferson noted in the English Parliamentary system. Accordingly, Jefferson facilitated agrarian independence through the abolition of entail and primogenitive right, meaning citizens were not corrupt and could therefore not be tyrannically ruled. However, Jefferson feared that over time increasing central governmental power would facilitate growth and urbanization, encouraging corruption and social decay. Therefore, he saw the necessity of "forestalling the degradation which has befallen classical republican governments" by expanding the potential for an agrarian society. Thus, when the chance came to double America's size through the Louisiana Purchase, he took it, in order to give citizens more freedom. While it may appear evident that both Jefferson and Publius envisaged a republican society on a large scale, Jefferson did so despite his desire for more state power and a strict constructionism. Ultimately, he had to temporarily set aside these ideals in order to ensure the future moral stability of America, leading Balleck to argue that Jefferson's vision for a republic centered on the strong "social and moral condition of the country" rather than the Federalist concept of a large republic. Both Jefferson and Publius envisaged a republican society which fiercely protected citizen's rights. Unlike the views each held on a large republic, on which they possessed similar opinions for differing reasons, both parties desired this end for liberty, and it was the manner in which they felt rights should be protected which separated them. In addition to striving for people's freedom from government by the abolition of entail and primogeniture, Jefferson sought to secure rights through Saxon style democracy. This form of government allowed citizens to discuss their opinions on matters in a moot, before taking debates to a shire council and great court if a decision could not be reached. Indeed, Hellenbrand argued that if Saxon democracy took hold in America it would be this "above all else [that would] make a republic possible". The appeal to Jefferson is obvious, as power would be kept at a state level and citizens would control their own destiny, meaning there would be very little chance their rights would be impinged. Indeed, it seems that the presence of such democracy was so important to Jefferson's vision of a republican society, that he turned against the works of David Hume (who had been a favourite philosopher of his), as Hume argued this style of government was a myth. Also crucial to Jefferson's protection of people's liberties was a Bill of Rights, and when Madison omitted such a Bill from the Constitution Jefferson responded with a letter stating that a Bill of Rights is what "the people are entitled to against every government on earth". His sensitivity to such freedoms derived from his crafting of a 'Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom' as well as his research into and writing of Notes on the State of Virginia in which he claimed that how many gods his neighbor had did not harm him. In contrast, Federalist No.84 was published as a response to criticisms of the omission of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and in this Hamilton argued that the "Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights" and that arguments were based only around the format of these rights. Hamilton goes on to ask the question: "why declare that things shall not be done, when there is not the power to do?", implying that a Bill of Rights is needless given that the government did not have powers to impinge public freedoms. Rather than a Bill of Rights, the Federalist propagated elite rule to guard the rights of the people, which Wood argued Hamilton justified in issue No.35 through the presence of a "great chain". Wood wrote that "all ranks and degrees were organically connected through a great chain in such a way that those at the top were necessarily involved in the welfare of those below them". This opposed Jefferson's Saxon democracy, placing less emphasis on the people protecting their own rights and more on a governmental guarding of freedoms. It was a concept very similar to the 'great chain of being' which linked all creatures from God to minerals in a hierarchical chain. This was the source from which Charles I claimed his divine right (as Kings are positioned above ordinary citizens) meaning this theory would have caused Jefferson great unease, fearing as he did a concentration of power. Consequently, while both Jefferson and the Federalist visualized a republican society that protected the people's rights, each constructed their own ways of guarding such rights. The Federalist and Jefferson both shared very similar views on the separation of powers, while disagreeing on how widely power should be diffused from a central government. Federalist No.51 states that a division of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary was "essential to the preservation of liberty" as it prevented a concentration of power. This is a stance with which Jefferson concurred both in his December 1787 letter to Madison and in Query XII where he states that the absorption of three into one in Virginian government was one of the "capital defects" of their constitution. Despite this harmony, neither could agree on the extent of the diffusion of governmental power. Federalist No.62 made it very clear that their republic would give little power to state governments. Publius distrusted the men elected annually within the states, who lacked "reading, experience or principle" sufficient to possess significant power. Indeed, Adair has argued that Madison, in line with Hume, felt the states' main role was "breaking the force of popular currents", thereby preventing faction. Instead Publius felt only the well-respected, intelligent and those with exemplary social attitudes could lead a republic. In other words, they felt power should be kept at a national level due to the fact that, as John Jay argued in Federalist No.4, the national government could handpick the ablest men "in whatever part of the Union they may be found". Jefferson, meanwhile, advocated a dispersion of power to state governments in addition to the separation of powers, in his republican society. This was due to the fact that Jefferson was first and foremost a Virginian, and very aware of state matters having been involved in state office during his career. In a Jeffersonian republic, states would control domestic matters and if the national government infringed upon state laws, these actions would be considered void and unconstitutional. This was the opinion Jefferson expressed when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions which held that the states of America "[were] not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government". While it has already been argued that Jefferson pursued state power in order to maintain a righteous and incorruptible society, it should also be noted that he did so because he trusted citizens to govern themselves (shown by his desire for Saxon democracy) whereas Publius did not. Moreover, Jefferson deplored the concept of a concentration of power and it was his opinion that a man "dependent on others [.] was not truly a free person". It is therefore apparent that while Jefferson and Publius both saw the necessity of dividing power, they did not agree over the extent to which power should be divided. Consequently, it can be seen that Jefferson and Publius shared certain visions of what a republican society would entail. However, in reaching their own definition of a republic, each asserted their authority on the term. This formed radically different ideas over how to achieve the same goals, and varied the reasoning behind pursuing such goals. It is this that greatly limits the extent to which Jefferson and the Federalist share a vision of a republican society, for the methods implemented by each would create vastly different societies which the other would consider 'unrepublican'. However, it should be noted that due to the tri-authorship of the Federalist, one cannot assume that views espoused by one Publius, are views shared by the other two. For example, while Madison advocated a large republic in Federalist No.10, Hamilton felt it conducive to the re-establishment of a monarchy. Therefore, this work is more of a comparison of Jefferson's views to the individual authors of the Federalist than to Publius as a single entity.