New Revolutionary Republicanism?

From the period after the French and Indian War to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Americans developed thought on rights and liberties as well as what a government should look like and how it should run. The Declaration of Independence formally laid out principles and beliefs on the government and people’s rights. In between these two significant documents and points in American history, Americans struggled with how to handle their rights and freedoms (sometimes seen as the “excess of democracy”). With the Constitutional Convention and the writing of the US Constitution, Americans had defined that a government should include checks and balances on every component of the government, including the people.

But do some of these values and beliefs still hold true today?

Yes and no. As generations go through, their values and beliefs, especially regarding the Constitution, change and so do their problems and issues. What is more interesting is how government addressed the problems of the people, specifically when the issues regard how different Americans interpret the Constitution.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson highlighted the idea of the social contract by stating “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” During the period, it was considered revolutionary republicanism and early Americans during the 1780s struggled with the concept, believing if they were not being represented or their voices were not being heard they could revolt as seen by Shays’ Rebellion. With the Constitution, this concept was confronted through the promotion of more peaceful ways of seeking redress like elections and petition.

Today, the concept of redress has seemed to been ignored and, as a result, there seems to be a shift towards this previous concept of revolutionary republicanism. This demonstrates that the government may not be working as effectively and voicing people’s opinions and problems. People with grievances that do not seem to be represented and voices are taking to the streets and publicly demonstrating, resulting in violence and even death sometimes. Whether it be in Ferguson where people were protesting against police brutality or Charlottesville where two groups protested each other and their views in regards to their place in government, people are going towards the revolutionary republicanism of the 1770s and 1780s in order to get the government to act on their behalf. Claims that the past few Congresses have been the weakest and most ineffective support this belief.

Interpretation of the Constitution also plays into the rise in revolutionary republicanism. What type of interpretation a person has traditionally decides what side of the political spectrum a person lies on, usually become a partisan issue. Today, as shown between Supreme Court justices, two interpretations have evolved from the traditional strict and loose interpretation of the Constitution: the framers’ original intent (using the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings by our founders) and a living and adapting Constitution. The trouble that lies between the two groups is that each generation moves farther from the framers and so does what that generation values and learns. The distinct differences in interpretation and generations and generally being on partisan lines creates differences that lead to road blocks and leading to inaction. Some want to stay true to traditional values and views of our founders, but others want to be more progressive and continue changing and updating the Constitution with the times.

How can this be resolved? Maybe we can blend the two interpretations together. Can we keep the spirit of what our framers set out to do and create while keeping the Constitution new, fresh, and responsive to each new generation of American citizens?

6 Responses to "New Revolutionary Republicanism?"

Kendall Crispin says:

September 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm

I know that we can keep what the framers had in mind, while also growing and adapting to new government and people’s tastes and opinions. For example, we rely on the checks and balances to make sure no one is using too much power, and that was still important then, but we also added a Bill of Rights that changed America as we know it. If we need to change it, we can always go through ⅔ of the house, so it is a possibility.

The Thomas Jefferson quote really struck me because it shows the balance of powers. It takes a lot to change the government, but it does happen. The people can always get what they want and feel comfortable with their government. For example, Nixon was in trouble, and was on his way to impeachment. He resigned before that was possible, but the social contract made it so he was not kept in office after his scandal.

People need to work better with their government by getting more involved and voicing their opinions in a peaceful way. We need to work on educating our society so that people’s grievances are addressed, so we can avoid events like Charlottesville.

The Supreme Court Justices obviously have the role of interpreting the constitution. We have learned that the framers were varying in opinions with the federalists and the anti federalists, but in the end the federalists won. It is a reflection today with the way that the justices interpret the constitution with the differences during the creation of the constitution. It is interesting that so many of the Supreme Court Justices are not white males like the framers were. I believe they would be happy about the group of people though, because they are educated and worked hard to get the roles they have. The constitution can be changed, but it should also be preserved.
Lauren Toth says:

September 14, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Everyone in America knows about the constitution in some manner. It is a common subject learned throughout school when talking about American government. Some are taught its the end all be all of the United States government system. Some believe it is only a guiding factor when our government makes decisions regard the welfare of the people. A study completed by the CATO institute found that 70% of people who were asked simple questions about the constitution were unable to answer correctly. Based on this, citizens today have one thing in common with people 200 years ago; They find the constitution still confusing. While some are confused, it is still recognized as the guiding document of the United States.

As pointed out in this post, the constitution, back when it was ratified, was interpreted by the people in various ways and some found it confusing. Some saw it as a new grounding to voice their opinions that was suppressed by earlier tyranny. Others were against the idea simply because it didn’t allow them to continue their business as before. It brought a new radical idea of human rights into the picture. It became the talk of the times with various rebellions, papers, and discussions. The framers wanted to protect the rights of the country’s new citizens from government today, tomorrow, and in the future. This same idea of human rights is still brought up today. With regards to privacy policies, property, and the rights of citizens. Current cases regard gun rights and government spying on the citizens through camera and data from the internet. The whole purpose of the constitution is to be the foundation to protect the citizens from the government infringing on their rights that were defined years ago. While there have been modifications to the original rights the main message is still well alive.

The constitution is used by the citizens to evaluate the government. It was written by the framers to protect the citizens. The question remains if the constitution is “up to date” enough to still fully protect the people. It is a long process that hasn’t been done since 1992. While there have been laws passed, with new technology should there be amendments to further protect the welfare of the citizens. While, citizens may not be able to answer questions about the constitution, they still find comfort in being able to use it as a basis of change.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/our-constitution-how-many-us-know-it
Diego Rayas says:

September 16, 2017 at 11:59 pm

I disagree with the statement that there is no attempt at redress in the government, I just think that the loudest voices are the ones with Revolutionary Republicanism ideologies. A few years ago the Tea Party wanted to change the government by reducing the size of the government, lowering taxes, etc. They attempted it by inserting their own candidates into politics, and in some places succeeded. By their actions, they would try to redress the government from the inside into what they thought was correct to have.

On the other hand, the current Antifa and Alt-Right movements do seem to have a more Revolutionary Republicanism tone to them, where they seemingly advocate for a full government overhaul, instead of addressing issues by directly trying to change the government. The Alt-Right seems to have a blur of Fascism and Ethno-States, while Antifa sometimes totes the flags of Communism and Anarchism. In both of these instances, people are no longer trying to change the government from within, but just want to change the entire system.

Do you think this is what the Founding Fathers wanted? I would like to believe that the way that the Constitution was framed, it would dissuade from a full overhaul. At the same time, the quote “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants” was said by Thomas Jefferson, one of the main founding fathers. I
Hannah Dunn says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:34 pm

I thought your examples of the Ferguson and Charlottesville protests were interesting when referring to our nation’s retreat back to revolutionary republicanism. My first thought is, if we follow your theory that today we are reverting back to revolutionary republican ideals, that we never left those ideals behind in the first place.

If your claim is that social activism is an indicator of government inaction and a cry for better representation, then I would like to bring up a some instances that would indicate a continuous desire for a more representative democracy. For example, the women’s suffrage movement began in the 1800s and continued until a woman’s right to vote was granted in the United States. Many additional feminist marches, protests, and movements have occurred since.

The Civil Rights movement was a massive outcry from the African American community for government policy that ended segregation. In this case, the minority rose up in protest against the majority to create social change.

I am not sure where I stand on the debate between a living and original interpretation of the Constitution, however I do believe that American citizens, marginalized minorities in particular, are always working for social justice. Perhaps we have retained some of our original revolutionary republican roots, which have spurred progress since our nation’s establishment.

http://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/the-fight-for-womens-suffrage
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2088114,00.html
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement
Brittney Morris says:

September 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Chris, I thought the article you attached discussing the differences between “originalism” and “pragmatist” to be very interesting! To me, it seems valuable to have two different views of how our constitution should be interpreted in the Supreme Court. This allows for different arguments to be raised when making sometimes impossible decisions. I think it is hard to find a balance between what is in the best interest of people today without loosing our original foundation. I believe this ties in very well with your comment on Ferguson. There have been so many riots and protests because of judicial decisions made during recent trials. The conflict between races is over powering our judicial system. This past weekend in St. Louis there were riots over the acquittal of the police officer who shot and killed a black man. Ours new headlines are flooded with white man kills black man and or white officer kills black man. The headlines leave out why there was a need for officers to begin with and what the crime being committed was and excludes crimes committed towards other groups people. Where are all the headlines about crimes against women, white men, or other minority groups in this country? But what can be done? How can our government improve to reduce the number of racial headlines and crimes? Should we add additional amendments to further examine police killing or does our constitution already adequately address this issue? In my opinion the constitution already does. Everyone has the right to fair trial whether that be a police officer, a government official, or an everyday criminal, they are all given the same rights. In the St. Louis example the burden of proof was on the state to prove that the officer was guilty of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Since he was found not guilty that means they did not prove he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Should we change what counts as beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe, but I do not think the legal system can fix the underlying divide between races that not only exists but is worsening in the United States. It is important that the framers included the Elastic Clause, there is a necessity to change the constitution, but again I do not know that the issues present in todays society are issues that can be addressed by changing the constitution.
Colby Ritten says:

September 17, 2017 at 11:20 pm

One thing you talked about that I think is very important is social contract. Even though the social contract is not written as a law it acts as a check and balance for political powers. By giving people the right to alter or abolish and institute a new government, if that government becomes destructive in any way, you give them power. Political leaders are obviously given power when they are in office but the people decide whether or not they are allowed in that position. Political leaders use their power to please the people in order to get re-elected and the people use their power to elect officials based on who they think is best fit for the job. Most people don’t recognize that social contract gives both officials and the people power which creates a check and balance in power. Without this idea of social contract this society would either be depressed from tyranny or filled with uprisings against the government because no one would have the right to alter or abolish a destructive government. One thing that seemed to confuse me was when you talked about social contract and how it related to the Charlottesville protest. The protest wasn’t caused due to the people disagreeing with our government. The protests had two groups in dispute with each other and those two groups were both formed and consisted of regular citizens. This was not an example of social contract and the people trying to alter the government.

Comments are closed.