
Why America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy - slicktux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygEEL57AcZs
======
wahern
In modern discourse a Republic is a form of democracy. Pointing out that a
Republic is not a democracy is in-group signaling among people who trade
conservative talking points.

In 18th and 19th century discourse, meaning was more fluid and context
dependent. Often writers were responding to criticism that any democratic
system of government (of which the U.S. was undoubtedly one type) was
intrinsically less stable and irrational than aristocratic or monarchical
governments.

To quote John Adams,

    
    
      A democracy, then, is a republic, as well as an aristocracy,
      or any mixture of both.
    
      The Federalist is a valuable work, and Mr. Madison’s part
      in it as respectable as any other. But his distinction
      between a republic and a democracy, cannot be justified.
      A democracy is as really a republic as an oak is a tree, or
      a temple a building. There are, in strictness of speech and
      in the soundest technical language, democratical and
      aristocratical republics, as well as an infinite variety of
      mixtures of both.
    
      (Letter to J. H. Tiffany, April 30, 1819)
      (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-7104)
    

The John Birch society quotes "Samuel Adams" as saying,

    
    
       Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes
       exhausts and murders itself.
    

But the quote was actually from John Adams. (See
[http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371](http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371))
Apparently whoever threw that video together didn't actually read the real
document. They probably just copied a quote (or in this case, a misquote) from
a book of quotations, as people trying to make a point are so fond of doing
these days.

If you read the actual letter the context of the quote selected by the John
Birch society is clear. Adams is responding to what he believes is a
mischaracterization of something he stated earlier. It's a scholarly argument
among gentlemen about how intrinsically prone democracies are to violence.

    
    
      I do not say that Democracy has been more pernicious, on the
      whole, and in the long run, than Monarchy or Aristocracy.
      Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as
      Aristocracy or Monarchy. But while it lasts it is more
      bloody than either. 
    

Elsewhere in the letter it's clear the argument relates to some introspection
by Americans on the bloody conflict in France. You can't assume that what
Adams discussed in that letter he thought directly applicable to the U.S. The
context was different and he wasn't making a grand argument about democracies
generally, unless you believe he was happy to contradict himself five years
later.

The notion that certain forms of democracy which check the passions of the
majority are for that reason _alone_ intrinsically more stable is a very
modern notion. It emphasizes one particular aspect of the structure of
American government over all the others. The U.S. constitution employs several
different devices. It was a hodge-podge of ideas. Few Founders expected the
U.S. to last as long as it did. Remember, it was version 2.0. There's no
reason to believe that they expected it to last much longer than version 1.0
(Articles of Confederation). Longevity was not the exclusive goal; it was at
best an equal goal along with equality, security, prosperity, autonomy, etc.
More likely longevity on the scale of human history was the lesser of those
goals.

