Forms Search Virginia Department Of Taxation: Fill & Download for Free

Presuming that we are concerned with the British in Anglo-America prior to the Revolution:The Currency ActsThe Stamp ActMutiny ActQuartering ActTownsend ActsTea ActWhile the rhythmic cadence of the phrase taxation without representation makes it a favorite teaching device for middle school history instructors, the phrase oversimplifies a seriously complex and ongoing debate. Most colonials were perfectly serious in their belief that taxation without their consent was a violation of their constitutional rights as Englishmen. Before the accession of George III in 1760, the Crown had seemingly chosen to govern its Atlantic colonies with what amounted to benign neglect.While the tax on tea was certainly the proximate cause of the tea parties, taxation alone was not the direct cause of the revolution as some contemporaries claimed and other traditional authorities have written. Many people in Britain and America believed that taxation was an unacceptable intrusion of government into their private matters, and a potential threat to their personal liberty. Those outside the processes surrounding the marketing and regulation of tea and other commodities within the British Empire are likely to conclude from the details of the dispute that an inherently unstable colonial population was governed by a persistently confused and malicious set of officials in London bent on Anglo-America’s downfall.In addition the ministry had declared all paper currency illegal in America in 1751 and 1756 and reissued and expanded its prohibition in the Currency Act of 1764. The British ministry—through specific acts involving coinage and currency, and through financial regulations hidden in other legislation—placed demands for specie payments on the colonies with which the colonies simply could not comply without devastating their own economies.Although the Parliament expected to pay the lion’s share of future expenditures in America after 1763, the ministry of George Grenville—a Whig who carried over most of the personnel from the Tory government of Lord Bute into his own cabinet—decided to extract at least some of the money, estimated at about ₤60 thousand in 1765, from the colonies in the form of a stamp tax on all legal and business papers, newspapers, printed forms, playing cards, wall paper, and licenses. Different taxes were also specified for deeds or grants of land of less than 100 acres, of 100 to 200 acres, and of 200 to 320 acres.The stamp tax was clearly the first attempt to levy an internal tax from outside the colonies. “Looking back it is clear that such a tax, being internal instead of external, might raise a storm of protest.”[i]Along with the passage of the Stamp Act, Parliament renewed the Mutiny Act, which required the colonial assemblies to house and support the troops sent to America. These provisions of the Mutiny Act were known as quartering. The Grenville ministry sought to minimize the potential reaction to the stamp tax by appointing American stamp agents rather than English ones. The insignificant size of the tax assured many in Britain that any protests would be minimal. Grenville and his advisors were wrong. They seriously misread the pulse of the people.It seems that the Grenville ministry miscalculated both the unforeseen effect of the tax and the breadth of the reaction to it. Unlike the frontier farmers who rarely dealt with public papers, colonial shippers and merchants were required to take out numerous public documents while conducting business including bills of lading, clearance permits, insurance policies, rental agreements, mortgages, attachments of property, and all kinds of contracts. The Stamp Act also affected lawyers, newspaper editors, printers, and an army of municipal employees who signed indentures, produced public documents, or ran a licensed business. As many as 70 percent of colonials read newspapers with the stamp prominently in view, and in an economy as regulated as was that of Anglo-America, almost every businessman, craftsman, street vendor, inn and shopkeeper was required to obtain an annual license and pay the tax. Contrary to the hopes of Parliament, the whole of Anglo-America seemed to unite in opposition to the Stamp Act.The resistance to the Stamp Act was more active and more physical than many history texts would suggest, and the tea protests pale by comparison. It included the intimidation of officials, damage to property, mass protests, and non-importation agreements. One month after the imposition of the non-importation agreements, the Stamp Act took effect. On November 1, 1764 the Liberty Boys in New York staged a particularly effective demonstration massing several thousand protestors and penetrating the outer defenses of Fort George. The protestors burned ten boxes of stamps as an example to the government of their power and then retired. This incident was a major blow to Royal prestige in New York and elsewhere in the colonies. . Although the act had failed miserably everywhere in the colonies, London considered what happened in New York the worst failure of the whole Stamp Act affair. In March 1766, after being warned of a possible armed revolt, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act.On the same day that it repealed the Stamp Act, the Rockingham ministry passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had the total right to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. Seen as a face-saving device, the Declaratory Act seems to have produced little colonial reaction at the time, and the boycott of English goods was generally relaxed.In 1766 Charles Townshend became Lord of the Exchequer, the department of government that levied and collected taxes and duties. He proposed a series of revenue measures to help pay for the administration and security of the colonies and thereby relieve the burden on the British taxpayer in England. Moreover, Townshend was a champion of the charter rights of the East India Company and a friend to many of the directors of the company who also served on the Board of Trade. He declared all revenues derived from India to be the property of the company and free from taxation. No course of action by the government in London could have been calculated to more arouse colonial resentment. There was also a good deal of resistance to the passage of the bill in England as being corrupt, and although Townshend died suddenly in 1767, the Townshend Revenue Act passed. The duties were reissued and expanded in 1769.The duties set taxes on a vast number of “goods and commodities of growth, produce, or manufacture of the British Colonies.” These fell into two groups distinguished as enumerated or non-enumerated. The list of enumerated items encompassed almost all the yield of colonial production on the North American continent and in the islands of the Caribbean. A number of the articles—tobacco, indigo, ginger, dying woods, and cocoa—were subject to duties even when they were simply shipped between colonies. There were also enumerated items that were subject to duties when imported directly from Britain. These were largely comfort items desired by the affluent and nearly affluent.In theory a paper of dressmakers’ pins moved by rowboat less than a mile across the Hudson River from Manhattan to New Jersey was subject to duty, and if undeclared at customs was considered smuggled goods resulting in prosecution, a fine, and seizure of the vessel and all its cargo. Ben Franklin specifically chose pins as an example when he condemned the duties as destructive of good government in 1773, and the First Continental Congress took note of the increase in their price and recommended a boycott of pins to the public in 1774 (New York Gazette, October 6, 1774). If the level of protest against tea seems extreme, the protest over pins seems incomprehensible unless the reader knows its context. The colonials were perfectly serious in their belief that taxation by Parliament—or any legislation that affected the colonies and not the general population of the empire without their consent or at least their sufferance—was a violation of their constitutional rights.By the winter of 1767 colonials everywhere were searching for new methods to oppose or confound Parliament, and many chose to resurrect the boycotts. London expected the Townshend duties to produce ₤40,000 per year of revenue, but their enforcement was likely to require a greater amount of expense. Legitimate imports from Britain fell from ₤2.2 million to ₤1.3 million in a single year (1768-1769). Not only was the royal exchequer denied its increased revenue, but merchants, manufacturers, and ship owners throughout the empire were denied a great deal of business. Opposition to the Mutiny Act, which was a minor grievance during the Stamp Act crisis, now began to surface. Beginning in December 1767, a number of women’s groups agreed among themselves that they would use no foreign teas for a year.Taxation now became a test of political wills. It was becoming obvious that the Anglo-Americans would either throw off completely Parliament’s right to tax them or submit to the total sovereignty of the Crown. The middle ground of continued compromise was quickly disappearing. Lord Hillsborough, who had become Colonial Secretary at Townshend’s death, decided to take a firmer stand with the colonies by ordering the governor of Massachusetts to dissolve the General Court. He also dispatched four regiments of British regulars to Boston. The unremitting upheaval in Boston spread to the other colonies. In March 1769, the merchants of Philadelphia joined the boycott of British goods, and in May, the royal governor dissolved the Virginia House of Burgesses for its continued opposition to the acts of Parliament. Early in the winter of 1770, a group of soldiers in Boston was accosted by a mob armed with clubs ending in the Boston Massacre.Under the new ministry of Lord Frederick North, the Mutiny Act failed to be renewed and the Townshend Acts were repealed by Parliament. That is, all of the duties were repealed except that which taxed tea, which Parliament, once again, retained as a symbol of their right to tax the colonies. In November 1772, a committee in Boston, under the leadership of Sam Adams, issued an anti-British publication known as the Boston Pamphlet. Bound with a simple thread stitch, as were many such inexpensive publications, the pamphlet categorically attacked the British positions on taxation, standing armies, admiralty courts, jury trials, and support for the established church.. The Boston Pamphlet was widely circulated throughout the colonies through the efforts of the individual committees of correspondence. As relations deteriorated between New England and Britain, the Crown repeatedly responded with the worst possible moves.With the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1767 and the offensive Townshend Acts in 1773, only the tea tax remained, and this had been cut in half from recent previous levels. It can be argued, therefore, that the colonials had won their argument with the Crown concerning taxation without representation over the preceding decade. Yet all the hated protocols that the crown had initiated in America to maintain its right to tax and collect the tax remained. Consequently the question is asked: Was taxation without representation really the primary cause of the American Revolution?[i] James Truslow Adams and Charles Garrett Vannest, The Record of America (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935), 83.See:Amazon.com: The Boston Tea Party: The Foundations of Revolution eBook: Volo, James: Kindle Store

George Washington (February 22, 1732[b][c]– December 14, 1799) was an American political leader, military general, statesman, and Founding Father who also served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797. He led Patriotforces to victory in the nation's War of Independence, and he presided at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which established the new federal government. He has been called the "Father of His Country" for his manifold leadership in the formative days of the new nation.Washington received his initial military training and command with the Virginia Regiment during the French and Indian War. He was later elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses and was named a delegate to the Continental Congress, where he was appointed Commanding General of the nation's Continental Army. Washington led American forces, allied with France, in the defeat and surrender of the British at Yorktown, and resigned his commission in 1783.Washington played a key role in the adoption and ratification of the Constitution and was then elected president by the Electoral College in the first two elections. He implemented a strong, well-financed national government while remaining impartial in a fierce rivalry between cabinet members Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. During the French Revolution, he proclaimed a policy of neutrality while sanctioning the Jay Treaty. To pacify the South and preserve national unity, the president and Congress passed legal measures that protected slavery. He set enduring precedents for the office of president, including the title "President of the United States", and his Farewell Address is widely regarded as a pre-eminent statement on republicanism.Washington utilized slave labor, owning and trading African American slaves, but he became troubled with the institution of slavery and freed them in his 1799 will. He endeavored to assimilate Native Americans into Western culture, but responded to their hostility in times of war. He was a member of the Anglican Church and the Freemasons, and he urged tolerance for all religions in his roles as general and president. Upon his death, he was eulogized as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." He has been memorialized by monuments, art, geographical locations, stamps, and currency, and many scholars and polls rank him among the top American presidents.Contents1Early life (1732–1752)2Colonial military career (1752–1758)2.1French and Indian War3Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1775)4American Revolution (1765-1783)5Commander in chief (1775–1783)5.1Siege of Boston5.2Battle of Long Island5.3Crossing the Delaware, Trenton, and Princeton5.4Brandywine, Germantown, and Saratoga5.5Valley Forge and Monmouth5.6West Point espionage5.7Southern theater and Yorktown5.8Demobilization and resignation6Early republic (1783–1789)6.1Return to Mount Vernon6.2Constitutional Convention 17876.3First presidential election7Presidency (1789–1797)7.1Cabinet and executive departments7.2Domestic issues7.2.1National Bank7.2.2Jefferson–Hamilton feud7.2.3Whiskey Rebellion7.3Foreign affairs7.4Indian affairs7.5Second term7.6Farewell Address8Retirement (1797–1799)8.1Final days9Burial and aftermath10Personal life10.1Religion and Freemasonry11Slavery12Historical reputation and legacy12.1Memorials12.1.1Places and monuments12.1.2Currency and postage13See also14References14.1Notes14.2Citations14.3Bibliography15External linksEarly life (1732–1752)Further information: Ancestry of George Washington and British AmericaWashington's great-grandfather John Washington immigrated in 1656 from Sulgrave, England to the British Colony of Virginiawhere he accumulated 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) of land, including Little Hunting Creek on the Potomac River. George Washington was born February 22, 1732 at Popes Creek in Westmoreland County, Virginia,[4]and was the first of six children of Augustineand Mary Ball Washington.[5]His father was a justice of the peace and a prominent public figure who had three additional children from his first marriage to Jane Butler.[6]The family moved to Little Hunting Creek, then to Ferry Farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia. When Augustine died in 1743, Washington inherited Ferry Farm and ten slaves; his older half-brother Lawrence inherited Little Hunting Creek and renamed it Mount Vernon.[7]Washington did not have the formal education that his older brothers received at Appleby Grammar School in England, but he did learn mathematics, trigonometry, and surveying, and he was talented in draftsmanship and map-making. By early adulthood, he was writing with "considerable force" and "precision."[8]Washington often visited Mount Vernon and Belvoir, the plantation that belonged to Lawrence's father-in-law William Fairfax, which fueled ambition for the lifestyle of the planter aristocracy. Fairfax became Washington's patron and surrogate father, and Washington spent a month in 1748 with a team surveying Fairfax's Shenandoah Valley property.[9]He received a surveyor's license the following year from the College of William & Mary; Fairfax appointed him surveyor of Culpeper County, Virginia, and he thus familiarized himself with the frontier region. He resigned from the job in 1750 and had bought almost 1,500 acres (600 ha) in the Valley, and he owned 2,315 acres (937 ha) by 1752.[10]In 1751, Washington made his only trip abroad when he accompanied Lawrence to Barbados, hoping that the climate would cure his brother's tuberculosis.[11]Washington contracted smallpox during that trip, which immunized him but left his face slightly scarred.[12]Lawrence died in 1752, and Washington leased Mount Vernon from his widow; he inherited it outright after her death in 1761.[13]Colonial military career (1752–1758)Lawrence's service as adjutant general of the Virginia militia inspired Washington to seek a commission, and Virginia's Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie appointed him as a major in December 1752 and as commander of one of the four militia districts. The British and French were competing for control of the Ohio Valley at the time, the British building forts along the Ohio River and the French doing likewise, between Lake Erie and the Ohio River.[14]In October 1753, Dinwiddie appointed Washington as a special envoy to demand that the French vacate territory which the British had claimed.[d]Dinwiddie also appointed him to make peace with the Iroquois Confederacy and to gather intelligence about the French forces.[16]Washington met with Half-King Tanacharison and other Iroquois chiefs at Logstown to secure their promise of support against the French, and his party reached the Ohio River in November. They were intercepted by a French patrol and escorted to Fort Le Boeuf where Washington was received in a friendly manner. He delivered the British demand to vacate to French commander Saint-Pierre, but the French refused to leave. Saint-Pierre gave Washington his official answer in a sealed envelope after a few days' delay, and he gave Washington's party food and extra winter clothing for the trip back to Virginia.[17]Washington completed the precarious mission in 77 days in difficult winter conditions and achieved a measure of distinction when his report was published in Virginia and London.[18]French and Indian WarMain articles: French and Indian War, George Washington in the French and Indian War, and Seven Years' WarIn February 1754, Dinwiddie promoted Washington to lieutenant colonel and second-in-command of the 300-strong Virginia Regiment, with orders to confront French forces at the Forks of the Ohio.[19]Washington set out for the Forks with half of the regiment in April but soon learned that a French force of 1,000 had begun construction of Fort Duquesne there. In May, Washington had set up a defensive position at Great Meadows when he learned that the French had made camp 7 miles (11 km) away. Washington decided to take the offensive in pursuit of the French contingent.[20]Lt. Col. Washington holding night council at Fort NecessityThe French detachment proved to be only about 50 men, so Washington advanced on May 28 with a small force of Virginians and Indian allies to ambush them.[21][e]What took place was disputed, but French forces were killed outright with muskets and hatchets. French commander Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, who carried a diplomatic message for the British to evacuate, was mortally wounded in the battle. French forces found Jumonville and some of his men dead and scalped and assumed that Washington was responsible.[23]Washington placed blame on his translator for not communicating the French intentions.[24]Dinwiddie congratulated Washington for his victory over the French.[25]The "French and Indian War" was ignited—which later became part of the larger Seven Years' War.[26]The full Virginia Regiment joined Washington at Fort Necessity the following month with news that he had been promoted to command of the regiment and to colonel upon the death of the regimental commander. The regiment was reinforced by an independent company of 100 South Carolinians, led by Captain James Mackay, whose royal commission outranked Washington, and a conflict of command ensued. On July 3, a French force attacked with 900 men, and the ensuing battle ended in Washington's surrender.[27]In the aftermath, Colonel James Innes took command of intercolonial forces, the Virginia Regiment was divided, and Washington offered a captaincy which he refused, with resignation of his commission.[28]Washington the SoldierPainting of Lt. Col. Washington on horseback during the Battle of the Monongahela — Reǵnier, 1834In 1755, Washington served voluntarily as an aide to General Edward Braddock, who led a British expedition to expel the French from Fort Duquesne and the Ohio Country.[29]On Washington's recommendation, Braddock split the army into one main column and a lightly equipped "flying column".[30]Suffering from a severe case of dysentery, Washington was left behind, and when he rejoined Braddock at Monongahela, the French and their Indiann allies ambushed the divided army. The British suffered two-thirds casualties, including the mortally wounded Braddock. Under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Gage, Washington, still very ill, rallied the survivors and formed a rear guard, which allowed the remnants of the force to disengage and retreat.[31]During the engagement he had two horses shot from under him, and his hat and coat were bullet-pierced.[32]His conduct under fire redeemed his reputation among critics of his command in the Battle of Fort Necessity,[33]but he was not included by the succeeding commander Colonel Thomas Dunbar in planning subsequent operations.[34]The Virginia Regiment was reconstituted in August 1755, and Dinwiddie appointed Washington its commander, again with the colonial rank of colonel. Washington clashed over seniority almost immediately, this time with John Dagworthy, another captain of superior royal rank, who commanded a detachment of Marylanders at the regiment's headquarters in Fort Cumberland.[35]Washington, impatient for an offensive against Fort Duquesne, was convinced Braddock would have granted him a royal commission, and pressed his case in February 1756 with Braddock's successor, William Shirley, and again in January 1757 with Shirley's successor, Lord Loudoun. Shirley ruled in Washington's favor only in the matter of Dagworthy; Loudoun humiliated Washington, refused him a royal commission and agreed only to relieve him of the responsibility of manning Fort Cumberland.[36]In 1758, the Virginia Regiment was assigned to Britain's Forbes Expedition to take Fort Duquesne.[37][f]Washington disagreed with General John Forbes’ tactics and chosen route.[39]Forbes nevertheless made Washington a brevet brigadier general and gave him command of one of the three brigades that would assault the fort. The French abandoned the fort and the valley before the assault was launched, with Washington seeing only a friendly-fire incident which left 14 dead and 26 injured. The war lasted another four years, but Washington resigned his commission and returned to Mount Vernon.[40]Under Washington, the Virginia Regiment had defended 300 miles (480 km) of frontier against 20 Indian attacks in 10 months.[41]He increased the professionalism of the regiment as it increased from 300 to 1,000 men, and Virginia's frontier population suffered less than other colonies. Some historians have said this was Washington's "only unqualified success" during the war.[42]Though he failed to realize a royal commission, he gained valuable knowledge of British tactics, self-confidence, and leadership skills. The destructive competition Washington witnessed among colonial politicians fostered his later support of strong central government.[43]Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1775)Colonel George Washington, by Charles Willson Peale, 1772On January 6, 1759, Washington, at age 26, married Martha Dandridge Custis, the 28 year-old widow of wealthy plantation owner Daniel Parke Custis. The marriage took place at Martha's estate; She was intelligent and gracious, and experienced in managing a planter's estate, and the couple created a happy marriage.[44]They raised John Parke Custis and Martha Parke (Patsy) Custis, children from her previous marriage, and later their grandchildren Eleanor Parke Custis and George Washington Parke Custis. Washington's 1751 bout with smallpox is thought to have rendered him sterile, and they lamented the fact that they had no children together.[45]They moved to Mount Vernon, near Alexandria, where he took up life as a planter of tobacco and wheat and emerged as a political figure.[46]The marriage gave Washington control over Martha's one-third dower interest in the 18,000-acre (7,300 ha) Custis estate, and he managed the remaining two-thirds for Martha's children; the estate also included 84 slaves. He became one of Virginia's wealthiest men and increased his social standing.[47]At Washington's urging, Governor Lord Botetourt fulfilled Dinwiddie's 1754 promise of land bounties to all volunteer militia during the French and Indian War.[48]In late 1770, Washington inspected the lands in the Ohio and Great Kanawha regions, and he engaged surveyor William Crawford to subdivide it. Crawford allotted 23,200 acres (9,400 ha) to Washington; Washington told the veterans that their land was hilly and unsuitable for farming, and he agreed to purchase 20,147 acres (8,153 ha), leaving some feeling that they had been duped.[49][50]He also doubled the size of Mount Vernon to 6,500 acres (2,600 ha) and increased its slave population to more than 100 by 1775.[51]As a respected military hero and large landowner, Washington held local offices and was elected to the Virginia provincial legislature, representing Frederick County in the House of Burgesses for seven years beginning in 1758.[51]He plied the voters with beer, brandy, and other beverages, although he was absent while serving on the Forbes Expedition.[52]He won election with roughly 40 percent of the vote, defeating three other candidates with the help of several local supporters. He rarely spoke in his early legislative career, but he became a prominent critic of Britain's taxation and mercantilist policies in the 1760s.[53]Martha Washingtonbased on a 1757 portrait by John WollastonBy occupation Washington was a planter, and he imported luxuries and other goods from England and paid for them by exporting tobacco.[54]A poor tobacco market in 1764 left him £1,800 in debt, so he diversified and monitored his finances.[55]He changed Mount Vernon's primary cash crop from tobacco to wheat, and further expanded operations to include flour milling, fishing, and other pursuits.[56]Washington took time for leisure with fox hunting, fishing, dances, theater, cards, backgammon, and billiards,[57]Washington soon was counted among the political and social elite in Virginia. From 1768 to 1775, he invited some 2,000 guests to his Mount Vernon estate, mostly those whom he considered "people of rank". He became more politically active in 1769, presenting legislation in the Virginia Assembly to establish an embargo on goods from Great Britain.[58]Washington's stepdaughter Patsy Custis suffered from epileptic attacks from age 12, and she died in his arms in 1773. The following day, he wrote to Burwell Bassett: "It is easier to conceive, than to describe, the distress of this Family".[59]He canceled all business activity and remained with Martha every night for three months.[60].American Revolution (1765-1783)Further information: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and George Washington in the American RevolutionWashington played a central role before and during the American Revolution. His disdain for the British military had begun when he was abashedly passed over for promotion into the Regular Army. He was opposed to the continuing taxes imposed by the British Parliament on the Colonies without proper representation.[61]He and other colonists were also angered by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which banned American settlement west of the Allegheny Mountains and protected the British fur trade.[62]Washington believed that the Stamp Act of 1765 was an "Act of Oppression", and he celebrated its repeal the following year.[g][64]In March 1766, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act asserting that Parliamentary law superseded colonial law.[65]Washington helped to lead widespread protests against the Townshend Acts passed by Parliament in 1767, and he introduced a proposal in May 1769 drafted by George Mason which called Virginians to boycott English goods; the Acts were repealed in 1770.[66]Parliament sought to punish Massachusetts colonists for their role in the Boston Tea Party in 1774 by passing the Coersive Acts, which Washington referred to as "an Invasion of our Rights and Privileges".[67]He said Americans must not submit to acts of tyranny since "custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves, as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway".[68]That July, he and George Mason drafted a list of resolutions for the Fairfax County committee which Washington chaired, and the committee adopted the Fairfax Resolves calling for a Continental Congress.[69]On August 1, Washington attended the First Virginia Convention where he was selected as a delegate to the First Continental Congress.[70]As tensions rose in 1774, he assisted in the training of county militias in Virginia and organized enforcement of the Continental Associationboycott of British goods instituted by the Congress.[71]The American Revolutionary War began on April 19, 1775 with the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the Siege of Boston.[72]The colonists were divided over breaking away from British rule and split into two factions: Patriots who rejected British rule, and Loyalists who desired to remain subject to the British King.[73]General Thomas Gagewas commander of British forces in America at the beginning of the war.[74]Upon hearing the shocking news of the onset of war, Washington was "sobered and dismayed",[75]and he hastily departed Mount Vernon on May 4, 1775 to join the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.[76]Commander in chief (1775–1783)Further information: Military career of George WashingtonGeneral WashingtonCommander of the Continental ArmyCharles Willson Peale (1776)Congress created the Continental Army on June 14, 1775, and Samuel Adams and John Adams nominated Washington to become its commander in chief. Washington was chosen over John Hancock because of his military experience and the belief that a Virginian would better unite the colonies. He was considered an incisive leader who kept his "ambition in check."[77]He was unanimously elected commander in chief by Congress the next day.[78]Washington appeared before Congress in uniform and gave an acceptance speech on June 16, declining a salary—though he was later reimbursed expenses. He was commissioned on June 19 and was roundly praised by Congressional delegates, including John Adams who proclaimed that he was the man best suited to lead and unite the colonies.[79]Congress chose his primary staff officers, including Major General Artemas Ward, Adjutant General Horatio Gates, Major General Charles Lee, Major General Philip Schuyler, Major General Nathanael Greene, Colonel Henry Knox, and Colonel Alexander Hamilton.[80]Washington was impressed by Colonel Benedict Arnold and gave him responsibility for invading Canada. He also engaged French and Indian War compatriot Brigadier General Daniel Morgan. Henry Knox also impressed Adams with ordnance knowledge; Washington promoted him to colonel and chief of artillery.[81]Siege of BostonMain article: Siege of BostonWashington taking command of the Continental Army, just before the SiegeEarly in 1775, in response to the growing rebellious movement, including the Boston Tea Party, Parliament sent British troops, commanded by General Thomas Gage, to occupy Boston, disband the local provincial government, and quell the growing state of rebellion. The British set up fortifications about the city, making it impervious to attack. In response, various state militias surrounded the city and effectively trapped the British, resulting in a standoff.[82]As Washington headed for Boston, word of his march preceded him, and he was greeted by local officials and statesmen, gradually becoming a symbol of the patriot cause.[83][h]Upon arrival on July 2, 1775, two weeks after the patriot defeat at nearby Bunker Hill, he set up his Cambridge, Massachusetts headquarters and inspected the new army there, only to find an undisciplined and badly outfitted militia.[84]After consultation, he initiated Benjamin Franklin’s suggested reforms—drilling the soldiers and imposing strict discipline, floggings, and incarceration.[85]Washington ordered his officers to identify the skills of recruits to ensure military effectiveness, while removing incompetent officers.[86]He petitioned Gage, his former superior, to release captured Patriot officers from prison and treat them humanely.[87]In October 1775, King George III declared that the colonies were in open rebellion, relieved General Gage of command for his incompetence, and replaced him with General William Howe as acting commander.[88]In June 1775, Congress ordered an invasion of Canada, led by Benedict Arnold who, despite Washington’s strong objection, drew volunteers from the latter’s force during the Siege of Boston, . The move on Quebec failed, the American forces were reduced to less than half, and retreated.[89]The Continental Army, further diminished by expiring short-term enlistments, and by January 1776 was reduced by half to 9,600 men, had to be supplemented with militia, and was joined by Knox with heavy artillery, captured from Fort Ticonderoga.[90]When the Charles River froze over Washington was eager to cross and storm Boston, but General Gates and others were opposed to untrained militia striking well garrisoned fortifications. Washington reluctantly agreed to secure Dorchester Heights, 100 feet above Boston, in an attempt to force the British out of the city.[91]On March 9, under cover of darkness, Washington's troops brought up Knox's big guns and bombarded British ships in Boston harbor. By March 17, 9,000 British troops and Loyalists began a chaotic 10-day evacuation of Boston aboard 120 ships. Soon after, Washington entered the city with 500 men, with strict orders not to plunder the city. He ordered vaccinations against smallpox to great effect, as he did later in Morristown, New Jersey.[92]He refrained from exerting military authority in Boston, leaving civilian matters in the hands of local authorities.[93][i]Battle of Long IslandMain article: Battle of Long IslandBattle of Long IslandAlonzo Chappel (1858)Washington proceeded to New York City, arriving on April 13, and began constructing fortifications to thwart British attack. He ordered his occupying forces to treat civilians and their property with respect, to avoid the abuse suffered by civilians in Boston at the hannds of British troops.[95]A plot to assassinate or capture him was discovered amidst the tensions, but failed, though his bodyguard Thomas Hickey (soldier) was hanged for mutiny and sedition.[96]General Howe took his resupplied army, with the British fleet, from Nova Scotia to the city, considered the key to securing the continent. George Germain, who ran the British war effort in England, believed it could be won with one "decisive blow."[97]The British forces, including more than 100 ships and thousands of troops, began reaching Staten Island on July 2 to lay siege to the city.[98]After the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, Washington informed his troops in his general orders of July 9 that Congress had declared the united colonies to be "free and independent states."[99]Howe's troop strength totaled 32,000 regulars and Hessians, and Washington's consisted of 23,000, mostly raw recruits and militia.[100]In August, Howe landed 20,000 troops at Gravesend, Brooklyn and approached Washington's fortifications, as King George III proclaimed the rebellious American colonists to be traitors.[101]Washington, opposing his generals, chose to fight, based on inaccurate information that Howe's army had only 8,000 plus troops.[102]Howe assaulted Washington's flank and inflicted 1,500 Patriot casualties, with the British suffering 400.[103]Washington retreated, instructing General William Heath to acquisition river craft in the area. General William Alexander held off the British and gave cover while the army crossed the East River under darkness to Manhattan Island without loss of life or material, although Alexander was captured.[104]Howe, emboldened by his Long Island victory, dispatched Washington as "George Washington, Esq.", in futility to negotiate peace. Washington declined, demanding to be addressed with diplomatic protocol, as general and fellow belligerent, not as a "rebel", lest his men be hanged as such if captured.[105]The British navy bombarded unstable earthworks on lower Manhattan Island.[106]Washington, with misgivings, heeded the advice of Generals Greene and Israel Putnam to defend Fort Washington. They were unable to hold it, and Washington abandoned it despite General Charles Lee's objections, as his army retired north to White Plains.[107]Howe's pursuit forced Washington to retreat across the Hudson River to Fort Lee to avoid encirclement. Howe then landed his troops on Manhattan in November, and captured Fort Washington, inflicting high casualties on the Americans. Washington was responsible for delaying the retreat, though he blamed Congress and Nathanael Greene. Loyalists in New York considered Howe a liberator and spread a rumor that Washington had set fire to the city.[108]Patriot morale reached its lowest when Lee was captured.[109]Crossing the Delaware, Trenton, and PrincetonMain articles: George Washington's crossing of the Delaware River, Battle of Trenton, and Battle of PrincetonWashington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, Emanuel Leutze (1851)[j]Washington's army, reduced to 5,400 troops, retreated through New Jersey, and Howe broke off pursuit, delaying his advance on Philadelphia, and set up winter quarters in New York.[111]Washington crossed the Delaware River into Pennsylvania, where Lee's replacement John Sullivan joined him with 2,000 more troops.[112]The future of the Continental Army was in doubt for lack of supplies, a harsh winter, expiring enlistments, and desertions. Washington was disappointed that many New Jersey residents were Loyalists or skeptical about the prospect of independence.[113]Howe split up his British Army and posted a Hessian garrison at Trenton to hold western New Jersey and the east shore of the Delaware,[114]but the army appeared complacent, and Washington and his generals devised a surprise attack on the Hessians at Trenton, which he code named "Victory or Death".[115]The army was to cross the Delaware River to Trenton in three divisions: one led by Washington (2,400 troops), another by General James Ewing (700), and the third by Colonel John Cadwalader (1,500). The force was to then split, with Washington taking the Pennington Road and General Sullivan traveling south on the river's edge.[116]Washington first ordered a 60-mile search for Durham boats, to transport his army, and he ordered the destruction of vessels that could be used by the British[117]He crossed the Delaware River at sunset Christmas Day and risked capture staking out the Jersey shoreline. His men followed across the ice-obstructed river in sleet and snow at McKonkey's Ferry, with 40 men per vessel. Wind churned up the waters, and they were pelted with hail, but by 3 A.M. they made it across with no losses.[118]Henry Knox was delayed, managing frightened horses and about 18 field guns on flat-bottomed ferries. Cadwalader and Ewing failed to cross due to the ice and heavy currents, and a waiting Washington doubted his planned attack on Trenton. Once Knox arrived, Washington proceeded to Trenton, to take only his troops against the Hessians, rather than risk being spotted returning his army to Pennsylvania.[119]The troops spotted Hessian positions a mile from Trenton, so Washington split his force into two columns, rallying his men: "Soldiers keep by your officers. For God's sake, keep by your officers." The two columns were separated at the Birmingham crossroads, with General Nathanael Greene's taking the upper Ferry Road, led by Washington, and General John Sullivan's advancing on River Road. (See map.)[120]The Americans marched in sleet and snowfall, many were shoeless with bloodied feet, and two died of exposure. At sunrise, Washington led them in a surprise attack on the Hessians, aided by Major General Henry Knox and artillery. The Hessians had 22 killed (including Colonel Johann Rall), 83 wounded, and 850 captured with supplies.[121]The Capture of the Hessians at Trenton, December 26, 1776John TrumbullWashington retreated across the Delaware to Pennsylvania but returned to New Jersey on January 3, launching an attack on British regulars at Princeton, with 40 Americans killed or wounded and 273 British killed or captured.[122]American Generals Hugh Mercerand John Cadwalader were being driven back by the British when Mercer was mortally wounded, then Washington arrived and led the men in a counterattack which advanced to within 30 yards (27 m) of the British line.[123]Some British troops retreated after a brief stand, while others took refuge in Nassau Hall, which became the target of Colonel Alexander Hamilton's cannons. Washington's troops charged, the British surrendered in less than an hour, and 194 soldiers laid down their arms.[124]Howe retreated to New York City where his army remained inactive until early the next year.[125]Washington's depleted Continental Army took up winter headquarters in Morristown, New Jersey while disrupting British supply lines and expelling them from parts of New Jersey. Washington later said that the British could have successfully counter-attacked his encampment before his troops were dug in.[126]The British still controlled New York, and many Patriot soldiers did not reenlist or had deserted after the harsh winter campaign. Congress instituted greater rewards for re-enlisting and punishments for desertion in an effort to effect greater troop numbers.[127]Strategically, Washington's victories were pivotal for the Revolution and quashed the British strategy of showing overwhelming force followed by offering generous terms.[125][128]In February 1777, word reached London of the American victories at Trenton and Princeton, and the British realized that the Patriots were in a position to demand unconditional independence.[129]Brandywine, Germantown, and SaratogaMain articles: Battle of Brandywine, Battle of Germantown, and Battle of SaratogaIn July 1777, British General John Burgoyne led the Saratoga campaign south from Quebec through Lake Champlain and recaptured Fort Ticonderoga with the objective of dividing New England, including control of the Hudson River. But General Howe in British-occupied New York blundered, taking his army south to Philadelphia rather than up the Hudson River to join Burgoyne near Albany.[130]Meanwhile, Washington and Lafayette rushed to Philadelphia to engage Howe and were shocked to learn of Burgoyne's progress in upstate New York, where the Patriots were led by General Philip Schuyler and successor Horatio Gates. Washington's army of less experienced men were defeated in the pitched battles at Philadelphia.[131]Howe outmaneuvered Washington at the Battle of Brandywine on September 11, 1777 and marched unopposed into the nation's capital at Philadelphia. An October Patriot attack failed against the British at Germantown. Major General Thomas Conway prompted some members of Congress (referred to as the Conway Cabal) to consider removing Washington from command because of the losses incurred at Philadelphia. Washington's supporters resisted and the matter was finally dropped after much deliberation.[132]Once exposed, Conway wrote an apology to Washington, resigned, and returned to France.[133]Washington was concerned with Howe's movements during the Saratoga campaign to the north, and he was also aware that Burgoyne was moving south toward Saratoga from Quebec. Washington took some risks to support Gates’ army, sending reinforcements north with Generals Benedict Arnold, his most aggressive field commander, and Benjamin Lincoln. On October 7, 1777, Burgoyne tried to take Bemis Heights but was isolated from support by Howe. He was forced to retreat to Saratoga and ultimately surrendered after the Battles of Saratoga. As Washington suspected, Gates's victory emboldened his critics.[134]Biographer John Alden maintains, "It was inevitable that the defeats of Washington's forces and the concurrent victory of the forces in upper New York should be compared." The admiration for Washington was waning, including little credit from John Adams.[135]British commander Howe resigned in May 1778, left America forever, and was replaced by Sir Henry Clinton.[136]

The Constitution begins with its most famous words: “We The People.” While it is doubtful (from the original wording) that this phrase was meant to have special significance, for many Americans this phrase has become symbolic of the notion of popular sovereignty, and for some, democracy.Our conception of popular sovereignty is at the heart of the dispute of whether America is a republic or a democracy. What does “We the people” mean? Though some will think the answer obvious, two conflicting visions seek to answer this question—which addresses the issue of popular sovereignty.In a commonwealth or country who is sovereign? Who holds the ultimate political power? Who has the right to rule? Having rejected the monarchs, who claimed to be the sovereigns, the answer Americans have given is “the people.” But this answer is still unclear. How can the people be the sovereign rulers and yet be ruled by governments?The Democratic ViewAccording to what I am calling the democratic* view, sovereignty resides collectively in the people as a body.And this means the government rules according to “the will of the people.” But since you can never get unanimous agreement from any large body, this “will of the people” implies the will of the majority, or at least, the majority of voters. (So we may also call this view “majoritarianism.”)According to this view, anything that gets in the way of the majority will is presumed to be illegitimate. Also, it holds that government is what establishes rights.And the government may only enforce individual rights that are the product of the majority's will.Since the majority will is believed to be ultimate, those who hold this view believe in a “living constitution,” one whose meaning changes in correspondence with today’s popular desires.Those who hold this view have often advocated for “judicial restraint,” where judges are supposed to defer the rationality and constitutionality of a law to a legislature because they were democratically elected and the law is therefore supposed to represent “the will of the people.”So in a democracy, sovereignty is viewed as residing with the people as a collective whole, which is supposed to be represented by the majority.The issue of protecting individual and minority rights is a major problem with democracy. If rights are established by the government (or in force only) through majority rule, then there is no protection against a “tyranny of the majority” where the majority infringes on the rights of minorities and/or individuals. As an old saying goes, “Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.”Another problem is that in a democracy not everyone’s views are treated equally (contrary to what people assume.)“If a community is divided into two parts living in mutual antipathy, this becomes even more obvious. The majority community could, by democratic vote, bear heavily down on the minority community, restricting or removing things it holds to be of fundamental value. In such circumstances the members of the minority community could hardly be said to be at liberty; nor could it be said that they were being equally treated. Hence the phrase, used by Tocqueville (1835) and taken over by J.S. Mill (1859), ‘the tyranny of the majority’. The initial contrast between democracy and dictatorship has now been left behind. If democracy is really the dictatorship of the majority, then it is not so obvious that democracy promotes freedom and equality.”--Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on Democracy.(In pic: Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of Democracy.)The Republican ViewIn contrast, the republican* view conceives of sovereignty as residing in the people as individuals.The purpose of government, then, is not to be a mechanism to accomplish whatever the popular majority wants; but rather, its first duty is to protect equally the individual rights of all people against those who would violate them, whether domestic or foreign.According to the republican view, rights precede government.And “Governments are instituted among men,” as the Declaration of Independence declares, “to secure these rights.”The people do not rule as a whole, nor do they rule themselves directly. Instead, a small number of people are delegated certain powers to govern the rest of the people as their agents, yet the people retain the ultimate power over them. But to make sure these agents don’t exceed their proper powers, laws are passed to govern them in turn.Under a republic, individual people are sovereign in much the same way as monarchs were. They have jurisdiction over their private property, just as monarchs claimed jurisdiction over their territories and possessions. Citizens can’t interfere with each other’s properties, just as monarchs couldn’t interfere with each other’s territories. Citizens may use force to defend themselves and their possessions just as monarchs could to defend their people and territories against others. And, just as monarchs could choose to change their legal relations with other monarchs, individuals may alter their legal relations with their fellow sovereign citizens through contracts with one another.Although a republican government is partly for regulating the liberties of individuals, this is only in order to protect the equal rights of every citizen.In this view, judges are not viewed as “the counter-majoritarian difficulty,” as in a democracy, but rather as checks on what can be called the “majoritarian difficulty,” to ensure the constitution is being followed, and that the laws are reasonable restrictions on personal liberty, and that the majority is not using its power to oppress or violate the rights of the minority.So, a republic is a government in which the people as individuals are sovereign, and elect representatives who govern according to the rule of established law--especially, in our case, the Constitution--, and in order to protect individuals rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It also involves a set of checks and balances put in place to help accomplish this purpose, making it harder for tyrants, whether composed of the majority of the people or of government officials, to infringe on people’s rights.*(Note: by “republican” or “democratic” I am not referring to the political parties. They don’t always align with their party names.)The Founding Fathers Views on DemocracyToday we hear calls for abolishing “undemocratic” elements of our Constitutional government like the electoral college, and of other things which serve as checks on majority rule, such as the equal representation of states in the Senate. Well, they’re right about one thing; these things are undemocratic. But while some view this as a mistake or error in the Constitution, it is, in fact, deliberate. The American Founders were against democracy.After the War for Independence, America was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Some serious problems resulted from this form of government and prompted the Constitutional Convention, which was an attempt to solve these problems. Many there blamed these problems on excessive democracy.For examples: Edmund Randolph wrote that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Elbridge Gerry said, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” Roger Sherman argued that the people “immediately [directly] should have as little to do as may be about the Government.” Gouverneur Morris stated that “every man of observation had seen in the democratic branches of the State Legislatures, precipitation—in Congress changeableness, in every department excesses against personal liberty, private property & personal safety.” Even George Mason (one who was more sympathetic to democracy) admitted that “we had been too democratic” when forming state governments. And they made many more statements like these.For example, John Adams wrote:“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty. When clear Prospects are opened before Vanity, Pride, Avarice or Ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate Phylosophers and the most conscientious Moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.”[1]While they viewed democracy as a bad guiding or central principle for forming a government, yet they all viewed our constitutional government as a republic.'Alexander Hamilton asserted that "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship." Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that "our real disease…is DEMOCRACY."’[2]'James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been 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.”’[3]And, he continued,A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.[4]And, as Benjamin Franklin famously said after the Constitutional Convention, this is “a republic,” if we can “keep it.”[H]aving concluded their work on the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin walked outside and seated himself on a public bench. A woman approached him and inquired, “Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you done for us?” Franklin quickly responded, “My dear lady, we have given to you a republic–if you can keep it.”[5]Differences over termsI do not claim that the descriptions of “democracy” or “republic” above are the only legitimate ones, or even that the founders always used these terms in this way. It may be argued that even a republic can be considered a democracy in some general sense of the term, i.e., a form of popular government in which the people the sovereign people rule directly or indirectly. However, a mere dispute over labels is a waste of time. It is the concepts signified by the terms, not the terms themselves, that matter. And more particularly, which view is embodied in our Constitution.Even if one chooses to call America “democracy” (though it would have to be defined differently than above) it must at least be conceded that a republic is a distinctive kind of “democracy.” According to Madison, a republic is “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place” versus a democracy in which “a society consisting of a small number of citizens,...assemble and administer the government in person.” Noah Webster says of “Republic” in his 1828 Dictionary that “In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.”We certainly do not meet Wikipedia’s definition of a Democracy:[6]Neither do we meet its definition of a “Democratic Republic” (below.)[7]On the other hand, we do meet the definition of a “Constitutional Republic.”[8]At any rate, it is clear we aren’t a pure or direct Democracy—one in which the people rule directly. But even if one considers it a “representative democracy,” there is still the issue of popular sovereignty—whether individual or collective--which must be addressed, because this is what sets a republic apart from all other forms of government.In determining whether a form of government is democratic or republican, it isn’t enough to point out the fact that it has democratic elements, such as an election of officials, since representative government is consistent with both conceptions of popular sovereignty, though the latter is conceived in different ways. In a democracy, when direct rule is not possible, representatives may be seen as an alternative way to represent the will of the majority. A republic, on the other hand, may view it as a check on their delegated servants (as a way of keeping them accountable, making sure they do their job right, following the rule of law, and for the public good.)The Declaration of IndependenceTo understand American Government and the Constitution, we must look at our national charter, the Declaration of Independence, which encapsulates American political philosophy or theory.“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”In these powerful words, several things are indicated.First, Americans are “one people,” but these people are considered as individuals. (Indicated by the use of the plural noun “them” versus “it.”)Second, the rights of individuals don’t come from the government, but exist prior to its establishment, even in ‘the state of nature.’Third, the primary duty and purpose of government is to equally protect these individual rights. It is “to secure these rights” that “Governments are instituted among Men.”Fourth, even after the government is “instituted,” these rights still provide the standard for it, and in extreme cases, the systematic violation of or failure to protect these rights justifies “altering or abolishing it,” and fixing things so that these rights are now secure.Fifth, some of these rights so fundamental that they can never be infringed or taken away. They are connected with human nature itself. Since they are inalienable, not even consenting can deprive you of them.But the sentence quoted below deserves a closer look. It is one of the most important sentences in the Declaration.“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”This is clearly republican language. Rights precede government, and the purpose of government is to “secure these rights.”However, the advocates of democracy often overlook this first part of the sentence and focus on the last part. They interpret “the consent of the governed” to mean their favorite phrase “the will of the people” represented by the majority—of either the people or their representatives. (And by the way, republicanism is not opposed to the will of the people, it’s just that it has a higher duty and purpose so that if a conflict arises between the former and protecting individual rights, the latter must take precedence.) In other words, they interpret it to mean that governments derive their powers from whatever the people consent to.But this is not so. Only some “powers” that are “justly” held by the government. Moreover, the people themselves do not rule but are ruled by governments. (Hence, they are called “the governed.”) And if the purpose of government is to secure the fundamental rights of individuals, then they must do so, even if the majority has no interest in doing that. This republican view makes it possible to protect the rights from the danger of democratic tyranny. (We saw examples of such tyranny in the slave-holding South, and in the denial of civil rights to African-American citizens. And in both cases, the government was just to intervene against these egregious violations.)The apparent tension between the two parts of the above sentence can be resolved if we distinguish between the ultimate purpose of government, and the means by which a government gains its jurisdiction. While the ultimate purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of individuals, they gain these “just powers” through “the consent of the governed.” In other words, the government gets its legitimacy to rule from the people.The Articles of ConfederationAlthough actually more democratic than republican, states often called themselves “republican” under the Articles of Confederation. So, the concept of “republic” had to be revised at the time the Constitution was established.Before the Convention, Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) wrote an essay on “The Vices of the Political System of the United States.” In it, he wrote about the “Injustice of the laws of States.” “This evil” was caused by “The Representative [state] bodies” and “the people themselves,” which called “into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such Governments, are the safest Guardians of both public Good and of private rights.” (Though he is here using the term “republican,” he is actually referring to democratic concepts.) Hence, “republicanism” needed to be drastically revised.Societies, Madison pointed out, are “divided into different interests and factions.” There are all kinds of people of different occupations, religions, political views, possessions, etc. What was to prevent one faction from violating the rights of others when in the majority (such as when the poor outnumber the rich)? (For example, one problem at that time was that the rights of creditors were not being honored thanks to popularly enacted “debtor-relief” laws.) When “a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”Madison and others at the Constitutional convention sought “to secure the public good and and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government.” Many traced the problems of factions overriding the rights of individuals and minority factions to democracy, as shown above.The New RepublicanismMadison made a distinction between a democracy and a republic. “The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.” He also believed that the larger the republic, “the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority.”He also maintained that there needed to be a separation of powers, since in “republican government, the legislature necessarily predominates.” This was to be done by dividing “the legislatures into different branches [House and Senate]; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” (This has been undermined by the progressive 17th Amendment.)Also, the federal government was greatly limited by the Constitution in its powers. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” These federal powers “will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”The problem of faction was tackled by this limiting of federal powers. By limiting the power of the legislature, there are fewer opportunities for factions to take over the legislature to feed their own interests while hurting or neglecting others. But increasing the government’s powers makes it more tempting for factions to fight for control.Individual SovereigntyUnder the constitution, the government has—not “rights,” but—“powers.” The sovereign people delegate certain powers to their (public) servants to act on their behalf, and subject to their control. The Tenth Amendment affirms that only the powers the government has are those granted to it by the people or by the states in the Constitution. The rest we “reserve” for ourselves.The Ninth Amendment expresses the republican view that rights come before government rather than come from government: It states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the people are considered not as a collective group, but as individuals, since these “enumerated rights” are individual rights, such as freedom of speech, press, free exercise of religion, freedom from forced quartering of troops in one’s house, unreasonable search and seizures, etc.That by “the rights retained by the people” are meant natural rights is supported by various evidences, such as Mason’s Draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and by Sherman’s original draft of the second amendment, which included the following.“The people have certain natural rights which are retained by them when they enter into Society…Of these rights therefore they Shall not be deprived by the Government of the united States…Such are the rights of Conscience in matters of religion; of acquiring property, and of pursuing happiness & safety; of Speaking, writing and publishing their Sentiments with decency and freedom; of peaceably assembling to consult their common good, and of applying to Government by petition or remonstrance for redress of grievances.”Sherman’s view of right was a common one which was expressed in very similar terms in various state constitutions at the time.Individual popular sovereignty was affirmed in the first great Supreme Court case, Chisholm v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court rejected Georgia’s claim that they were sovereignly immune to lawsuits because the states replaced the monarchy as the sovereigns. Instead, they affirmed that citizens could sue state governments because sovereignty rests with the individual citizen.As Justice Wilson wrote, laws “derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of these whose obedience they require. The sovereign, when traced to this source, must be found in the man.” According to Wilson, the only reason “a free man is bound by human laws, is, that he binds himself.” And “If one free man, an original sovereign,” can bind himself to the court’s jurisdiction, “why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection or original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired.”Chief Justice John Jay expressed the same sentiment. He spoke of “the joint and equal sovereigns of this country.” and the “great and glorious principle, that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded y appearing with each other in their won Courts to have their controversies determined.” He could not have been clearer when he affirmed “that popular sovereignty in which every citizen participates.”Individual Sovereignty and the Consent of the GovernedReturning to this sentence in the Declaration, we must now look further at how to resolve the apparent problems: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If the “consent of the governed” means the majority, it can be used to violate the “unalienable rights” for which “Governments are instituted among Men” “to secure.” It’s even worse if we take it to mean the consent of a majority in the small body of legislators. The collective (or democratic) interpretation of popular sovereignty creates problems by implying majoritarianism.We must realize that the rule is not by the people themselves, but by “the governments.” The people’s consent is directed to the scheme of governance, not the individual laws.Still, how do we reconcile with individual sovereignty the fact that not every individual has expressed his consent to governance? The answer may be found in the idea of presumed consent. In the absence of express consent, it must be asked what the individual can be presumed to have consented to.This idea has been expressed by various people. For example, John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise of Government:“yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property, by providing against those three defects...that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy.”Individuals can only be supposed (or presumed) to have consented to “the common good,” which means the protection of every person’s ‘life, liberty, and property.’ People cannot be presumed to have consented to any power that would violate their rights.Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, in Calder v. Bull, 1798, employed this notion. Examples of legislative acts that violate “great first principles” include ones “that punished a citizen for an innocent action,” or “a law that impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens,” or “a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B.” An “act of the legislature, (for I cannot call it a law)” like these, the legislature had no power to do, for “it is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.”Hence these acts, which are outside of their delegated powers, are not true or legitimate laws but are fundamentally unjust. And no rational person could be presumed to have consented to that.Slavery and the New AmendmentsOur Constitution was further republicanized after the Civil War with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (and for that matter, the Twentieth.)The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, thus protecting the individual right to liberty and economic rights. Congress used this as the basis for passing the Civil Rights Act, which ensured the rights of all persons (regardless of race) “to make and enforce contracts,...to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”This works in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” According to a Supreme Court opinion delivered by Bushrod Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, these “privileges and immunities” include “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.”In addition to these rights, Senator Jacob Howard, explaining the Privileges and Immunities Clause, added another category, “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution.”Finally, the Fifteenth Amendment protected the right of blacks, (and others) to vote.Federalism and Why its ImportantThe Ninth and Tenth Amendments express two different ways to protect the rights of sovereign citizens. The first is to specifically protect the individual rights of the people. The second is to structure the government so that it confines the public servants to their delegated powers. The first approach is direct, the second, indirect; both are included in our federal constitution.And both are distinct yet complementary ways of protecting individual rights, as Madison wrote in a letter to Washington:“If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured, by declaring that they shall not be abridged or that the former shall not be extended.”One important structural constraint is the division of powers between the federal and state governments. The federal government is limited to its federal powers, and the states may legislate on other issues, with the consent of the people who elect them. This division of powers is called ‘federalism.’Federalism makes diversity possible. With all the disagreement and contentious disputes over policies and legislation, it is better to resolve things on a state level as much as possible, with each state acting according to its unique preferences, interests, and needs. And each state may serve as an experimental laboratory for the rest of the nation so that the risk of their policies affects only their state. If successful, other states may follow; if not, the others can shun their mistakes, and not be affected by their failures, which is not possible if the actions are taken on the national level.It is important to keep social issues on the local level. Each community should be allowed to make its own decisions on matters of taste, preference, and lifestyle. People often move to localities because they like the way things are there. Whether the weather, or the people, or the buildings, the design of the city or town, the policies in place, or whatnot. It is distressing when the environment then changes so that things are no longer congenial to them. But at least it is still possible to move to another community that is more to one’s liking. But when a policy is enacted on the national level, everyone is forced into conformity, and there is no moving out. Of course, it is possible to move out of America to another country, but not only is that expensive but what American wants to leave America? America is irreplaceable!“Cooperative” federalism is problematic. With the Progressive-backed 16th amendment, the federal government now collects income taxes from state citizens and uses it in effect to bribe and even blackmail states into conformity with, and implementation or expansion of their policies, using their own citizen's money. So instead of competing with each other to keep each other’s powers in check, we now have things so that the federal government almost rules the states. This has enabled the federal government to exceed its delegated powers.We have a cooperative (and sometimes even a coercive) “federalism” where states who comply with the national government’s wishes will be rewarded for it. And states usually go along with this and try to obtain this money for themselves.But even with the 16th amendment, this is still arguably unconstitutional, since Article I, Section 8 requires taxes to be raised solely “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Programs that completely withhold benefit from a state, are partial, not general.Federalism avoids a political war in which everyone is part of a set of winners vs losers.By centralizing political decisions on a national level it makes them far more contentious with far greater consequences when one party prevails. This makes each group fight even more fiercely against defeat. The more important the issue, the greater the battle to avoid having another’s policies imposed on you. It is better to decide these issues on a state level instead whenever possible.In these ways, constitutional federalism (when followed) helps protect the sovereignty of individuals, which is the ideal of republican government.ConclusionSo is America a republic or democracy? America is a federal and constitutional republic, based on the view that governments are instituted to secure the pre-existing rights of sovereign people who are considered as individual citizens. And our very form of government is structured to accomplish this purpose. We find this in the constitution, in the writings of our founders, and the history of our republic. America is, both in our concept and form of government and in our founding ideals, a uniquely republican nation. And only if we “keep the republic, can we preserve individual liberty and equality in America.“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...”--The Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.Footnotes[1] Founders Online: From John Adams to John Taylor, 17 December 1814[2] https://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22https://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22[3] Democracy or Republic?[4] Founders Online: The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787[5] Republic v. Democracy[6] List of forms of government - Wikipedia[7] List of forms of government - Wikipedia[8] List of forms of government - Wikipedia