Republicanism is the
ideologyof governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereigntyand the civic virtuepracticed by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to any form of dictatorshipor tyrannyin the political realm. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of lawthat cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. As John Adamsput it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption."
Advocates argue republicanism demands a citizenry that puts a premium on civil virtue and opposes corruption. Most authors argue republicanism is incompatible with office holders using public power for personal gain. [ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humanism-civic/ Civic Humanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ] ] Many dictatorships have called themselves "republics," but generally do not protect the rights or liberty of their citizens.
The Radicalism emerged in the European states in the 19th century. Although most radical parties later came to be in favor of
economic liberalismpolicies, thus justifying the absorption of radicalism into the liberalismtradition, all 19th century radicals were in favor of the Republic and of universal suffrage, while liberals were at the time in favor of constitutional monarchyand census suffrage. Thus, radicals were as much Republicans as liberals, if not more. This distinction line between Radicalism and Liberalism hasn't totally disappeared in the 20th century, although many radicals simply joined liberal parties or became virtually identical to them. For example, the Left Radical Partyin France or the (originally Italian) Transnational Radical Partywhich exist today have a lot more to do with Republicanism than with simple liberalism.
Chartismin the UK or even the early Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Partyin France were closer to Republicanism (and the left-wing) than to liberalism, represented in France by the Orleanistwho rallied to the Republic only in the late 19th century, after the comte de Chambord's 1883 death and the " De Rerum Novarum" 1891 papal encyclic. Radicalism remained close to Republicanism (which is a term used more commonly to identify the conservative-liberal tradition in France, represented by several parties: Democratic Republican Alliance, Republican Federation, National Center of Independents and Peasants, Independent Republicans, Republican Party,Liberal Democracy) in the 20th century, at least in France where they governed several times with the other left-wing parties (participating in both the Cartel des gauchescoalitions as well as the Popular Front).
Discredited after the
Second World War, French Radicals split into a left-wing party – the Left Radical Party, a part of the Socialist Party – and the Radical Party "valoisien", associate party of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement(UMP). Italian Radicals also maintained close links with Republicanism as well as Socialism, with the "Partito radicale" founded in 1955 which became the Transnational Radical Partyin 1989.
Anti-monarchial republicanism remains a political force of varying importance in many states. In the European monarchies, such as the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Swedenthere has not been much contemporary popular support for republicanism. In such states republicanism is usually motivated by decreasing popularity of the Royal Family, who may be increasingly embroiled in scandal or conflict. However the classical argument against monarchy versus the egalitarian aspects of republicanism will often remain prominent as well. There are also republican movements of varying size and effect in the Commonwealth nations Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaicaand Barbados. In these countries, republicanism is largely about the post-colonial evolution of their relationships with the United Kingdom.
Republicanism in political science
A different interpretation of "republicanism" is used among political scientists. To them a republic is the rule by many and by laws while a princedom is the arbitrary rule by one. By this definition despotic states are not republics while, according to some such as
Kant, constitutional monarchies can be. Kant also argues that a pure democracy is not a republic, as it is the unrestricted rule of the majority. For some republicanism meant simply lack of monarchy, for other monarchy was a form of republic.
Vaishaliin what is now Bihar, India was one of the first governments in the world to have elements of what we would today consider Republicanism, similar to and preceding those later found in ancient Greece (although it was not a monarchy, ancient Vaishali was perhaps better described as an oligarchy). It continues to be inhabited today and is a major pilgrimage center for the Jains and the Buddhists.
Ancient Greeceseveral philosophers and historians set themselves to analysing and describing forms of government of classical republicanism. There is no single written expression or definition from this era that exactly corresponds with a modern understanding of the term "republic". However, most of the essential features of the modern definition are present in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and other ancient Greeks. These elements include the ideas of mixed governmentand of civic virtue. It should be noted that the modern title of Plato's dialogue on the ideal state ("The Republic") is a misnomer when seen through the eyes of modern political science (see Republic (Plato)). Some scholars have translated the Greek concept of " politeia" as "republic", but most modern scholars reject this idea.
A number of Ancient Greek states such as
Athensand Spartahave been classified as classical republics, though this uses a definition of republic that was developed much later.
Livy(in Latin, living in Augustus' time) and Plutarch(in Greek, a century later) described how Rome had developed its legislation, notably the transition from "kingdom" to "republic", based on Greek examples. Probably some of this history, composed more than half a millennium after the events, with scant written sources to rely on, is fictitious reconstruction - nonetheless the influence of the Greek way of dealing with government is clear in the state organisation of the Roman Republic.
The Greek historian Polybius, writing more than a century before Livy, was one of the first historians describing the emergence of the
Roman Empire, and he had a great influence on Cicerowhen this oratorwas writing his politico-philosophical works in the 1st century BC. One of these works was " De re publica", where Cicero links the Latin "res publica" concept to the Greek "politeia." As explained in the res publicaarticle, this concept only partly correlates with the modern term "republic," although the word "republic" is derived from "res publica".
Among the many meanings of the term "res publica", it is most often translated "Republic" where the Latin expression refers to the Roman state and its form of government between the era of the Kings and the era of the Emperors. This Roman Republic would by a modern understanding of the word still be defined as a true republic, even if not coinciding in all the features. Enlightenment philosophers saw it as an ideal system; for example there was no systematic
separation of powersin the Roman Republic.
Romans still called their state "Res Publica" in the era of the early emperors. The reason for this is that on the surface the state organisation of the Republic had been preserved by the first emperors without great alteration. Several offices from the era of the Republic held by individuals were combined under the control of a single person. These forms were accorded "permanent" status and thus gradually placed sovereignty in the person of the Emperor. Traditionally, such references to the early empire are not translated as "republic".
As for Cicero, his description of the ideal state in "De re publica" is more difficult to qualify as a "republic" in modern terms. It is rather something like
enlightened absolutism--not to say benevolent dictatorship--and indeed Cicero's philosophical works, as available at that time, were very influential when Enlightenment philosophers like Voltairedeveloped these concepts. Cicero expressed however reservations concerning the republican form of government: in his "theoretical" works he defended monarchy (or a monarchy/oligarchy mixed government at best); in his own political life he generally opposed men trying to realise such ideals, like Julius Caesar, Mark Antonyand Octavian. Eventually, that opposition led to his death. So, depending on how one reads history, Cicero could be seen as a victim of his own deep-rooted republican ideals, too. Tacitus, a contemporary of Plutarch, was not concerned with whether on an abstract level a form of government could be analysed as a "republic" or a "monarchy" (see for example "Ann". IV, 32-33). He analyses how the powers accumulated by the early Julio-Claudian dynastywere all given to the representants of this dynasty by a State that was and remained in an ever more "abstract" way a republic; nor was the Roman Republic "forced" to give away these powers to single persons in a consecutive dynasty: it did so out of free will, and "reasonably" in Augustus' case, because of his many services the state, freeing it from civil wars and the like.
But at least Tacitus is one of the first to follow this line of thought: asking in what measure such powers were given to the head of state because the citizens "wanted" to give them, and in which measure they were given because of other principles (for example, because one had a deified ancestor) — such other principles leading more easily to abuse by the one in power. In this sense, that is in Tacitus' analysis, the trend away from the Republic was "irreversible" only when
Tiberiusestablished power shortly after Augustus' death (AD 14, much later than most historians place the start of the Imperial form of government in Rome): by this time too many principles defining some powers as "untouchable" had been implemented to keep Tiberius from exercising certain powers, and the age of "sockpuppetry in the external form of a republic", as Tacitus more or less describes this Emperor's reign, began ("Ann". I-VI).
In classical meaning republic was any established political community with government above it. Both
Platoand Aristotlesaw three basic types of government, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. Hewever as ideal type was considered mixed government. First Plato and Aristotle, and especially Polybiusand Cicerodeveloped the notion that the ideal republic is a mixture of these three forms of government and the writers of the Renaissance embraced this notion.
After fall of unique political arrangements of medieval
feudalism, the Renaissancescholars built upon their conception of the ancient world to advance their view of the ideal government. The usage of the term " res publica" in classical texts should not be confused with current notions of republicanism. Despite its name Plato's " The Republic" (Πολιτεία) also has little to no connection to the latin res publica from which derives the more recent historical phenomenon of "republicanism".
The republicanism developed in the Renaissance is known as "classical republicanism" because of its reliance on classical models. This terminology was developed by
Zera Finkin the 1960s but some modern scholars such as Brugger consider the term confusing as it might lead some to believe that "classical republic" refers to the system of government used in the ancient world. "Early modern republicanism" has been advanced as an alternative term.
Also sometimes called
civic humanism, this ideology grew out of the Renaissance writers who developed the idea of the republic. More than being simply a non-monarchy the early modern thinkers developed a vision of the ideal republic. It is these notions that form the basis of the ideology of republicanism. One important notion was that of a mixed government. Also central the notion of virtueand the pursuit of the common goodbeing central to good government. Republicanism also developed its own distinct view of liberty, though what exactly that view is much disputed.
the Enlightenmenton it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between the descriptions and definitions of the "republic" concept on the one side, and the ideologies based on such descriptions on the other.
Up till then the situation had been different: even those Renaissance authors that spoke highly of republics were rarely critical of monarchies. While
Machiavelli's " Discourses on Livy" is the period's key work on republics he also wrote " The Prince" on how to best run a monarchy. One cause of this was that the early modern writers did not see the republican model as one that could be applied universally, most felt that it could be successful only in very small and highly urbanized city-states.
In antiquity writers like
Tacitus, and in the Renaissance writers like Machiavelli tried to avoid formulating an "outspoken" preference for one government system or another. Enlightenment philosophers, on the other hand, always had an outspoken opinion.
Thomas More, still before the Age of Enlightenment, must have been a bit too outspoken to the reigning king's taste, even when coding his political preferences in a Utopian tale.
New wave of republicanism started with works of
Thomas Hobbesfollowed by others e.g. John Locke. For them establishment of political community was essential for resolving conflicts among aristocracy in civil way and thus maintaining their personal liberty and possessions.
French and Swiss Enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu and later Rousseau expanded upon and altered the ideas of what an ideal republic would be: some of their new ideas were scarcely retraceable to antiquity or the Renaissance thinkers. Among other things they contributed and/or heavily elaborated notions like
social contract, positive law, and mixed government. They also borrowed from and distinguished it from the ideas of liberalismthat were developing at the same time. Since both liberalism and republicanism were united in their opposition to the absolute monarchies they were frequently conflated during this period. Modern scholars see them as two distinct streams that both contributed to the democratic ideals of the modern world. An important distinction is that while republicanism continued to stress the importance of civic virtueand the common good, liberalism was based on economics and individualism. It might be argued that while liberalism developed a view of libertyas pre-social and sees all institutions as limiting liberty, republicanism sees some institutions as necessary to create liberty. It is most vivid in the issue of private property which may be maintained only under protection of established positive law. On the other hand, liberalism is strongly committed to some institutions e.g. the Rule of Law.
It has long been agreed that republicanism, especially that of Rousseau, played a central role in the
French Revolutionas turning point to modern republicanism. The French Revolution, which was to throw over the French monarchy in the 1790s, installed, at first, a republic; Napoleon turned it into an Empire with a new aristocracy. In the 1830s Belgiumadopted some of the innovations of the progressive political philosophers of the Enlightenment too.
Républicanisme is a French version of modern Republicanism. It is a
social contractconcept, deduced from Jean-Jacques Rousseau's idea of a general will. Ideally, each citizenis engaged in a direct relationship with the state, obviating the need for group identity politicsbased on local, religious, or racial identification.
The ideal of républicanisme, in theory, renders anti-discrimination laws needless, but some critics argue that colour-blind laws serve to perpetuate ongoing discrimination.cite news
first = Lamont
last = Michèle
coauthors = Éloi Laurent
url = http://iht.com/articles/2006/06/05/opinion/edlamont.php
title = France shows its true colors
International Herald Tribune
June 5, 2006
accessdate = 2006-06-05]
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealthrepublicanism became an important ideology. After establishment of the Commonwealth of Two Nations republicans were those who supported the status quo of having a very weak monarch and opposed those who felt a stronger monarchy was needed. These mostly Polish republicans such as Łukasz Górnicki, Andrzej Wolan, and Stanisław Konarskiwere well read in classical and Renaissance texts and firmly believed that their state was a Republic on the Roman model and started to call their state the Rzeczpospolita. Unlike in the other countries, Polish-Lithuanian republicanism was not the ideology of the commercial, but rather of the landed aristocracy, who would be the ones to lose power if the monarchy was expanded - what led to oligarchisation by great magnates.
In the Enlightenment anti-monarchism stopped being coextensive with the civic humanism of the Renaissance. Classical republicanism, still supported by philosophers such as
Rousseauand Montesquieu, was just one of a number of theories not opposed directly to monarchy, however putting some limitations to it. The new forms of anti-monarchism such as liberalismand later socialismquickly overtook classical republicanism as the leading republican ideologies. Republicanism also became far more widespread and monarchies began to be challenged throughout Europe.
Perhaps the most interesting influence of republicanism was witnessed in
Turkeyforming a new democratic Turkish state in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empirethrough Atatürk's principles ( Six Arrows: Republicanism, Populism, Secularism, Reformism, Nationalism, and Statism).
British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations
In some countries forming parts of the
British Empire, and later the Commonwealth of Nations, republicanism has had very different significance in various countries at various times, depending on the context.
South Africa, republicanism in the 1960s was identified with the staunch supporters of apartheid, who resented what they considered British interference in the way they treated the country's black majority population, despite the fact that the country was by that point an independent state with its own legally distinct monarchy.
Australia, the debate between republicans and monarchists is still a controversial issue of political life.
This new school of historical revisionism has accompanied a general revival of republican thinking. In recent years a great number of thinkers have argued that republican ideas should be adopted. This new thinking is sometimes referred to as "neo-republicanism". Engeman referred to "republicanism" as "an intellectual buzzword" that has been applied to a wide range of theories and postulates that have little in common in order to give them a certain cachet.
The most important theorists in this movement are
Philip Pettitand Cass Sunsteinwho have each written a number of works defining republicanism and how it differs from liberalism. While a late convert to republicanism from communitarianism, Michael Sandelis perhaps the most prominent advocate in the United States for replacing or supplementing liberalism with republicanism as outlined in his "Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy." As of yet these theorists have had little impact on government. John W. Maynor, argues that Bill Clintonwas interested in these notions and that he integrated some of them into his 1995 "new social compact" State of the Union Address.
This revival also has its critics. David Wootton, for instance, argues that throughout history the meanings of the term "republicanism" have been so diverse, and at times contradictory, that the term is all but meaningless and any attempt to build a cogent ideology based around it will fail.
Republicanism is a system that replaces or accompanies inherited rule. The keys are a positive emphasis on liberty, and a negative rejection of corruption. [ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ Republicanism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ] ] In the late 20th century there has been so much convergence between democracy and republicanism that confusion results. As a distinct political theory, republicanism originated in classical history and became important in early modern Europe, as typfied by
Machiavelli. It became especially important as a cause of the American Revolutionand the French Revolutionin the 1770s and 1790s, respectively. [ Pocock (1975)] Republicans in these particular instances tended to reject inherited elites and aristocracies, but the question was open amongst them whether the republic, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an unelected upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts, or should have a constitutional monarch. [Gordon S. Wood, "The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787" (1969)]
Although conceptually separate from democracy, republicanism included the key principles of rule by the consent of the governed and sovereignty of the people. In effect republicanism meant that the kings and aristocracies were not the real rulers, but rather the people as a whole were. Exactly how the people were to rule was an issue of democracy – republicanism itself did not specify how. [
R. R. Palmer, "The Age of the Democratic Revolution: Political History of Europe and America, 1760-1800" (1959)] In the United States, the solution was the creation of political parties that were popularly based on the votes of the people, and which controlled the government (see Republicanism in the United States). Many exponents of republicanism, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jeffersonwere strong promoters of representative democracy. However, other supporters of republicanism, such as John Adamsand Alexander Hamilton, were more distrustful of majority rule and sought a government with more power for elites. There were similar debates in many other democratizing nations. [Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography," "William and Mary Quarterly", 39 (Apr. 1982), 334-356 ]
Democracy and republic
In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [ [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy democracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ] ] The term "
republic" has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarchas a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of governmentsuch as a prime minister. [ [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/republic republic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ] ]
Founding Fathers of the United Statesrarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madisonargued, especially in "The Federalist" No. 10, that what distinguished a "democracy" from a "republic" was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adamsinsisted, [Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Sir, what have you given us?". He replied " A republic ma'am, if you can keep it" [ [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4I.html Republican Government: Introduction ] ]
Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers
Initially, after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an
upper chamber– the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures – or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Scandinavian countries, and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional ones with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system, whether or not they were replaced with democratic institutions (such as in the US, France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, and some other countries, the monarch is given supreme executive power, but by convention acts only on the advice of his or her ministers. Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures, the members of which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these houses lost power (as in Britain's House of Lords), or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States Senate). [Mark McKenna, "The Traditions of Australian Republicanism" (1996) [http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp31.htm online version] ; John W. Maynor, "Republicanism in the Modern World." (2003).]
Republicanism and religion
Tacitean studies- differing interpretations whether Tacitus defended "republicanism" ("red Tacitists") or the contrary ("black Tacitists").
Republicanism in Australia
Republicanism in Canada
Républicanisme(Republicanism in France)
Republicanism in New Zealand
Republicanism in the United Kingdom
Republicanism in the United States
* Bock, Gisela; Skinner, Quentin; and Viroli, Maurizio, ed. "Machiavelli and Republicanism." Cambridge U. Press, 1990. 316 pp.
*Peter Becker, Jürgen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. "Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850." Cambridge University Press. 2002.
*Brugger, Bill. "Republican Theory in Political Thought: Virtuous or Virtual?" St. Martin's Press, 1999.
* Castiglione, Dario. "Republicanism and its Legacy," "European Journal of Political Theory" (2005) v 4 #4 pp 453-65. [http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/CastiglioneRepublicanism.pdf#search=%22republicanism%20historiography%22 online version]
* Trevor Colbourn, "The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution" (1965) [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0009 online version]
*Fink, Zera. "The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England." Northwestern University Press, 1962.
*Foote, Geoffrey. "The Republican Transformation of Modern British Politics" Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
*Martin van Gelderen &
Quentin Skinner, eds., "Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, v 1: Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe; vol 2: The Value of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe" Cambridge U.P., 2002
*Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." "A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy." Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Blackwell, 1995.
*Kramnick, Isaac. "Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism: Political Ideology in Late Eighteenth-Century England and America." Cornell University Press, 1990.
* Mark McKenna, "The Traditions of Australian Republicanism" (1996) [http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/rp/1995-96/96rp31.htm online version]
*Maynor, John W. "Republicanism in the Modern World." Cambridge: Polity, 2003.
* Najemy, John M. "Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism." "American Historical Review" 1996 101(1): 119-129. ISSN 0002-8762 Fulltext in Jstor and Ebsco. Examines Hans Baron's ambivalent portrayal of Machiavelli. He argues that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between The Prince and the Discourses and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the Discourses. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.
* Philip Pettit, "Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government" Oxford U.P., 1997, ISBN 0-19-829083-7
* Pocock, J.G.A. "The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition" (1975; new ed. 2003)
* Pocock, J. G. A. "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: a Study in History and Ideology.: "Journal of Modern History" 1981 53(1): 49-72. ISSN 0022-2801 Fulltext: in Jstor. Abstract: Traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th century Florence through 17th century England and Scotland to 18th century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop
* Robbins, Caroline. "The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman: Studies in the Transmission, Development, and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies" (1959, 2004). [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0451 table of contents online]
* Joyce Appleby, "Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination" (1992)
*Bailyn, Bernard. "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution". Harvard University Press, 1967.
* Lance Banning. "The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology" (1980)
*Peter Becker, Jürgen Heideking and James A. Henretta, eds. "Republicanism and Liberalism in America and the German States, 1750-1850." Cambridge University Press, 2002.
* Linda K Kerber. "Intellectual History of Women: Essays by Linda K. Kerber" (1997)
* Linda K Kerber. " Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America" (1997)
* Milton Klein, et al., eds., "The Republican Synthesis Revisited Essays in Honor of George A. Billias (1992).
* James T Kloopenberg. "The Virtues of Liberalism" (1998)
* Mary Beth Norton. "Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800" (1996)
* Jack Greene and J. R. Pole, eds. "Companion to the American Revolution" (2004); many articles look at republicanism, esp. Shalhope, Robert E. "Republicanism" pp 668-673
* Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography," "William and Mary Quarterly", 29 (Jan. 1972), 49-80 in JSTOR
* Robert E. Shalhope, "Republicanism and Early American Historiography", "William and Mary Quarterly", 39 (Apr. 1982), 334-356 in JSTOR
* Wood, Gordon S. "The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787" (1969)
* Wood, Gordon S. " The Radicalism of the American Revolution" (1993)
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
* [http://makepeace.ca/respublica/en/ Res Publica: an international anti-monarchy Web directory]
*Emergence of the Roman Republic:
Parallel Lives" by Plutarch, particularly:
***(From the translation in 4 volumes, available at
Project Gutenberg:) [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14033 Plutarch's Lives, Volume I (of 4)]
***More particularly following "Lives" and "Comparisons" (D is Dryden translation; G is Gutenberg; P is
Perseus Project; L is LacusCurtius)::::
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.