Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 17.djvu/62

* REPUBLIC. 46 REPUBLICAN PARTY. trarv power under republican forms, is none the li.B,"ii nioMurcli.v. That the English government IS iipiiruximatii'ig to the former condition, and Uiat Uio uiililarj- despotisms of Central America are ix-rilouslv near the latter, caimot be denied, lhoii;.'h it would be rasli to say that in either case the conversion of the government from the one type to the other has yet become complete. It is to the growing realization of this fact — that a republican form of government fur- nishes no guarantee against tyranny, and that njonarchy is not inconsistent with a high degree of pcilitical frceilom — even more than to the eon- »er>ative reaction of half a century ago, that we nuis-t attribute the change in the character and aims of the liberal movement of tlic last cen- tury. The widesi)rcad republican sentiment which in 1848 threatened the thrones of Con- tinental Europe has completely died out, and in its stead we iind a growing 'sentiment for the libcrnlizatioi of the monarchical institutions which survived that revolution. England has taken the place of the fnited States and Switzer- land as the model of political reformers, and the aim is rather to transform existing institutions than to abolish them and substitute others of the republican type. Attemirts have been made, but without much success, to classify republics according to the ex- tent to which popular ]iower was difl'used through the mass of the people. A more valid and useful distinction among governments of the repul)Iican tyiie is found in the form in which the jwpular clioiee, whether wide or narrow, ex- presses itself, and this is determined not so much by political theory as by considerations of practical convenience. From this point of view republics fall into two classes, the pure and the representative. The former, illustrated in the local town government of Xcw England, as well as in the Athenian democracy and the early Swiss republics, was strictly a government of the people by the people, all the citizens — a small and select class in -Athens, the whole body of freemen in A])i>enze!l and Schwiz — actually tak- ing jiart in the administration of the State. This form of government is. from the nature of the case, limited to small and compact communities, with simple and common interests, and does not lend itself to the .solution of vast and complex problems of government. It is obviously un- Huilcd to the great modern State, with its large population, varied interests, and extensive do- minion. For a republic of this type there is no alternative but the adoption of the representa- tive form of govermnent. This is the indis- pensable condition of the existence of republics of the modern type. Jlost of the leading writers on governments have treated the republic as a recurring but merely temporary stage in the cycle of political growth and decay, which moves from the stabil- ity of orderly monarchy, through oligarchy, democracy, and anarchy, back to despotism. But the conditions of modern life and the jiroblems of modern government are so different from those of old that the reflections and prognostications of Aristotle, Polybius. llachiavelli. and Hobbes may safely be disregarded by us. Miat is cer- tain is that democratic government everywhere, but especially in its republican form, calls for character as Avell as a highly developed political instinct in the mass of the people constituting the State; and when these conditions exist we may reasonably believe that, in a world which has come to cherish industrial rather than mili- tant ideals, the popular republic may have a stability, a good order, and a capacity for progress which no other form of government has yet dis- played. See Cawket; Coxstiti'TIO.x ; Cok.stitu- TIOX OF THE I">"ITED St.TES ; DeMOCBACY ; GOV- EKXJIEXT, and the autiiorities there referred to. REPUBLICAN METJSODIST CHURCH. See ilETiiuDLSM; O'Kelly, James. REPUBLICAN PARTY. In the history of American politics the term Rei^ublican has been applied to political organizations representing the most diverse principles. During the years 1791- 92, under the leadership of Jell'erson, the oppo- nents of centralization in the National Govern- ment were molded into an efl'ective political party, which assumed the official name Demo- cratic-Republican, though its members generally called themselves Re])ublicans. Later this or- ganization became known as the Democratic Party (q.v.). During the years 1825-29 the fol- lowers of Clay and of Adams were known as Xational Republicans. (See Whig P-vkty.) In ordinary usage, however, the term Republican is applied to the powerful party which was organ- ized in 1854-56 and elected Lincoln in I8G0. The present Republican Party took its rise from one overpo-wering impulse — opposition to the extension of slavery. Xorthern Tiigs acced- ed with great repugnance to the new Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (see Compbomise of 1850), and its enforcement became daily more odious. When the Kansas- Nebraska Bill (q.v.) became a law the revolt was instantaneous. On the very morning after the passing of this bill, May 27, 1854, a gathering of some thirty Congressmen discussed the necessity of organizing a new party, and it was agreed that "Republican' would be its appropriate name. Previously, on Fcbrtiary 28, 1854, a mass meeting of Whigs. Democrats, and Free Sellers, in Ripon, Wis., had resolved that if the Kansas-Nebraska Bill should pass, they would "throw old party organizations to the winds, and organize a new party on the sole issue of the non-extension of slavery." Three weeks later local organization was eiTected, and the name 'Republican' was suggested as the one which the party should and probably would adopt. It was in Jlichigan. however, that the fusion of the opponents of the extension of slav- ery first completed a State organization, and formally adopted the name (July G, 1854). The new party was formed not so much by a coalition as by a fusion of diverse elements. There were: (a) a large proportion of the anti-slavery Whigs, like Seward, Greeley, and Lincoln; (b) the Free Soilers (.see Feee Soil Pabty). like Hale, Julian, and Sumner; (c) a great body of Know-Nothings, like Wilson. Banks, and Colfax ; (d) some Abolitionists, who. though impatient with the Republicans' repeated assertion that they did not purjiose to interfere with slavery where it actually existed, nevertheless found in the new party the best |iromise of effective opposition to slavery: and finally (e) anti-slavery Democrats, such as Hamlin. Cameron, and Bryant, who brought with them a strong popularizing influ- ence. Later the war crisis led other Democrats into the Republican ranks, though in some in-