A Measure of Transition

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“ A Republic, if you can keep it.” The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation.” http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

The Founders were versed in their Aristotle & Montesquieu.* They understood the classic view that a republic as a form of government was the most fragile form, and the most subject to transition to another form after a historically speaking short period. The transition can be sudden via invasion and conquest. But left to its own devices a republic will slowly shift into something else.

A good example of the latter fate is what is considered the longest running one in history, the Res publica Romana, i.e., the Roman Republic 509 BC  - 27 BC being the standard dating. The founders revered Res publica Romana, and drew inspiration from its governing structures and early history.

The fall of the that republic was not sudden. It stretches from the economic impact of the conquest of Carthage (after 146 BC), to the Octavian victory Battle of Philippi, October 23, 42 BC. From 146 BC to 42 BC Rome transitioned to a plutocratic aristocracy, to an aristocracy, to a junta of sorts, eventually resulting in an imperial monarchy in 27 BC.

Rome is also an excellent example of how the rhetoric and symbols of a republic will persist long after its transition. “Legislation” passed by the vestigial senate and the acts of the emperor of the Western empire were done in the name of Senātus Populusque Rōmānus ("The Senate and People of Rome" ) even until the capitol was sacked in the 5^th century.

So when did the Republic Period of the United States end?

I think it will be seen by future foreign historians, to be along the lines of a transition from a republic to a plutocracy over a span of time from the late 19^th Century, the 1880’s perhaps to January 21, 2010.

 

“At the Declaration of Independence, corporations had been unlawful without explicit authorization in a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the world's first stock market crash (the South Sea Bubble of 1720) corporations were perceived as dangerous. This was because, as the economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (1776), directors managed "other people's money" and this conflict of interest meant directors were prone to "negligence and profusion".

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law

“In the United States, forming a corporation usually required an act of legislation until the late 19th century. Many private firms, such as Carnegie's steel company and Rockefeller's Standard Oil, avoided the corporate model for this reason (as a trust). State governments began to adopt more permissive corporate laws from the early 19th century, although these were all restrictive in design, often with the intention of preventing corporations for gaining too much wealth and power.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

 

Birth of a Persona

Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), “the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person."

Over the late 19th century, more and more states allowed free incorporation of businesses with a simple registration procedure. Stock corporations gained limited liability in the United States by legislation in the several states in the last quarter of the 19^th century.

The obtaining of overseas possessions (colonies) in the aftermath of the Spanish – American War 1998 is the date used by some for the fall of the Republic. It was seen at the time by many citizens, including most civil war veterans from both sides, to be a dire threat to the Republic (i.e., historically, a republican form never survives the building of an empire).

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

The line of Supreme Court decisions on “commercial speech” beginning with Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). An interesting article on the subject.

I think that the completion date for the transition, can be pegged rather exactly, on two dates. 

 "An imbalance between rich and poor is

the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

Plutarch

The decisions of the Supreme Court are often, in retrospect seen as a recognition of something that coincides with something dominant in practice  in the national “culture”. Examples of this include cases such as Wickard v. Filburn,  Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, etc.

An important symbolic demotion of local control came on December 12, 2000, with the decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). In this case the court broke with a rule of judicial “economy” and administration, going back to its earliest days. That being that in modern times, absent allegations of discrimination, no federal court will take jurisdiction over an election question at the state level or lower. In fact, the court in strange ending to the majority opinion, stated, as if to preserve precedent, “"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Second,  on January 21, 2010 defacto recognition of the plutocracy by the government, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

* His book  was consulted and carried by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm
de Secondat, Charles, Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws. 2 vols. Originally published anonymously. 1748; Crowder, Wark, and Payne, 1777. Spirit of the Laws Online posting. constitution.org. Trans. Thomas Nugent (1750). Rev. J. V. Prichard. ("Based on a public domain edition published in 1914 by G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., London. Rendered into HTML and text by Jon Roland of The Constitution Society.") Accessed May 16, 2007.
Excerpt:
"What is meant by a Love of the Republic in a Democracy.
A love of the republic in a democracy is a love of the democracy; as the latter is that of equality.
A love of the democracy is likewise that of frugality. Since every individual ought here to enjoy the same happiness and the same advantages, they should consequently taste the same pleasures and form the same hopes, which cannot be expected but from a general frugality.
The love of equality in a democracy limits ambition to the sole desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the rest of our fellow-citizens. They cannot all render her equal services, but they all ought to serve her with equal alacrity. At our coming into the world, we contract an immense debt to our country, which we can never discharge.
Hence distinctions here arise from the principle of equality, even when it seems to be removed by signal services or superior abilities.
The love of frugality limits the desire of having to the study of procuring necessaries to our family, and superfluities to our country. Riches give a power which a citizen cannot use for himself, for then he would be no longer equal. They likewise procure pleasures which he ought not to enjoy, because these would be also repugnant to the equality.