member of the public could bendependent upon any other andnstill be reckoned a member ofnthe public; communal in thatnevery man gave himself totallynto the good of the public as anwhole. If public virtue declined,nthe republic declined, and if itndeclined too far, the republicndied.nAmericans were divided on thenquestion of exactly how public virtuencould be preserved and institutionalized,nbut Southern republicans in particularntended to insist on its concretensocial and economic roots rather than,nas New England Puritan republicansndid, on its purely moral and religiousnsupports. In the “agrarian republicanism”nof the South, writes ProfessornMcDonald, “virtue, independence,nliberty, and the ownership of unencumberednreal property were inextricablynbound together. . . ownership ofnland begat independence, independencenbegat virtue, and virtue begatnrepublican liberty.”nThere was, in short, what historiannJ.G.A. Pocock calls a “sociology ofnliberty”: liberty was not merely somethingnthat could flourish in a vacuumnbecause everyone wanted it; it blossomednonly when and if the citizensnwere socially independent — if theynowned their own property, ruled theirnown families, ran their own farms andnbusinesses, bore their own arms in theirnown defense, took responsibility forntheir own failures and mistakes, andnearned and enjoyed their own rewards,nthen and only then could men governntheir own selves, as individuals or as anpeople, as a republic.nThe fierce attachment to the ideal ofnindependence in classical republicannthought is the reason republicansndidn’t (and don’t) much like what isntoday called “Big Government” or itsnbrother, “Big Business.” Bignessnmeans dependency. In the 18th century,nbigness meant the swollen dynasticnstates of Europe, with their courtiersnand pensioners begging their livingsnfrom the monarchs and their mistresses.nIt meant entrenched aristocracies,nestablished churches, protected guilds,nprivileged monopolies, entailed estates,nabsentee landlords, enclosed lands thatnonce belonged to independent yeomen,nand crazy, crooked, dirty citiesnwhere dispossessed yeomen herded togethernto form mobs that ran amoknwhenever their masters failed to feednthem on time.nIt was not Europe’s lack of “opportunity”nand social mobility or the merenfact of inequality that disgusted mostnrepublicans so much as it was thenswallowing of independent men andninstitutions by the dynastic leviathansnof the age. There couldn’t be a republicnin 18th-century Europe because itsnrulers as well as its ruled were notnindependent and had long since beennsmothered by the corruption, sycophancy,nand slavery that dependencenbreeds.nIt can be argued (and it may well bentrue) that at least some of the Kramersnwere not enchanted by the prospect ofnold-fashioned republican virtue and itsnrather muscular vision of social independence,nthat Hamilton and Madisonnin particular entertained visions of anmore grandiose state that would elevatenthe nation in wealth and power,nand that they essentially redefined republicanismnso as to accommodatentheir ideas and ambitions.nIndeed, it was so argued by thenanti-Federalists and their successors,nand for the first seventy years of thenyoung Republic’s life, the scale andnpurposes of the national governmentnwere the principal issues of politicalndebate in the controversies over thenTariff^, the National Bank, “internalnimprovements,” and slavery. The debatencame to an end in the Civil War,nwhen the advocates of a national statendedicated to filling the pockets of thencitizens triumphed in the tread of thenlegions of the gentle Abraham.nBe that as it may, by the end of then19th century, the American Republicnremained intact, as did the social independencenand public virtue on which itnrested. Prior to World War I, writesnRobert Nisbet, the main contact mostnAmericans had with the federal governmentnwas at the post office, and untilnthe bonds of industrial and technologicalnconglomeration were forged,nAmericans — or at least the middle-classncore of American civilization —nretained the social, economic, cultural,nand political independence that made anrepublic possible.nToday this is not the case. Twentiethcenturyntechnology and organization —nYOUR RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSEnThem INDEPENDENTnINSTITUTEn1 he power of firearms has createdncontroversy throughout western civilizationnover the citizen’s right to ownnweapons. That Every Man Be Armednis the most complete book on the philosophy,nhistory, and legal precedentnthat the right to possess arms is asnfundamental as is freedom of speech.n”The need for careful, impartial informationnmakes Stephen Halbrook’s book especiallynwelcome…. Comprehensive and well-written.”n—-GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEWn”That Every Man Be Armed is the firstnscholarly treatise that is both comprehensivenand in-depth.”n—JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW ANDnCRIMINOLOGYn”The encyclopedic book on the SecondnAmendment, it is must reading for all thoseninterested in the right to possess firearms.”n—DON KATES, JR., Esq.nAuthor, Restricting FirearmsnIndex • 288 pages, Paperback, Item #1160n$14.95 plus postage ($2.00 per book; C A residents add Sales Tax)nORDER TOLL FREE 1-800-927-8733nAvailable at better bookstores or order by Credit card orders only. 24 hours a day.nmail and receive the complete catalog: ! ^—nThe Independent Institute, Dept. AAO, 134 Ninety-Eighth Avenue, Oakland, CA 94603nnnAUGUST 1991/9n