Understanding America - PART-1 of A Four Part Series

WE HAVE NEVER BEEN FREE

May 28, 2025

Introduction: The American Republic

The above photo is meant to convey that during the Republic era Historically, the common man is only recognized if he is white and wealthy or simply wealthy. These ones were those that had a voice. In this series you wills ee that nothing has really changed today, it only “appears” that it has.

Actual and lasting change can only occur when we know the nature of whatever it is we desire to change. If you are someone that “sort of” knows about your own country here in the United States, then it will be difficult for you to WISELY determine anything that is best for the people herein. I hope you never have to feel the guilt that comes with having done great harm due to great ignorance. ~ Bradley Alexander Wolf

There is no way to dispute or counter something that you do not know nor understand. This Four-Part Series is designed to put you in the know and the ready.

To form a sound judgment on something , a passing familiarity with its structure and important details is not enough. Meaningful engagement, whether in debate or in shaping our own perspectives, demands a thorough understanding of the original design, its intended purposes, its actual effects over time, and the forces that have reshaped it. The detailed exploration offered in the following four parts aims to provide just such an understanding.

The video below is a short reel found on Facebook. It is offered here only to show that personal and generalized ideas can appear to be credible and quite convincing even if they are sadly lacking solid evidence or facts or anything that substantiates his claims. What he is presenting is really nothing more than a personal opinion based on his own information confirmation biases. His full speeches rather than a short reel may reveal more. It’s always a good idea to pursue a more in depth view of a person or information before accepting it as gospel.

The man in the video is Aaron Russo, having lived from February 14, 1943 – August 24, 2007, was an American entertainment businessman, film producer, director, and political activist. He indicates that he believes that the Republic was great. That a Democracy is the worst thing to ever happen.

I urge you to watch this VERY SHORT CLIP, so that you can see yourself being moved in his direction without any actual evidence.

This is how we are slowly over time convinced of things that are absolute untruths.

This is but one of the many reasons to become educated. To stop reading and watching information that is a fraction of something, yet causing you to believe it is 100% of something. Make the time to learn and understand.

If you go through your life being consistently misled - you will continue to have a life full of conflict, and chaos without a firm direction or reason to choose one.

The United States PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

This is something many don’t even know today. For others it is fully accepted and for still yet others, it is fraught with untruths.

The concept of a republic often presents itself as a commendable model for governance. It speaks to a system of order, where elected representatives, rather than fleeting popular passions, guide the state, and where the rule of law stands as a guardian against arbitrary power. One might easily see in this an ideal, a more stable and perhaps wiser alternative to the directness of pure democracy. Yet, the path of any nation, particularly one like the United States, is seldom a straight line from abstract theory to flawless practice. The story of America, from its very beginning, has been one of lofty aspirations set against the backdrop of human complexities and unforeseen challenges. ALSO NOTE: Americans are not indivisible, not to mention there is an incredulous lack of liberty and or justice FOR ALL.

Today, fundamental questions about how best to govern and how to properly limit authority are of paramount import to most of us presently as of 2025. Concerns about the concentration of power, the integrity of democratic processes, and the strength of long-established safeguards are widely discussed. These are not new anxieties in the grand sweep of history, but they take on fresh importance in our current circumstances, prompting a deeper look at not only the system we have inherited but the one reforming in front of us.

To form a sound judgment on , a passing familiarity with its structure is not enough. Meaningful engagement, whether in debate or in shaping our own perspectives, demands a thorough understanding of the original design, its intended purposes, its actual effects over time, and the forces that have reshaped it. The detailed exploration offered in the following four parts aims to provide just such an understanding.

This report will guide the reader through this essential history:

Part 1 examines the Original American Republic as its architects conceived it and as it first took shape. What were its defining features, who did it truly serve, and what were its inherent limitations and contradictions from the outset?
Part 2 traces the significant, often turbulent, Evolution Towards a More Democratic System. It illuminates the movements and critical junctures that expanded participation and altered the relationship between the government and a much broader segment of its people.
Part 3 considers the Contemporary American Republic—the system as it functions today, with its expanded democratic character but also with its evident flaws and the complex issues that continue to test its foundations.
Part 4 offers up an Idealized System of Governance: that serves all people equitably. This conceptual system is designed to embody a government that is truly of, by, and for all its people, ensuring no single group or nationality rules over another, and where fundamental human rights are paramount.

The Original American Republic – A Deliberately Restricted System

This first part explores the foundational design of the American government as it was established in the late 18th century. The system was a product of its time, shaped by Lofty ideas, history, and the prevailing social hierarchies and prejudices of those times. You will find it was quite restrictive and not at all as liberating as some might think.

In fact, the Republic single handedly created even more inequality and division among the people, while limiting every non-property holding non-white males, and Women’s God given rights to self-agency, self preservation, life, love and the pursuit of happiness as they deemed fit.

Before I get into it - let’s look at a few very clear aspects regarding the Republic of America vs. It’s slow incorporation of Democracy and their distinct differences.
To begin, Let’s set the stage and oversimplify why we have the Republican and Democratic parties.

When talking about an "old" versus a "new" republic in the American context, we're generally looking at the difference between the government under the Articles of Confederation (the "older" form),

and the government established by the U.S. Constitution (the "new" republic that replaced it).

Old Republic- (under the Articles of Confederation, 1781-1789): This was America's first attempt at a national government after independence. It was characterized by a very weak central government and strong state powers. The federal government had little power to tax, raise an army, or regulate commerce effectively. This led to significant problems.

New Republic- (under the U.S. Constitution, established 1789): This is the system we still have today. It created a stronger federal government with three distinct branches (legislative, executive, judicial), the power to tax, raise a military, regulate interstate commerce, and create a unified national policy. While still a republic with states retaining powers, it significantly shifted more authority to the national level to create a more stable and effective union.

So, in essence: Old = Weak central government, dominant states. New = Stronger, more effective federal government balanced with state powers.

You can see a bit clearer what a Republican represents and why they have that title as well as what Democrat represents and why they hold that title.

Let’s Begin.

A. The "Restricted White Electorate" and Property Rules

What: The right to vote and often the right to hold office were predominantly limited to white males who met specific property ownership or tax-paying qualifications.
- This meant that if you didn't already own a certain amount of land, or pay a particular level of taxes, or were of any other color than white, and or you were a woman, you generally could not vote or own land regardless of your age or citizenship status.
Where: This was the common practice across the thirteen newly independent states of the United States. While the U.S. Constitution largely deferred to the states to set specific voting qualifications, this property-based restriction was a widespread feature. Some states had slightly more liberal requirements than others, but the principle was largely the same.
How:
- Each individual States constitutions and laws explicitly defined these property or tax-paying qualifications.
- This systematically and legally disenfranchised (denied the vote to):
  - All women.
  - All enslaved African Americans (who were legally considered property).
  - Most Native Americans (who were generally considered members of separate nations or outside the new political community).
  - A significant portion of adult white males who did not own enough property or pay the requisite taxes (e.g., laborers, tenant farmers, apprentices, urban poor).
- As a result, historians estimate that only about 10-16% of the total population, or perhaps 40-60% of adult white males, were eligible to vote in the early years of the republic.
Why (Founders' Rationale):
- "Stake in Society": The dominant belief was that property owners had a tangible investment in the community and its well-being. They had something to lose, making them supposedly more responsible, informed, and less likely to support radical measures (like the redistribution of wealth).
- Independence of Judgment: Property ownership, especially land, was thought to grant a man economic independence. This independence was seen as necessary for him to vote his conscience without being coerced or unduly influenced by employers, landlords, or wealthy patrons. Those without property were often viewed as dependent and thus more susceptible to manipulation.
- Virtue and Education: Property ownership was often linked with a certain level of education, leisure to study public affairs, and a perceived "civic virtue." The elite of the time generally believed these qualities were essential for making sound political decisions. Given the state of things today, This is perhaps something that does make sense. Being educated is more than simply being schooled by an institution.
Benefits (As Perceived by Supporters/Architects):
- Stability and Order: Restricting the vote to property holders was believed to promote political stability by preventing the "passions of the masses" or the "mob rule" they feared from destabilizing the new nation.
- Responsible Governance: It was thought to ensure that voters would be more dispassionate, informed, and concerned with the long-term interests of the republic (particularly the protection of property rights).
- Prevention of "Levelling Tendencies": Many founders feared that if all men could vote, those without property might elect officials who would enact laws to redistribute wealth or undermine contracts, which they saw as a threat to the social and economic order.
Drawbacks:
- Mass Exclusion and Inequality: This system fundamentally excluded the vast majority of the adult population from participating in their own governance, making the claim of a government "by the people" highly limited and questionable. It enshrined political power in the hands of a relatively small, affluent minority. (Hint: it’s still this way today).
- Reinforcement of Social Hierarchies: It legally reinforced existing social hierarchies based on wealth, race, and gender.
- Undemocratic Nature: It starkly contrasted with the more egalitarian rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, such as "all men are created equal."
- Potential for Unrest: The exclusion of large segments of the population created underlying tensions and grievances that would eventually fuel movements for democratic expansion.
- Limited Perspectives in Governance: By excluding so many, the government was less likely to understand or address the needs and concerns of the broader population.
  Share

B. The Representative Setup – Filtered Leadership

What: The system established a representative government where citizens elected officials to make decisions on their behalf, rather than a direct democracy where all citizens vote on all laws. However, who counted as "citizens" for electoral purposes was very narrowly defined, as noted above.
Where: This was the model for both the federal government (Congress, specifically the House of Representatives initially, as Senators were chosen by state legislatures) and the state governments.
How:
- Elections were held, but only the restricted electorate (propertied white males) could participate.
- The intention was that these voters would choose men of supposed superior "wisdom, patriotism, and virtue" to represent them.
- Representatives were not generally seen as mere mouthpieces for their constituents' immediate demands but as trustees expected to exercise their own judgment for the common good. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, famously argued for a system that would "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country."
Why (Founders' Rationale):
- Fear of Direct Democracy ("Mob Rule"): Many founders were deeply skeptical of pure or direct democracy, which they associated with the instability and failures of ancient Greek city-states. They feared that large groups of people could be easily swayed by demagogues or short-lived passions, leading to rash decisions and the tyranny of the majority over minority rights. I don’t need to tell you that this is happening right now in today’s times as of May 2025.
- Practicality for a Large Nation: Governing a large and geographically dispersed nation through direct popular vote on all issues was seen as impractical.
- Desire for Deliberation: Representatives, ideally being more educated and having the time to study issues, were expected to engage in reasoned deliberation and make more informed decisions than the general populace might. This of course paled due to the fact that those with boots on the ground in the REAL world living day to day often had much more informed minds and were much more adept at understanding a better way to serve the people.
- Cooling Passions: The representative structure was intended to act as a filter, cooling the "heats" and "passions" of popular sentiment.
Benefits (As Perceived by Supporters/Architects):
- Prudent and Stable Governance: The system was designed to lead to more considered, stable, and potentially wiser policy outcomes by insulating decision-makers from immediate popular pressures. Unfortunately this allowed decisions to be made overlooking key issues because they were not well informed as to why the pressures were there in the first place.
- Protection of Minority Rights (Specifically, Property Rights): By filtering public opinion, it was hoped that the rights of minorities (especially the propertied minority) would be better protected against impulsive majority actions.
- Focus on the "Common Good": Representatives, using their independent judgment, were ideally positioned to pursue the long-term "common good" rather than narrow, factional interests or fleeting popular demands.
Drawbacks:
- Elite Rule and Disconnection: The system tended to concentrate power in the hands of an educated and wealthy elite, who might be disconnected from or unsympathetic to the concerns of ordinary people.
- Limited Accountability to the Broader Populace: Since most people couldn't vote, representatives were primarily accountable to a small, privileged segment of society.
- Reinforcement of Exclusivity: The very idea of "filtering" implied that the views of the common (excluded) people were somehow less valid or dangerous.
- Slow to Respond to Popular Needs: While designed for stability, this filtering could also make the government slow to recognize and respond to legitimate grievances or pressing social needs among the unrepresented majority.
  Share

C. The Electoral College – Presidential Selection

NOTE: You will find that electoral votes which are used today - sadly continues ti keep the power of the people from the people while appearing as though the people have a say.

Your Governing authorities do not believe and never believed that you, a contributing member of society, had nor have the intelligence and emotional maturity to be trusted with such a thing as putting someone in office. This is why you find yourself always voting for the lessor of the evils so to speak and never the right person for the job. This is easily kept in check by the authorities due to the exorbitant costs of running for office which keeps it out of the hands of “common folk” which you will see as we move forward with the facts and history.

While there is truth that many common persons are uneducated as to how governmental matters work as well as inside information pertaining to officials and those looking to be elected or to remain in office and are in fact often known to the common persons - the fact remains that a system could have been put into place to bring these details to the public. Instead a system so complex and convoluted that almost no one can follow or figure it out for each candidate, along with the propaganda and marketing disinformation often paraded about in media.

You might want to ask yourself if you would truly be qualified to elect anyone based on objective information or if you are more likely to elect someone based on your own personal wants and needs, allowing your own desires to become more important than the overall mass of people. I personally think that there is a middle ground that can be created between the people and the states to make voting much more comprehensive. I have never been a fan of electoral votes overriding the popular vote. You can see where electoral votes got us today with our current Commander in Chief.

What: The Electoral College was the mechanism established by the Constitution for indirectly electing the President and Vice President of the United States. Instead of a national popular vote, citizens (the limited electorate) in each state would vote for a slate of "electors" who would then cast the actual votes for president.
Where: This was a national system, outlined in Article II of the Constitution, dictating how the chief executive of the federal government would be chosen.
How:
- Each state was allocated a number of electors equal to its total number of Senators (always two) plus its number of Representatives in the House (based on population).
- The manner of choosing these electors was left to each state legislature. In the early years, some state legislatures appointed electors directly, while others allowed for popular election of electors (again, by the restricted electorate).
- The original intent was that electors would be distinguished, knowledgeable individuals who would exercise their own independent judgment to select the most qualified person for the presidency, acting as a deliberative body. They were not initially expected to be mere rubber stamps for a particular candidate.
- Electors would meet in their respective states to cast their votes. If no candidate received an absolute majority of electoral votes, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives.
Why (Founders' Rationale):
- Compromise: It was a compromise between electing the president by popular vote (which many feared) and electing the president by a vote in Congress (which some worried would make the executive too subservient to the legislature).
- Fear of an Uninformed Populace/Demagoguery: In an era of limited communication and literacy, founders worried that average voters would lack sufficient information about candidates from other states and might be easily swayed by charismatic but unsuitable individuals (demagogues) or vote only for local "favorite sons." (Sadly, this is what has happened today in 2025)
- Federalism and State Role: It gave the states a distinct and significant role in selecting the president, balancing the power of the federal government and reflecting the federal nature of the new union.
- Buffer Against Popular Will: Like the representative system generally, the Electoral College was intended as a buffer between the population and the selection of a powerful leader, hoping to ensure a choice based on merit and national interest rather than popular whim.
- Preventing "Cabal, Intrigue, and Corruption": Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 68 that a dispersed body of electors, meeting temporarily in their states, would be less susceptible to foreign influence, bribery, or secretive deal-making ("cabal") than a pre-existing national body or a direct popular election process.
Benefits (As Perceived by Supporters/Architects):
- Selection of a "Qualified" Leader: The ideal was that wise electors would choose a president of national stature and ability, insulated from popular passions or parochial interests.
- Protection for States' Interests: It ensured that presidential candidates would need broad support across different states, not just in a few populous regions.
- Promoting National Unity (in theory): By requiring candidates to build coalitions across states, it was hoped to foster a more national outlook.
Drawbacks:
- Undemocratic Nature: It deliberately distanced the election of the president from direct popular control. Even the limited popular vote that occurred was for electors, not directly for the president.
- Failure of the "Wise Elector" Ideal: The idea of electors as independent deliberators quickly faded. Electors soon became pledged to specific candidates, and the system became more partisan (those in favor of a particular cause) rather than a forum for reasoned deliberation.
- Potential for Popular Vote Loser to Win: The winner-take-all system for awarding electors in most states (though not constitutionally mandated) means a candidate can win the presidency without winning the national popular vote, which many see as fundamentally unfair and undemocratic. This has occurred multiple times in U.S. history.
  Disproportionate Power to Smaller States: While giving smaller states a voice, the "two Senators" bonus in electoral vote allocation means individual votes in smaller states can carry more weight than individual votes in larger states.
- Focus on Swing States: Candidates tend to concentrate their campaign efforts on a few "swing states," potentially ignoring the concerns of voters in reliably "red" or "blue" states.

The original American Republic, while revolutionary for its time in rejecting monarchy and establishing a government based on a written constitution, was far from an ideal system, particularly when viewed through the lens of modern democratic and human rights standards.

Pervasive Exclusivity: Its most glaring flaw was its profound and deliberate exclusion of the vast majority of its population—women, enslaved people, Native Americans, and non-propertied white men—from the most basic rights of political participation.
Foundation of Inequality: The system was built upon and reinforced deep-seated social and economic inequalities. It was designed to protect the interests of a propertied elite.
Contradiction with Stated Ideals: The existence of slavery and the widespread denial of rights stood in stark contradiction to the nation's proclaimed ideals of liberty and equality.
Limited Conception of Rights: While the Bill of Rights offered crucial protections, these were not universally applied, and the understanding of "human rights" was narrow compared to contemporary standards.
Potential for Entrenched Elite Power: The structures in place made it easier for a particular class to maintain control and harder for the concerns of the excluded majority to gain political traction.

Slow to Adapt or Correct Injustice: While designed for stability, this also meant the system was inherently slow to address its own internal contradictions and injustices, requiring immense struggle and even war to bring about fundamental changes.

In essence, the original American Republic was a system conceived by a particular group of men with specific fears and goals. They aimed for stability and the protection of certain liberties for a select few, but in doing so, they created a framework that was, by its very design, exclusionary and unequal for the majority. This inherent non-ideal nature would become the primary catalyst for centuries of struggle towards a more inclusive and democratic society.

If you enjoyed PART-1, I hope you will join us for the rest of this 4 part series by subscribing 100% Free on all upcoming editions, if you are not already a member so that each part is delivered conveniently to your own inbox.

What you can expect in the upcoming- Part 2 of our 4 part series:

In part-2 of the series, we discuss the period circumstances, including the details of the what, when, why and how, our system shifted to more of a Democracy though not entirely a Democracy.

The original American Republic, with its deliberately restricted franchise and filtered leadership, was not a static entity. The very ideals it proclaimed, however narrowly applied initially, coupled with the experiences of those excluded, set the stage for a long and often arduous evolution towards a more democratic system. This part of our series will show the progression and steps taken towards a more democratic state consisting of a series of movements, crises, and legislative changes spanning over a century and a half.

A Logical Lenz

Discussion about this post