Abstract

Although the US Constitution introduced a republican state system, there is no specific definition of the republic there. The US Constitution is deliberately short document. Its authors wanted to create a charter that would survive throughout times and conditions. However, given the briefness of the Constitution, they felt the need to explain and defend the ideas that had been advocated in it. Thus, The Federalist still serves as the primary source of interpretation of the US Constitution. It is therefore my intention to examine the meaning of republicanism in The Federalist. Although I speak of the republican teaching of The Federalist, there is, in fact, an ambiguity in the use of the word in those essays. This ambiguity reflects an ambiguity in the general use of the word in the political theory and discourse of the 18th century. However, more fundamental problem seems to be the so-called Madison’s „two definitions“ of republic from Federalist No. 37 and No. 39. Both of these essays were written by James Madison. I agree that there is a fundamental difference between these two definitions. I do not, however, believe that it reflects inconsistency in Madison’s thinking. I will argue that these „two definitions“ reflect Madison’s strategy to introduce a new definition of the republic. Thus, in The Federalist, there are two uses of the word republic: 1) its putative meaning in America, the meaning which was embodied in most of the state constitutions and which is the Anti-Federalist understanding of republicanism; and 2) The Federalist’s understanding of what constitutes republicanism. This second use is a new republicanism and represents a significant break on certain crucial points from the then dominant American understanding.