Republic and Empire: Why the Two Are Not Mutually Exclusive

To quote an author on Associated Content, "The primary goal of our erstwhile republic turned empire is to control a larger share than anyone else of the remaining oil wealth available to the nations." The implication clearly being that republic was a term that is mentioned only in name - largely abandoned once America began its imperialistic ventures, as they claim. This article is not to discuss the imperialism or lackthereof of the United States but rather a historical and linguistic explanation as to how the two terms are not mutually exclusive towards one another.

The above quote is not the first or only example of persons mistakenly believing that once a republic begins to expand beyond its original borders, taking on the laurel of empire, it ceases to be that form of government - and the only logic that seems to trace this idea is the mirror of the Roman Empire. In that, it is common knowledge that the Roman Republic was all but washed away by 29 B.C. and was replaced by the Empire, as it is called in modern terminology, until its splitting by Constantine the "Great" (a title much worthy of dispute) and the West's eventual collapse in the 5th century. In a previous article, the author detailed the civic differences between empire and republic while in another the author detailed the office of emperor, or princeps - therefore that shall not be labored in explanation here.

However still on Associated Content itself, Content Producer Grady Hawks says, "Its time we finally surrendered to political reality. This great nation is no longer a republic, it's an empire." To further justify this position, Grady goes into detail about the "bread and circus", which referred originally to the bread tossed out by the Master of the Games at a chariot race or other show at the Circus Maximus, comparing the gladiatorial combat of then to the Jerry Springer Show of now (without considering that the Jerry Springer show has never shown men bouncing on teeter-totters to escape emaciated beasts clawing at them every time they descend). Expanding on this point yet more, Grady explains America's foreign sovereign territory, such as Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, making the case that this solidly proves that the United States is an American Empire.

Assuming this to be the case, why, one must inquire, is the natural conclusion that the republic has ceased to exist once the empire has begun? Once more it is traced back to Rome and the assumption that when historians assigned the name "empire" to the time between 29 B.C. and 476 A.D. that the functionality of a republic simply ceased. Ironically the Romans themselves disagreed with this point - not only did they never call themselves "empire", the functionality of a republic did not cease to exist in 29 B.C. In fact the entire apparatus was left intact indefinitely, as Augustus understood the principle need for the Senate's existence to legitimize his authority.

A new system of government was tacked onto republic, known as the Principate, acknowledging the Princeps, or "first man" of Rome. With the exception of powers added into a single office, the Senate itself continued to exist with all of its former legislative and judicial power - the flags still said Senatus Populesque Romanum (S.P.Q.R.), or the Senate and People of Rome, the Consuls were still elected, everything ran as normal except for an extra layer of government. By all accounts, everything ran as per normal.

But most telling was the fact that in the legal term of empire, Rome was an "empire" before it ever adopted its republic. Indeed, its republic was built to shape itself around its empire; the Roman kingdom had expanded to take over the southern Greek city-states of Italy, primarily for a need or want of food and bodies to populate the blossoming kingdom. Only after Tarquinius was ousted by Marcus Junius Brutus (the ancestor of the famous "tyrant killer" now immortalized as "Et tu Brute?") did the mold of republic begin to set in around Rome, a form of government intended to supplement the vast amount of territory (at the time) conquered by the city of Rome.

This further expanded, as the most brazen display of imperial conquest in Roman history in the Gallic Wars, when Gallic/Celtic senators were invited to staff the Senate so that the republic could recognize the newly conquered territories.

The problem with the belief that to become an empire is to cast off the mantle of republic is that "empire" simply isn't a system of government, but rather a description of territorial borders. Because an empire simply describes the expansionist nature of a sovereignty - stating simply that it controls a land outside of its base territory - it cannot, logically, have any impact on the system of government.

While one can express freely their distaste for American policy, it is absurd to suggest that an expansionist nature cannot be ruled by a representative republic - if one truly has fears that America adopts the Roman system at the fall of the republic (which the Romans never acknowledged fell) one needs to point to the Principate, not the empire, which existed and was ruled by a republic for hundreds of years.