Has the republic failed the People, or have the People failed the republic? Part II

Only when the People are committed to virtue and liberty, can the republic be kept.

Early in the life of the colonies, immigrants valued a way of life idealized and lived for generations that started in Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, other European countries. Eventually, settling on the North American continent, the immigrants were introduced to spirited forms of common law, at its core hints of British common law, that was becoming the heart of American freedom, something they all sought but could not obtain in their home country.

American freedom, coupled with British common law, protected people from a ruler who would first seek coerced confessions before detaining and penalizing them without a trial, or a trial run by selected judges who were favored by the monarch, or head of state. In America, the decision of guilt or innocence of the accused was determined by a jury of peers from the local area, because they knew the character and circumstances involved and would fairly decide a case, thereby upholding virtue and order. What is more, judges and juries in early colonial America did not make law. They sought only to fairly apply the mores represented in customs and established law, most of which were heavily influenced by religious canon law.

Law in America was characterized by ruralism, and equality that was found in nature and not man. In time, American democracy, would rise from direct rule by the People – a governing based on reason, not emotion, but from the struggle against natural obstacles, a process asserting a resolve to cherish liberty and virtue. Americans relied on personal interest to accomplish their purposes. It gave them the strength and good judgment that would be instilled down to their descendants, the act of being a moral citizen.