15 Mar 2026 - 12:37 CST

There is a particular kind of statesman the modern mind forgets to look for: the man shaped less by slogans than by neighbors - by the sickbed, the courtroom, the town meeting, the unglamorous burden of keeping a community from cracking under strain.

Matthew Thornton was that kind of man: a physician and public official in New Hampshire, drawn into revolutionary governance not as a theatrical tribune but as a practical steward of order and legitimacy - someone whose authority, like a doctor’s, is only credible when it can be explained, reviewed, and trusted by the people who must live under it.

That makes him unusually useful in this season, because since January 1 the American argument has not been merely about what the government is doing, but about whether the public can still see and test the procedures that justify it.

On the domestic front, Minnesota remains the clearest flare because the record is so public: a U.S. citizen, Alex Pretti, killed during a federal immigration operation in Minneapolis, followed by civic disruption and competing assertions about what happened and who controlled the scene. The question beneath the event is older than the event itself: when force touches a citizen under disputed facts, does the system respond by widening visibility - or by narrowing it?

Thornton’s instinct, trained by medicine and civic office, would not be to grade the republic by its temperature. He would grade it by its charting.

A healthy system does not merely calm the crowd. It preserves evidence, clarifies jurisdiction, and leaves behind rules that remain enforceable when attention drifts. In a small town, you cannot govern by vibes for long. You must govern by practices that survive gossip, grief, and the next emergency.

That same “small-republic” realism is the right corrective to the wider national posture taking shape this year: a style of governance that often treats friction - courts, states, procedural limits, public skepticism - as a nuisance rather than a feature. Thornton would not romanticize disorder; he was a man of law and public responsibility. But he would be alarmed by any habit - left or right - of treating constraint as sabotage.

And his lens does not stop at home, because the founding generation never truly separated domestic stability from foreign consequence.

The world since January 1 has continued to grind on its main gears: war and deterrence in Europe; mass violence and negotiation in the Middle East; alliance testing in the Indo-Pacific; and the constant translation of strategy into prices - energy, shipping risk, credit, inflation expectations. Reporting this month has continued to track Gaza ceasefire/hostage negotiations as a live diplomatic fault line, with regional stakes and domestic political reverberations. Reporting has also tracked Europe’s Ukraine planning as something moving from abstract support into sharper questions about commitments, deployments, and credibility. And energy markets remain a quiet sovereign in the background, with OPEC+ policy and expectations functioning like a pressure system that touches everything from household costs to strategic posture.

Thornton would recognize the pattern immediately: foreign policy is not an accessory; it is the weather. And when leaders use leverage casually - tariffs as punctuation, alliances as improv, threats as domestic theater - they do not merely “play hardball.” They reprice trust. The founders learned, with painful clarity, that reliability is not sentiment. It is a material.

Yet Thornton’s deepest relevance is not that he would have a “take” on each headline. It is that he would insist on a discipline most citizens are tempted to abandon precisely when events feel largest:

Do not let magnitude excuse procedural decay.

A republic does not fail only through dramatic tyranny. It fails through tolerable shortcuts that become normal - through the quiet acceptance that some agencies may certify themselves, some actions need not be fully explained, some disputes need not be independently examined, and some people deserve less due process because the moment is urgent.

A physician knows that urgency is when mistakes become permanent.

So if Thornton were advising us - faithfully, in the spirit of these entries - he would likely offer counsel that sounds almost offensively plain:

• Keep the record. Not “narratives” - records.

• Demand jurisdictions be clear when force is used and facts are disputed.

• Treat courts and procedure not as obstacles, but as the instruments that keep legitimacy from rotting.

• In foreign affairs, prize credibility over theatrics; allies can endure disagreement more easily than unpredictability.

• In economics, remember that confidence is not propaganda - it is the earned belief that tomorrow will be governed by rules rather than impulse.

Thornton’s generation did not win independence by being the loudest men in the room. They won it by building systems that could coordinate, document, supply, persuade, and endure.

And that is the modern application that matters most:

If we want to preserve the republic, we must stop treating restraint as weakness and procedure as inconvenience. A community doctor learns early that you cannot bully reality into compliance. You must observe, document, correct, and follow through.

A republic is the same kind of patient.

Not cured by calmer rhetoric.

Not healed by a change of spokesman.

Restored - slowly, stubbornly - by institutions that can still say show me, and citizens disciplined enough to keep asking until the answer is on the record.

12 Mar 2026 - 9:27 CST

There are arguments that sound abstract until you notice what they are really doing: deciding, in advance, who counts as fully human in the eyes of the law when pressure rises.

The dispute over “foreign individuals” in the United States has taken on that character. One side insists, with a kind of civic finality, that the Constitution applies to all people within our borders - citizen, visitor, lawful resident, undocumented - full stop. The other side does not always deny the text so much as raise a darker question: Should it? And if not, where does one begin the subtraction?

The temptation in this debate is to treat it as philosophy.

It is not.

It is procedure - already operational, already being tested in memos, courtrooms, and enforcement tactics - and therefore it is moral.

The American Constitution does not speak in one word. It speaks in several, and the difference matters. Sometimes it says citizen. Sometimes it says the people. Often it says person. The legal tradition that grew out of that language has been stubborn on one point: when the government acts against someone within the United States, the government’s obligations do not vanish simply because the target lacks citizenship papers. The Court long ago described the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections as applying to “all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,” without regard to nationality.

But the same system has also developed a second habit - equally consequential - of treating the border and entry process as a special zone where the government’s power expands and judicial review can narrow. Modern disputes over expedited removal and curtailed review turn on that distinction, and in recent years the Supreme Court has upheld significant limits on what some recent entrants may demand by way of judicial hearing.

This is where the “resident versus visitor” intuition raised becomes not only sensible, but central. American law has tended to draw a practical line between the person who has formed substantial ties within the country and the person treated as still at the threshold. That line is not always clean, and it is often contested, but it exists - and it is one reason two people standing on the same soil can experience very different levels of protection depending on posture, timing, and status.

The other question - the one about whether a foreigner’s “rights granted by their own country” are superseded here - misleads in a quieter way. A traveler does not import another sovereign’s rules as a shield against American law. What they do carry with them is something more limited but very real: treaty-based protections and consular access. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, U.S. authorities have obligations to inform detained foreign nationals of consular notification and access - obligations the State Department trains agencies to follow and documents repeatedly. Yet whether and how those treaty obligations become enforceable remedies in U.S. courts has been sharply litigated over the years, and the answer has not been a simple “treaty equals individual lawsuit.”

So the constitutional question is not, in practice, “Does the foreigner keep their home-country rights?” It is: What does the American government owe any person before it may enter a home, seize a body, detain, remove, or use force? That is where the republic reveals itself.

And that is why the newest controversy matters. Reporting has described an internal ICE position asserting authority to enter homes without a judge-signed warrant, relying instead on administrative paperwork generated within the executive branch. A Senate oversight letter made the same issue concrete - describing a memorandum authorizing forced home entry absent judicial warrant, consent, or emergency, and demanding answers.

This is not a technical quarrel. It is a constitutional diagnostic.

A judge’s warrant is not a form; it is a restraint. It is the state admitting that its own confidence is not enough - submitting its claim to a neutral authority before crossing the threshold of the home. When an executive branch grows comfortable treating its own documents as the functional equivalent of judicial permission, it begins to certify itself. That is not merely risky. It is republican corrosion.

Here is where the Founding generation speaks with unusual clarity - not because they were united on immigration, but because they were obsessed with the same structural danger: “necessity” becoming the solvent that dissolves limits.

The closest Founding-era analogue to our current argument was the 1798 crisis of the Alien and Sedition Acts, when fear of foreign influence and internal dissent drove Congress toward extraordinary powers over “aliens.” One of those laws - the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 - still remains on the books. And it has returned to modern litigation and headlines: Reuters reported this week on a federal appeals court grappling with arguments over using that wartime authority to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, raising precisely the question of how much due process and court review can be displaced by executive proclamation.

Josiah Bartlett, the physician-statesman, would recognize the pattern instantly: a government under stress reaching for a stronger dose, then insisting the patient will be fine because the intention is protective.

But the more pointed Founding voice on this particular question is Thomas Jefferson - the signer who warned that the “friendless alien” would be the first object of overreach, precisely because the public would tolerate it more easily. That warning was not sentimental. It was structural. It meant: watch what a government permits itself to do to the least protected, because those practices become the template for what it will later do to everyone.

That is the uncomfortable hinge between your two “sides.”

The question is not whether the Constitution is “too generous” to foreigners. The question is whether we want to teach the government - through exceptions, shortcuts, and administrative self-certification - that limits are optional whenever the target is unpopular, transient, or politically convenient.

A republic can survive disagreement about immigration policy. It cannot survive the gradual redefinition of warrants, hearings, and judicial restraint as mere obstacles - especially in the home, and especially when the government begins to argue that internal paperwork is the moral equivalent of external oversight.

So, if one were to write the missive honestly, it would not end by declaring a side victorious. It would end by marking the only question that matters in a constitutional season like this:

Are we building enforcement that remains examinable - by courts, by records, by independent review - or are we building enforcement that becomes self-authorizing, and therefore increasingly immune to correction?

The Founders did not design our system to make power feel righteous. They designed it to make power prove itself.

And when the government’s proof becomes indistinguishable from its own paperwork, it is time - calmly, relentlessly - to insist on the old disciplines again: judicial warrants that mean what they say, procedures that can be audited, records that can be examined, and rights that do not depend on whether the person affected is easy to defend.

That is not indulgence toward foreigners.

It is self-respect for a constitutional people.

17 Feb 2026 - 21:49 CST

William Whipple’s surviving record does not read like a man who trusted atmosphere.

He was formed, first, by commerce and the sea: a Portsmouth merchant who learned that the republic’s “domestic” life is never domestic for long, because credit, shipping, allies, adversaries, and the price of risk all cross borders without asking permission. He was formed, second, by committees and campaigns: a Continental Congressman and militia commander who learned that legitimacy is not a mood but a chain of custody - of orders, jurisdictions, and written authority that can be shown, challenged, and obeyed. The Portsmouth Athenaeum’s finding aid for the Langdon-Whipple-Elwyn papers captures that reality bluntly: Whipple’s materials include correspondence, congressional committee papers, military papers, and financial memoranda - the paperwork of a man who understood that a republic runs on records, and that power without paper becomes power without restraint.

That habit makes him a useful lens for this year’s opening weeks, because what has distinguished the public climate since January 1 is not simply conflict, but the pace at which posture has changed - and the widening gap between how power speaks and how power is made answerable.

On the home front, the Minnesota flashpoint has continued to evolve in exactly the way a Whipple would recognize from wartime governance: escalation, public scrutiny, institutional friction, and then a visible effort to reframe command. Reuters has reported a “reset” in which Tom Homan was placed in charge of the Minneapolis operation, with Border Patrol “commander-at-large” Gregory Bovino removed from that role and reassigned, while operational guidance shifted toward de-escalation cues - instructions not to engage “agitators,” fewer confrontational optics, tighter control of encounters. If one reads this as mere theater, one misses the more important signal: governments do not shuffle command and rewrite field temperament unless they believe legitimacy is becoming a cost center.

But Whipple would not mistake a change of command for a change of condition.

He negotiated and administered under pressure; he understood that a system can lower its voice while keeping the same discretionary powers intact. In war, you can change the watchwords and still keep the same latitude for force. The question that matters is not whether Washington sounds calmer, or whether Minneapolis has fewer agents on camera. The question is whether the republic is insisting on what Whipple’s generation insisted on whenever force touched the citizen: clear authority, visible oversight, and procedures strong enough to survive the next emergency.

That same demand for examinable authority is now colliding with courts in ways the founders would recognize as the constitutional immune system doing its job. Reuters has also reported that a federal judge ordered the acting ICE director to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt in litigation connected to detention-related disputes - an unusually direct insistence that executive power show its work rather than merely assert it. In Whipple’s world, that is not a partisan victory. It is the mechanism: a republic forcing an answer, on the record, when an agency grows too comfortable with its own discretion.

Yet Whipple’s lens widens beyond Minneapolis almost immediately, because he belonged to a generation that learned - in blood - that foreign relations are not an accessory. They are the environment in which domestic choices ripen into consequences.

Here, too, the opening weeks have been defined by leverage talk, alliance management, and the blunt use of economic instruments as signals. Reuters has reported on U.S. rhetoric and policy proposals involving tariffs aimed at Denmark, framed in connection with renewed arguments about Greenland. Whatever one’s view of the merits, the Whipple lesson is the same: when you use trade tools as geopolitical punctuation, you do not merely pressure a counterpart; you teach every ally to re-price trust. In the eighteenth century, Whipple’s America lived on credit and coalition; it could not afford to treat allies as incidental. Modern America is larger, but the logic of alliance is unchanged: reliability is a form of power, and it is expensive to rebuild once discounted.

The Pacific carries the same tension, expressed with different vocabulary. Reuters has reported on sharpening U.S.-China-Taiwan signaling, with Beijing’s posture toward Taiwan treated not as a local quarrel but as a systemic security risk that pulls in American commitments and regional calculations. Whipple would have recognized the underlying pattern immediately, because he saw it in the Revolution’s own diplomacy: small places become large tests when they sit at the hinge of credibility. The dispute is never only about the island, or the map. It is about whether commitments mean what they say when pressure rises.

So if Whipple were writing in the voice of these entries - not as a ventriloquist for modern policy preferences, but as a man trained by logistics, oaths, and the moral burden of command - his insight would likely be unromantic.

He would say: stop grading the republic by its tone.

A softer posture in Minnesota may be prudence or merely tactics. A courtroom demand for an ICE director’s appearance may be correction or merely the first round of delay. A tariff threat aimed at an ally may be negotiation or may be the beginning of a habit in which economic force replaces diplomatic care. A hard line in the Pacific may be deterrence or may become, if mishandled, the kind of irrevocable signaling that leaves no exit except escalation. In each case, the only honest question is the Whipple question: what is written, who can review it, and what happens when the system is told “no”?

Because Whipple lived through the moment every republic eventually meets: the moment when necessity becomes a solvent, and men begin to treat procedure as weakness.

His answer was not gentleness. It was discipline. Keep records. Clarify authority. Put command under scrutiny. Make the use of force legible. Make foreign commitments coherent enough that allies can plan without guessing what your next impulse will be. In other words: do not ask citizens to trust moods. Ask institutions to submit to limits.

In a year already defined by recalibration - by personnel moves, posture shifts, leverage threats, and courts forcing visibility - the danger is not only what happens in any single incident. The danger is the habit we train: whether Americans learn to accept administrative discretion as a substitute for judicial permission at home, and whether America’s partners learn to treat American assurances as provisional abroad.

Whipple would have called that a strategic and constitutional self-injury.

Not because conflict is avoidable. He was no stranger to conflict. But because a republic that cannot hold itself to procedure under stress will eventually discover that stress is permanent - and that the only thing it has truly normalized is power acting first and justifying later.

He would not ask us to panic. He would ask us to document.

And then he would ask the question his era learned to treat as sacred: when the pressure rises again - as it will - will the limits still be there, in writing, enforceable, and obeyed?

14 Feb 2026 — 19:10 CST

A republic’s most revealing moments are rarely the ones where power is loud. They are the moments when power changes its voice.

Since the year began, the Minnesota immigration operation has moved through a familiar American sequence: escalation, injury, scrutiny, legal friction, and then - suddenly - tone management. Two deadly encounters involving U.S. citizens in Minneapolis became a national flashpoint, and reporting on the federal posture that followed has been less about a single raid than about a system deciding, in public, how answerable it intends to be.

The new element; the one that makes this week feel different from last - is not that officials now speak more carefully. It is that the administration has begun to rearrange personnel and reframe tactics in ways that look, from the outside, like a partial retreat. Reuters reported that Tom Homan was put in charge of the Minneapolis operation, replacing Border Patrol “commander-at-large” Gregory Bovino amid a broader “reset” as political pressure mounted. Reporting also described new operational guidance for ICE officers in Minnesota, less confrontation-forward, more controlled, directing them not to interact with “agitators,” a small detail that nonetheless reveals the shift: when a posture is being reconsidered, the first sign is often not policy, but instructions about temperament.

Bovino’s removal from the Minnesota spotlight and reassignment back toward his prior post has been widely reported, framed as consequence and damage control after public backlash and escalating scrutiny. Even the way the story is told - “demoted,” “stood down,” “reassigned” - is part of the point. A government that believes it is losing legitimacy rarely says so directly. It changes faces, lowers the volume, and hopes the record becomes harder to keep.

But the founding generation did not measure safety by volume. They measured it by structure.

That is why the most constitutionally significant developments since January 1 have not been rhetorical at all. They have been procedural and judicial. A federal judge in Minnesota ordered the acting ICE director to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt in connection with detention-related litigation; an unusually sharp instance of the judiciary insisting on visibility when executive power grows confident. Whether one cheers or resents that posture, it is the mechanism the founders built: not faith in good men, but friction among institutions.

And behind Minnesota sits a broader national argument about enforcement methods - especially what counts as lawful authority at the threshold of the home. The Associated Press has reported on internal guidance and disputes involving administrative warrants and enforcement authority, part of a larger debate about whether executive-branch paperwork is being treated, in practice, like judicial permission. The question is older than any administration: when the state moves quickly, does it still accept the burden of external oversight, or does it begin to certify itself?

Here is where Josiah Bartlett is unexpectedly useful as a lens.

Bartlett was a physician before he was a governor and a signer; trained to treat fear as data but not as doctrine, and trained to distrust the human tendency to confuse urgency with certainty. His public life ran through the disciplines of triage: stabilize first, then diagnose; act decisively, but keep notes; do not call a fever cured because the patient sweats less.

That is the danger of this moment’s apparent turn.

A softened tone from Washington may be real. A personnel shuffle may even be corrective. But neither is proof that the underlying system has become more answerable. Bartlett would have recognized the category mistake immediately: relief is a symptom; accountability is a test result.

If we want to know whether the republic is correcting itself or merely recalibrating, the measurement is unromantic.

Do investigations proceed with preserved evidence and clear jurisdiction when federal force kills a citizen? Do courts get compliance without delay, deflection, or procedural gamesmanship? Do enforcement authorities clarify - publicly and in binding form - what standards govern entry, detention, and use of force? Do “temporary” operational innovations remain temporary when public attention drifts?

The founders did not require cynicism. They required records.

Bartlett’s contribution to this season of strain is not a partisan conclusion. It is a clinical habit: do not confuse a change in affect with a change in condition. If the republic is becoming healthier, it will show up where health always shows up: in transparent fact-finding, in enforceable limits, in institutions that can still say no.

A government that learns to speak more gently may be learning restraint. Or it may simply be learning public relations. Bartlett would not guess which. He would watch the chart.

Because in a republic, the real question is never whether power can pivot. Power can always pivot. The real question is whether power, when it pivots, leaves behind enforceable precedent - or only a quieter room that will heat again the moment the pressure returns.

And the only honest way to answer that is the old way: keep the record, insist on procedure, and refuse to call the patient cured until the results are in.

28 Jan 2026 - 14:23 CST 

There are moments in public life when the most important change is not a policy, but a temperature.

Since the year opened, the country’s civic fever has not been confined to one city or one controversy. It has moved the way inflammation moves: pressure building beneath the surface, then a sudden spike: an operation, an arrest, a contested death, a court order, a protest line, a new memo, a new reassignment; followed by the brief, uneasy lull that comes when everyone realizes the body cannot keep surging forever.

Minnesota has become one of the places where that fever is easiest to read because the record has been so public and so quickly evolving. Reporting in recent days describes a federal posture that hardened, then began to soften - not out of philosophical conversion, but under the weight of scrutiny, litigation, and the ordinary friction of a system that still contains other centers of authority besides the executive branch. In Reuters’ account, leadership changes and internal warnings followed visible escalation, including a federal judge summoning a senior ICE official in a contempt-related dispute, and a demotion or stripping of title from a commander whose public statements had embodied the earlier posture.

The pattern is familiar enough to be misunderstood.

Some will call it a victory for decency. Others will call it mere theater. The founders would have warned us away from both reflexes. They knew that tone could change without accountability changing. They also knew that accountability often begins with something as small as a forced pause; because pauses are where records are preserved, jurisdiction is asserted, and the first serious questions are finally asked aloud.

That is where Josiah Bartlett becomes useful, not because he can be turned into a ventriloquist for modern arguments, but because his life trained him to distrust panic and to treat “improvement” as something proved by outcomes.

Bartlett came to public service through medicine. He learned, early, what many political men never learn: that crisis invites confident remedies that can kill the patient. In Kingston, when diphtheria swept through and ordinary treatments leaned toward bleeding and starvation, he chose a different approach (cooling, observation, adjustment) and his reputation grew because he treated dogma as less important than whether the patient lived. That habit - measurement over bravado, restraint over spectacle - follows a man into politics even when the subject is no longer fever, but force.

He was not a theatrical figure in Congress. He was described as diligent, attentive to detail, and influential more by labor than by speech. Yet he was also, in the decisive hour, unmistakably clear. New Hampshire, called first in the roll, gave the first “aye” for independence through Bartlett. He understood that a republic requires firmness at the right moment. The question is what sort of firmness.

What would a physician-statesman notice in our present moment?

He would notice that the administration’s apparent shift - pulling back, changing assignments, speaking more carefully - arrived only after the system began producing hard consequences: disputed deaths, clashes over jurisdiction, court involvement, and public documentation that refused to stay private. He would not be shocked by that. He would recognize it the way a doctor recognizes a body’s forced correction when stress becomes unsustainable.

But he would also insist on the difference between symptom relief and cure.

A softened rhetorical posture is not, by itself, a constitutional recovery. It may simply be a reduction of visible swelling while the underlying condition continues to advance. In medicine, Bartlett would have said: do not confuse a quieter patient with a healed patient. In public life, the analog is plain: do not confuse calmer press statements with restored limits.

This is why the dispute about warrants and home entry matters so much, and why it cannot be treated as a technical quarrel for lawyers alone. Recent reporting has described internal guidance and arguments around the use of administrative paperwork (documents generated within the executive branch) as a basis for entry or arrest in ways that critics say press against the Fourth Amendment’s demand for judicial warrants at the home. Even where courts ultimately sort the legality in particular cases, the civic diagnosis is already available: when the executive branch grows comfortable treating its own paperwork as functionally equivalent to a judge’s order, it begins to certify itself.

Bartlett would have understood that habit instinctively. He practiced in a world where false confidence could become lethal. The more urgently you feel the need to act, the more disciplined you must become about proof.

So, if he were writing a missive in this hour, he would not ask first whether the administration has become more “reasonable.” He would ask whether the system has become more examinable.

Are investigations proceeding in a way that preserves evidence and permits independent review? Are jurisdictional disputes being resolved by law, or by power? Are courts being obeyed promptly, or treated as obstacles to be managed? Are the standards for entry, arrest, detention, and force being clarified publicly so that citizens can know what the government claims it may do?

Those are the vital signs. Without them, “de-escalation” is only a mood.

And Bartlett, who called the Declaration “the greatest state paper ever conceived by the mind of man,” would have reminded us why: the American claim was never merely that we would be strong. It was that we would be bound.

Bound means that power can be made to stop. Bound means that the home is not entered by confidence alone. Bound means that when blood is shed under contested facts, the public does not have to beg for the right to see the record. Bound means that courts are not props, and that oversight is not conditional on the executive branch’s willingness to cooperate.

This is why the current “turn” in posture - whatever its sincerity - should be recorded soberly, not celebrated as virtue and not dismissed as nothing. A good physician does not mock improvement. But neither does he stop treatment because the fever broke for an afternoon.

If pressure from courts, states, and public scrutiny has forced a recalibration, that is evidence that the constitutional immune system is still functioning. The task is to strengthen that system, not to relax because the patient looks less agitated.

Bartlett’s deepest counsel, I suspect, would be painfully unfashionable: slow down and document.

Not because urgency is imaginary, but because urgency is the condition under which republics make their worst mistakes; mistakes that become habits, and habits that become “normal.”

He would tell us that the country can survive anger, and it can survive sharp disagreement. What it cannot survive is a long season in which force is used under disputed facts and then insulated from examination because that is how a people learns, gradually, to accept the replacement of law with administrative will.

In medicine, you do not restore health by shouting at the body. You restore it by insisting on the disciplines that make recovery possible: clear measures, clean procedures, accountability to reality, and a refusal to confuse temporary relief with repair.

For citizens now, that means insisting, calmly and relentlessly, on the old basics. Not slogans. Not vengeance. Not denial.

Records. Warrants that mean what they say. Courts that are obeyed. Evidence that is preserved. Accountability that does not depend on whether officials feel like granting it.

Bartlett would recognize that as the only kind of cure a republic ever gets.