What do you think?
Rate this book
This Independent Republic
First published in 1964, this series of essays gives important insight into American history by one who could trace American development in terms of the Christian ideas which gave it direction.
These essays will greatly alter your understanding of, and appreciation for, American history. Topics discussed the legal issues behind the War of Independence; sovereignty as a theological tenet foreign to colonial political thought and the Constitution; the desire for land as a consequence of the belief in .inheriting the land" as a future blessing, not an immediate economic asset; federalism's localism as an inheritance of feudalism; the local control of property as a guarantee of liberty; why federal elections were long considered of less importance than local politics; how early American ideas attributed to democratic thought were based on religious ideals of communion and community; and the absurdity of a mathematical concept of equality being applied to people.
For more essays on this subject, see Rushdoony's Nature of the American System.
These essays will greatly alter your understanding of, and appreciation for, American history. Topics discussed the legal issues behind the War of Independence; sovereignty as a theological tenet foreign to colonial political thought and the Constitution; the desire for land as a consequence of the belief in .inheriting the land" as a future blessing, not an immediate economic asset; federalism's localism as an inheritance of feudalism; the local control of property as a guarantee of liberty; why federal elections were long considered of less importance than local politics; how early American ideas attributed to democratic thought were based on religious ideals of communion and community; and the absurdity of a mathematical concept of equality being applied to people.
For more essays on this subject, see Rushdoony's Nature of the American System.
184 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
9 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
About the author
Rousas John Rushdoony
137 books148 followersRousas John Rushdoony was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of both Christian Reconstructionism and the modern homeschool movement. His prolific writings have exerted considerable influence on the Christian right.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
May 13, 2009
Excellent.
March 16, 2019
Yet another of Rushdoony's major influential books, this one arguing for the "Christian nation" narrative conservatives still believe to this day and spawned a cottage industry of false claims about American history.
June 5, 2018
Wonderful history of the founding our country.
December 9, 2025
An unconvincing attempt to baptize Neo-Confederacy and demonize centralization as the fingerprint of Satan.
The notion that Libertarian decentralization of government is Christian while centralization is evil is a rather unserious conclusion. Not only does it contradict the governments throughout history which were both heavily centralized and Christian, but it also misreads the American story as one with heroes who championed local government and villains who wanted totalitarian rule. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson are all American heroes who differed immensely on the question of centralized power.
This is my second Rushdoony read. For all the hype surrounding his name in Reformed postmil circles, I’ve found his work very underwhelming. Whatever the future of Christian politics in America is, Rushdoony is certainly not a relevant guide.
The notion that Libertarian decentralization of government is Christian while centralization is evil is a rather unserious conclusion. Not only does it contradict the governments throughout history which were both heavily centralized and Christian, but it also misreads the American story as one with heroes who championed local government and villains who wanted totalitarian rule. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson are all American heroes who differed immensely on the question of centralized power.
This is my second Rushdoony read. For all the hype surrounding his name in Reformed postmil circles, I’ve found his work very underwhelming. Whatever the future of Christian politics in America is, Rushdoony is certainly not a relevant guide.
October 16, 2013
In This Independent Republic Rushdoony argues that the American Revolution and subsequent politicking were not the consequence of Enlightenment thinking, but rather “a development of Christian feudalism, with… Reformation concepts.” (p. 20) This is his principal theme in the book. The book also contains his typical teachings on the Sovereignty of God over against the sovereignty of man. These are concepts that are inescapable in discussions of law—so much of the book will seem familiar for those already steeped in Rushdoony’s other works.
Establishing the link between American political thought and feudalism requires an understanding with the development of English law from the Magna Carta to the Revolutionary War, and Rushdoony obligingly reviews the evidence. The Magna Carta was a feudal contract between the people and the king—denying his absolute sovereignty. As the British Parliament grew in stature and in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English law underwent another radical development. First, Parliament denied the legitimacy of King James II as monarch, due to his “violations of office.” (p. 23)
Rushdoony explains the circumstances:
“The Convention Parliament charged James II with breach of ‘contract,’ i.e., declared him to be a feudal, not an absolute, monarch: James II ‘having endeavored to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and having, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government and the throne is thereby vacant.’”
Once Parliament asserted itself against James II, it took “claim to exercise royal absolutism” itself. (p. 18) Rushdoony writes, “The Glorious Revolution thus established legality in terms of the feudal constitution of England while claiming for Parliament royal absolutism.” This gave the American colonies a “legal precedent” for their own rejection of Parliamentary tyranny. (p. 24)
When viewed in the context of this English tradition, one can begin to understand that the American Revolution was not a radical, humanist revolution as was the French Revolution, but in fact, a “a conservative counter-revolution.” (p. 20) The American Revolution was in fact a war between two legal traditions. He states clearly, “…the colonies were right in affirming that their tradition constituted what was known as English liberty and the rights of Englishmen; they were the truer heirs and developers of that body of doctrine and law.” (p. 27)
Above all,
“Justice was thus on the side of the colonies. Parliament’s position was implicitly illegal: power invalid in the king did not become valid in Parliament’s hands, being fundamentally invalid. Absolutism in the king had been rejected as an invalid concept in the English Revolution and the Glorious Revolution. How could Parliament validly appropriate an already invalid power? The American Revolution was thus legal, and it was a move to reestablish law, and illegality and its onus rested on king and Parliament.” (p. 27)
Rushdoony demonstrates the legality of the Revolution by appealing to Edmund Burke, who vehemently opposed the French Revolution, yet affirmed the rights of the colonies to seek their liberty. He writes, “Burke…saw the American Revolution as basically Christian and English in its origins and demands.” (p. 28)
Once he establishes the lawfulness of the American Tradition and its Christian roots, he moves on to examining “sovereignty” as it was understood in the founding. The founders rejected the doctrine of the sovereignty of the state, instead recognized “the doctrine of limited power.” (p. 31)
He writes, “Its conception of power was Christian: power is ministerial, not legislative, i.e., powers in any area, church, state, school, or family, are not endowed with ability to create laws apart from the higher law but only to administer fundamental law as man is able to grasp and approximate it. Civil government is thus an administrator rather than a creator of law; it is not sovereign over law but is under law.” (p. 35)
The middle of the book is concerned with matters related to the freedoms the founders affirmed—property, equality, freedom of conscience and the idea of the “Christian Commonwealth.”
There is a long section toward the end of the book that expose the “premises and presuppositions” of the Enlightenment. (p. 126) This shows quite conclusively that it is the French and Russian Revolutions that are the children of the Enlightenment, not the American Revolution. That being said, I think it is difficult to argue that the American Revolution was unaffected by the Enlightenment, and that there were strains of Enlightenment thought active in the minds of the founders. One cannot separate the founders from the intellectual climate in which they lived. While Rushdoony argues that the founders advanced the tradition of English liberty, I would argue that they were still products of their times and though they were inevitably influenced by the Enlightenment, they did a remarkable job in maintaining the Christian tradition of liberty bestowed upon them by their English fathers.
This book is a good antidote to those out there that seek to sever the American founding from its Christian roots. It isn’t comprehensive, but it is conclusive.
Establishing the link between American political thought and feudalism requires an understanding with the development of English law from the Magna Carta to the Revolutionary War, and Rushdoony obligingly reviews the evidence. The Magna Carta was a feudal contract between the people and the king—denying his absolute sovereignty. As the British Parliament grew in stature and in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, English law underwent another radical development. First, Parliament denied the legitimacy of King James II as monarch, due to his “violations of office.” (p. 23)
Rushdoony explains the circumstances:
“The Convention Parliament charged James II with breach of ‘contract,’ i.e., declared him to be a feudal, not an absolute, monarch: James II ‘having endeavored to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and having, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government and the throne is thereby vacant.’”
Once Parliament asserted itself against James II, it took “claim to exercise royal absolutism” itself. (p. 18) Rushdoony writes, “The Glorious Revolution thus established legality in terms of the feudal constitution of England while claiming for Parliament royal absolutism.” This gave the American colonies a “legal precedent” for their own rejection of Parliamentary tyranny. (p. 24)
When viewed in the context of this English tradition, one can begin to understand that the American Revolution was not a radical, humanist revolution as was the French Revolution, but in fact, a “a conservative counter-revolution.” (p. 20) The American Revolution was in fact a war between two legal traditions. He states clearly, “…the colonies were right in affirming that their tradition constituted what was known as English liberty and the rights of Englishmen; they were the truer heirs and developers of that body of doctrine and law.” (p. 27)
Above all,
“Justice was thus on the side of the colonies. Parliament’s position was implicitly illegal: power invalid in the king did not become valid in Parliament’s hands, being fundamentally invalid. Absolutism in the king had been rejected as an invalid concept in the English Revolution and the Glorious Revolution. How could Parliament validly appropriate an already invalid power? The American Revolution was thus legal, and it was a move to reestablish law, and illegality and its onus rested on king and Parliament.” (p. 27)
Rushdoony demonstrates the legality of the Revolution by appealing to Edmund Burke, who vehemently opposed the French Revolution, yet affirmed the rights of the colonies to seek their liberty. He writes, “Burke…saw the American Revolution as basically Christian and English in its origins and demands.” (p. 28)
Once he establishes the lawfulness of the American Tradition and its Christian roots, he moves on to examining “sovereignty” as it was understood in the founding. The founders rejected the doctrine of the sovereignty of the state, instead recognized “the doctrine of limited power.” (p. 31)
He writes, “Its conception of power was Christian: power is ministerial, not legislative, i.e., powers in any area, church, state, school, or family, are not endowed with ability to create laws apart from the higher law but only to administer fundamental law as man is able to grasp and approximate it. Civil government is thus an administrator rather than a creator of law; it is not sovereign over law but is under law.” (p. 35)
The middle of the book is concerned with matters related to the freedoms the founders affirmed—property, equality, freedom of conscience and the idea of the “Christian Commonwealth.”
There is a long section toward the end of the book that expose the “premises and presuppositions” of the Enlightenment. (p. 126) This shows quite conclusively that it is the French and Russian Revolutions that are the children of the Enlightenment, not the American Revolution. That being said, I think it is difficult to argue that the American Revolution was unaffected by the Enlightenment, and that there were strains of Enlightenment thought active in the minds of the founders. One cannot separate the founders from the intellectual climate in which they lived. While Rushdoony argues that the founders advanced the tradition of English liberty, I would argue that they were still products of their times and though they were inevitably influenced by the Enlightenment, they did a remarkable job in maintaining the Christian tradition of liberty bestowed upon them by their English fathers.
This book is a good antidote to those out there that seek to sever the American founding from its Christian roots. It isn’t comprehensive, but it is conclusive.
December 20, 2025
What a book. Rushdoony’s synthesis of varied and far-reaching hisotircal texts and rich theological insight make for a very compelling read. Among other forays into American historical development, Rushdoony puts a hard barrier between the American and French Revoutions, dispels myths of a secular and big-E Enlightened Founding brotherhood, as well as gets to the roots of American theological and historical identity at the ground level among the colonies. An excellent and invaluable resource.
May 14, 2017
Very good Christian analysis of ðe history of the United states and of ðe Western politics. Some points should be better explained as ðey defy belief, such as calling iconoclasm heretic, so I hope someone eventually produces a scholarly edition.
January 9, 2024
Really interesting overview of Americas founding principles and how secular ideologies seeped their way into our society.
July 11, 2013
This is a helpful examination of aspects of American history and heritage. Rushdoony brings out the covenantal/federal/feudal nature of the division and accountability of powers in the American system of thought and practice. He examines the importance of localism and law to liberty, and how Christian presuppositions of historic Western Civilization were uniquely developed in America. While the chapters are a little disconnected from each other, and one or two seem to focus more on current (or at least recent) history, many insightful points are made. He also contrasts the historic foundation of America with the democratic and totalitarian trends of today.
"[America's] origins are Christian and Augustinian, deeply rooted in Reformation, medieval, and patristic history. It is held, moreover, that the United States, from its origins in the Colonial Period on through the era of the Constitution, represented a Protestant feudal restoration." (p. xiii)
"[America's] origins are Christian and Augustinian, deeply rooted in Reformation, medieval, and patristic history. It is held, moreover, that the United States, from its origins in the Colonial Period on through the era of the Constitution, represented a Protestant feudal restoration." (p. xiii)
September 5, 2009
Stimulating evaluation from a Christian thinker. Helpful in critiquing purely secularist interpretations of American political thought.
September 15, 2009
Great history lesson on the our nations political and spiritual founding.
July 8, 2013
The backbone of the American Literature course I taught for many years in LAUSD.
August 1, 2014
This was a fantastic analysis of history and culture and almost reads as if it were written in 2014 rather than 1964.
May 22, 2018
Very interesting and informative. A Christian analysis of the history of the United States and its politics, that despite being written several decades ago is still accurate.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews