Republican Motherhood

Mercy Otis Warren was an early advocate, critic, and historian of the United States founding. Born September 14, 1728 in Barnstable, MA to Col. James Otis and Mary Allyne Otis, Mercy was the third of their thirteen children. As was typical for girls at that time, Mercy didn’t receive much formal education, but she was allowed to observe her older brothers’ lessons under a private tutor. Her brother James Otis, Jr. attended Harvard College and supported her intellectual growth. Mercy read widely, and the influence of literary giants such as William Shakespeare, John Milton, and Alexander Pope is evident in her own writings. In 1754, Mercy married James Warren, a longtime friend and Harvard colleague of her brother. He worked as a merchant, farmer, and sheriff, and was eventually elected Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and served as Continental paymaster general in the Continental Army. Mercy and her husband’s correspondence shows us yet another revolutionary era couple equally united in intellect and political concern, and together they raised five sons. Not surprisingly, they became good friends of John and Abigail Adams as well as Samuel Adams, and their home sometimes served as a meeting place for liberty-minded Massachusetts citizens. George and Martha Washington and Thomas Jefferson also counted among their friends and correspondents.Mercy had a talent for writing (her husband affectionately called her a “scribbler”), and her patriotic influence occurred more so in print than in parlor. At a time when book ownership was challenging to come by, the average American’s literacy was fueled by newspapers, which frequently printed not only current events and bulletins, but installments in a variety of genres. In 1772, Mercy wrote The Adulateur, a satirical drama in blank verse about colonial Massachusetts in a classical Roman setting. Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson is the antagonist Rapatio, and the hero Brutus is said to be Mercy’s brother James. It was published anonymously in the Massachusetts Spy, and became popular enough to circulate as a pamphlet. In the 1773 sequel The Defeat published in the Boston Gazette, Rusticus and Hortensius are said to be portrayals of her husband and John Adams. To the modern reader who has the benefit of hindsight and is not regularly immersed in classical myth and metaphor, these works may seem confusing and not particularly striking. But at the time, war for independence was not a certainty, so Mercy’s work was received as prophetic and inspiring, with such sentiments as “Rather let Servia tumble from her basis / And in one general ruin cover all / Than see her citizens oppress’d with chains / And sweetly slumb’ring in the gilded fetters. / The man who boasts his freedom / Feels solid joy—tho’ poor and low his state / He looks with pity on the honor’d slave.” John Adams thought it was brilliant and requested that Mercy write a poem about the Boston Tea Party. When Adams read it he had it published and wrote her husband that it was “one of the most incontestable Evidences of real Genius, which has yet been exhibited—for to take the Clumsy, indigested Conception of another and work it into so elegant, and classicall a Composition, requires Genius equall to that” of Alexander Pope. Mercy’s range of literary pursuits also included a play requested by one of her sons, The Ladies of Castile, which she set in 16th century Spain to tell a story about widows of patriots and their decisions following tragedy. This one particularly fascinated Alexander Hamilton, who wrote to tell her, “that in the career of dramatic composition at least, female genius in the United States has outstripped the Male.”But Mercy and James clashed with their Federalist friends over the Constitution. The Warrens were solidly in the Anti-Federalist camp, siding with major critics of the Constitution whose resistance to central government resulted in the addition of a Bill of Rights. When Mercy wrote her History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, she prefaced that she omitted military history because that was better suited for a masculine voice, while her perspective of the domestic and ideological aspects of the war was valuable coming from her feminine authorship. Adams was displeased with her anti-federalist perspective that ultimately diminished his role in the story, and decided that women weren’t suited to writing history altogether. They did eventually reconcile prior to Mercy’s death in 1814. Even this glimpse of collaboration and conflict reminds us of the complexities of the American founding. The foundation of our republic consists of ideas that were reformed and refined through study, conflict, and conviction, which can be seen in the life of Mercy Otis Warren.SOURCES & FURTHER READING“Biography of Mercy Otis Warren,” https://web.archive.org/web/20080924113620/http://streamer3.lacoe.edu/Americanhistory/enactments/Walters/Walters_biography.htm, [Last accessed 4/21/26]Celebrate Mercy Otis Warren, https://www.celebratemercyotiswarren.org/“John Adams to James Warren, 9 April 1774,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-02-02-0009. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Papers of John Adams, vol. 2, December 1773 – April 1775, ed. Robert J. Taylor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977, pp. 82–84.]“Alexander Hamilton to Mercy Warren, 1 July 1791,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-08-02-0465. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 8, February 1791 – July 1791, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965, pp. 522–523.]“From John Adams to Elbridge Gerry, 17 April 1813,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6000. [This is an Early Access document from The Adams Papers. It is not an authoritative final version.]“Mercy Otis Warren’s ‘Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous’,” American Revolution Institute “Mercy Otis Warren: The Conscience of the American Revolution” “Mercy Otis Warren to Abigail Adams, 28 January 1775,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0121. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

So iconic was Dolley Madison in her lifetime that she defined the role of presidential spouse as “first lady,” a title that we acknowledge to this day. In 1768, she was born Dorothea Payne in North Carolina to John and Mary Coles Payne. The Paynes had eight children and moved to Virginia shortly after Dolley was born. In accordance with their Quaker values, John freed their plantation slaves as soon as manumission became legal in Virginia. He then relocated his family, including 15-year-old Dolley, to Philadelphia and became a laundry starch manufacturer. When that business was unsuccessful, Mary opened a boarding house as a source of income, which expanded their family’s social influence by housing notable statesmen during key moments of the early republic. Dolley was only 19 when the Constitutional Convention was held at Philadelphia, and she witnessed the various state delegates descend upon the city to make history, James Madison of Virginia among them. Dolley could count plenty of important people among her own family and friends. Patrick Henry was her mother’s cousin, and her sister Lucy married George Washington’s nephew, George Steptoe Washington. Dolley spent time at Benjamin Franklin’s home with his daughter Sarah “Sally” Franklin Bache [Ba-shay], both mentors in Dolley’s youth. Dolley was a confident young lady who enjoyed fashion, and her Quaker community sometimes reprimanded her for her more daring outfits. In 1790 she married a bright young lawyer named John Todd, with whom she had two sons. But three years later a yellow fever epidemic took the lives of John and their infant boy, leaving Dolley widowed with a toddler. As she carried on with grace, Dolley caught the eye of James Madison within a year. Aaron Burr, an old boarding house client and close friend of the Paynes, informed Dolley that “the Great Little Madison” wanted to meet her. James was seventeen years older than Dolley and a few inches shorter, but their opposite personalities fused a connection right away. They married on September 15th, 1794.Through Dolley we see the importance of social smarts in politics. James Madison was a towering intellect but wasn’t exactly known for charisma or skill in navigating social circles, which is fundamental to political campaigning. But this was Dolley’s forte, and their pairing made the Madisons a power couple in early Washington. As wife of the secretary of state, Dolley provided an understanding of style and etiquette crucial to diplomacy that the very informal President Thomas Jefferson sometimes lacked. She was a good listener, welcoming to the most shy and awkward in a crowd, and had a way of earning Americans’ trust. Dolley’s niece summed up the phenomenon saying, “you like yourself more when you are with her.” When James Madison won the presidential election, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney lamented, “I was beaten by Mr. and Mrs. Madison. I might have had a better chance had I faced Mr. Madison alone.”Yet while president, Mr. Madison had the unenviable experience of being the only U.S. Commander in Chief to have to ride into battle and live in a White House and capital besieged by enemy fire during the War of 1812. In anticipation of the attack, Dolley worked quickly to save irreplaceable items of historical significance, including a portrait of George Washington. Dolley wrote of the experience to her sister in vivid detail, but denied any heroism, insisting “[a]nyone would have done what I did.” Dolley’s later years of widowhood were met with more challenges, as she dealt with a wayward son who incurred many debts, all while she was navigating the voluminous legacy of her “best beloved” James Madison’s political writings. When Dolley herself passed away in 1849, her state funeral was the largest the capital had yet seen. “She will never be forgotten,” said President Zachary Taylor in his eulogy, “because she was truly our first lady for half a century.”SOURCES & FURTHER READING“Dolley P. Madison And Her Portrayal Today,” https://dolleypmadison.com/, [Last accessed 1/2/2026].“Dolley Payne Todd Madison,” Our White House: Looking In, Looking Out, https://ourwhitehouse.org/dolley-payne-todd-madison-2/ [Last accessed March 26, 2026]Dolley Madison was who Theodosia Burr Alston turned to for help when her father was exiled abroad:“Theodosia Burr Alston to Dolley Madison, 24 June 1809,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-01-02-0285. [Original source: The Papers of James Madison, Presidential Series, vol. 1, 1 March–30 September 1809, ed. Robert A. Rutland, Thomas A. Mason, Robert J. Brugger, Susannah H. Jones, Jeanne K. Sisson, and Fredrika J. Teute. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1984, pp. 264–265.] This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

Any discussion of the American founding would be remiss without mention of Abigail Adams, both a wife and mother of U.S. presidents, and respected advocate for liberty, equality, and self-governance. While she and her husband John Adams spent at least a decade of their marriage apart, their resulting correspondence created a valuable tome of primary source observations and political philosophy of the early American republic. Abigail Smith Adams was born November 11, 1744 in Weymouth, MA to Congregational minister Reverend William Smith and his wife Elizabeth Quincy Smith, the second of four children. Abigail was raised in a print rich environment, living in a theologically-minded household that allowed her to become well-educated. The beginning of her love story with John Adams reads a little like a Jane Austen novel, with neither one impressing the other and Abigail’s mother eventually being concerned about her daughter having a country lawyer for a suitor. As their amusing courtship letters reveal, John and Abigail bonded over their equally matched values, classical knowledge, and wit. They were married October 25, 1764 and settled in Braintree (Quincy), MA, moving back and forth between there and Boston over time.Abigail’s experience as a mother of six children against the backdrop of revolutionary America yields a startling perspective: little one year old Susanna suddenly died in her arms a month before the Boston Massacre, a landmark event in John’s legal career because he controversially defended British soldiers to uphold law and order. Baby Elizabeth was stillborn in 1777 after Abigail suffered an illness while John was away serving in the Second Continental Congress. In letters to her husband, Abigail refers to their children as “the little flock,” and the couple discuss the importance of their education. John saw his wife as very capable of ensuring their development in his absence, and he emphasized building their character as statesmen in their formative years, saying “[i]f we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.” Brilliant though she was, Abigail was concerned about the limits of her own education, and argued that especially if early childhood is so important for character, the education of women needs to be taken more seriously. “If we mean to have Heroes, Statesmen and Philosophers, we should have learned women,” she explained. In addition to that responsibility, Abigail’s business savvy and diligence is credited with sparing John Adams the financial ruin that befell other founders who also sacrificed time away from their livelihoods and households to make American independence a reality. Abigail memorably desired that John “remember the ladies” when creating the new republic, and she reflected on women’s unique role in supporting their countries despite usually having so little to gain and so much to lose in the process. “Deprived of a voice in Legislation, obliged to submit to those Laws which are imposed upon us, is it not sufficient to make us indifferent to the publick Welfare? Yet all History and every age exhibit Instances of patriotick virtue in the female Sex; which considering our situation equals the most Heroick of yours,” she wrote to her husband in 1782. Abigail was a sharp critic of character, often advising John on the men with whom he worked, and she told him in 1775, “a true patriot must be a religious man,” because “he who neglects his duty to his Maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”As our first second lady and second first lady, Abigail was true to her values, and certainly was not in politics for popularity. In 1797 she permitted James Prince, a young black hired man, to attend school. When a neighbor complained that the white students opposed that, Abigail said this was “attacking the Principle of Liberty and equality upon the only Ground upon which it ought to be supported, an equality of Rights...send the Young Men to me. I think I can convince them that they are wrong. I have not thought it any disgrace to My self to take him into my parlour and teach him both to read & write— tell them mr Faxon that I hope we shall all go to Heaven together.” Abigail opened the newly built White House to the public on New Year’s Day 1801, which was an annual tradition until Eleanor Roosevelt was first lady. Breaking from Martha Washington’s style, Abigail was not afraid to insert herself into political debate – even partisan politics – as first lady, garnering the disparaging moniker “Mrs. President,” but modeling an effective keeper of the republic.SOURCES & FURTHER READINGLetter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 9 July 1777 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 16 July 1777 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/“John Thaxter to John Adams, 13 July 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-02-02-0224. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Adams Family Correspondence, vol. 2, June 1776 – March 1778, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, p. 282.]Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 29 October 1775, “Human nature...” [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/Katie Woods, “Abigail Adams (1744-1818): First Lady, Advisor, Writer,” Massachusetts Women’s History Center, www.mawomenshistory.org [Last accessed February 3, 2026]Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 14 August 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 17 June 1782, with a List of Articles wanted from Holland [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladamsLetter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 5 November 1775 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 13 February 1797 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/B.B. Caroli, “Abigail Adams,” Encyclopedia Britannica, November 18, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abigail-Adams [Last accessed February 3, 2026] This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

Cleopas and his friend departed Jerusalem with devastated and perplexed hearts. The crowds had chosen a criminal to be released during Passover season instead of the innocent man who had healed and loved them. The Pharisees condemned a man who had come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets that they studied and preserved. The Romans had executed a leader not of insurgency, but of peace.In vain they tried to make sense of this chaos as they traveled on foot to Emmaus (a village with a name which means “warm spring”).Suddenly, a stranger appeared and began traveling with them.“What are these words that you are exchanging with one another as you are walking?” He asked.Cleopas and his friend stopped for a moment and looked sad. How could someone not know about the tragedy that had just taken place? Everyone nearby surely knew the story of Jesus Christ by now.“Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” asked Cleopas.“What things?” the man responded, whether ignorant or Socratic, they couldn’t quite tell.Cleopas proceeded to tell the stranger about a mighty prophet called Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had hoped was the promised Messiah. But suddenly He was crucified and buried, leaving them without hope.Then Cleopas mentioned the bewildering plot twist: It was the third day since Jesus’ death, but just that morning some women found His tomb empty and received an angelic message that He was alive. Men confirmed that the tomb was empty, but Jesus was nowhere to be found.The stranger finally interrupted with peculiar authority. “Oh, foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”He then recounted to them an epic. A spiritual enemy worked to sever humanity from God, yet as far back as Eden, God made a plan to be inseparably atoned and united with humankind. Through temptation, Nephilim, famine, and Pharaoh, the enemy sought to stop this plan of redemption from taking place while a few righteous believers sought to keep it alive. Then came the Torah through Moses, which shielded the family of the promised Messiah from as many corrupt influences as possible. The likes of heathen tribes, captivity, Babylonian bureaucrats, and Haman continued to target the nation of Israel throughout its tumultuous history with the aim of ending humanity’s reconciliation with God.Kings and prophets, laws and songs predicted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and would be called the Lamb of God – and He would be betrayed and slain, and then conquer death.As evening drew near, the two travelers invited the stranger to lodge with them. Only when He reclined at the table and broke bread for them were their eyes opened and they realized He was Jesus Christ Himself. Suddenly, He vanished.“Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” said the two men. Immediately they returned to Jerusalem to tell Jesus’ disciples that He had indeed risen from the dead.The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a central, polarizing fact of world history. While not all historians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, most agree it is virtually indisputable that a couple of millennia ago, Jesus’ crucified body disappeared from a tomb in Jerusalem, and hundreds of different doubtful people certainly saw something afterward that convinced them He had risen.Indeed, His initially skeptical disciples came to believe it strongly enough to endure torturous martyrdom for spreading the good news.Does this historical saga stir your soul? Where are you on the Road to Emmaus?This article was published previously at The Washington Times Communities and can also be found at AmandaReadSheik.com and The Newscasters’ Studio.The story can be found in the 24th chapter of the Gospel of Luke.The header image is the landscape Christ on the Road to Emmaus, painted by Roelant Roghman in Holland sometime between 1650 and 1660. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

When glancing at political history it is easy to overlook people who did not hold official titles, but nevertheless many had lasting influence. One such figure is Elizabeth Willing Powel (1743-1830), a mayor’s wife, bereaved mother, poet, confidante of George and Martha Washington, and grand dame of the “Republican Court.” If she is remembered in popular culture it is likely due to her asking Benjamin Franklin whether “a republic or a monarchy” was the product of the Constitutional Convention, prompting his memorable reply, “a republic...if you can keep it.” Maryland delegate James McHenry (later Secretary of War) witnessed this conversation and scribbled it in his journal the day of the signing. As years passed the anecdote grew more legendary, with Dr. Franklin’s response becoming more flowery and a bit slanted towards whatever angle the press had at that moment. When Mrs. Powel was asked about the story in 1814, she wasn’t sure she remembered it, but wrote, “I cannot venture to deny after so many Years have elapsed that such conversations had passed. I well remember to have frequently associated with the most respectable, influential Members of the Convention that framed the Constitution, and that the all-important Subject was frequently discussed at our House.”Mrs. Powel was born to Charles and Anne Shippen Willing in Philadelphia, PA on February 10th, 1743, the sixth of eleven children. Her father and one of her brothers both served terms as mayor of Philadelphia, and she was once rumored to be engaged to “Penman of the Revolution” John Dickinson. She in fact was married in 1769 to Samuel Powel, a wealthy and well-traveled gentleman who spent time in Europe socializing with enlightenment thinkers including Voltaire and Pope Clement XIII. Marquis de Chatellux described the couple as inseparable, “two friends, happily matched in point of understanding, taste, and information.” Sadly, the Powels had four children who were either stillborn or did not live past infancy or toddlerhood. During the Revolutionary War Mr. Powel was elected Mayor of Philadelphia and the Powels stayed fairly neutral, but they did financially support the Continental Army. Mrs. Powel hosted French salon-style parties at their Third Street residence, drawing intellectual leaders of the day to discuss important ideas and current events. The Washingtons moved in next door to the Powels following the victory at Yorktown and they became close friends. During the Constitutional Convention, George Washington visited the Powels more than any other family in Philadelphia, and the Powels were regular guests at Mount Vernon as well.Mrs. Powel was certainly a well-educated and trusted voice in her own right, and was influential in advising President Washington to serve a second term. Her sisters wrote that “in society she will animate and give a brilliancy to the whole Conversation, and the uncommon command she has of Language and her ideas flow with rapidity… her Patriotism causes too much Anxiety. Female politicians are always ridiculed by the other Sex.” It is worth noting that when Franklin told Mrs. Powel we have a republic “if you can keep it,” he essentially charged a woman with no office – and not even the right to vote – with keeping the republic. This brief conversation memorializes Elizabeth Willing Powel as an example of practical patriotism wherever we find ourselves in life.This essay was delivered at the inaugural meeting of The Keepers organization in Crestview, Florida on January 12, 2026.SOURCES & FURTHER READINGJake Phillips, “Elizabeth Powel: The Real First Lady,” History 117: US History to 1877, November 7, 2014, last accessed January 19, 2026. Lee Ann Potter, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It,” Library of Congress Blogs, September 8, 2016, last accessed January 19, 2026.“Elizabeth Willing Powel,” Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington’s Mount Vernon, last accessed January 19, 2026. “Elizabeth Willing Powel to George Washington, 17 November 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-11-02-0225, last accessed January 19, 2026.Samuel Powel biography, Pennsylvania Senate Library, last accessed January 19, 2026. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

We often learn at an early age that American heritage is one of shared passion for values like liberty and equality. This idealism is, after all, spelled out in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. But if you look further back at the Declaration of Independence, you’ll see that the great unifier of Americans is actually skepticism of institutionalized authority. That isn’t nearly as romantic, but it explains a great deal. Americans aren’t the only people to ever doubt establishments, but they are descended from immigrants across generations who were stubborn enough to risk their lives traveling to a strange land rather than yield to an authority they no longer trusted. As for American ancestors brought to the country against their will, free people can only imagine the spirited resistance in their souls that enabled them to live and even thrive in defiance of authorities who dehumanized them daily.Legend has it Baron Von Steuben remarked that if he gave his Prussian soldiers orders, they obeyed, but if he gave his American soldiers orders, they asked “why?” before they would comply. Status quo is not a sufficient source of legitimacy in the nascent American mind, something Anthony Fauci forgot when he dubbed himself “The Science” during the height of the COVID pandemic.Healthy skepticism is a valuable trait, but like any good trait, it can be taken to an extreme that does more harm to public discourse than good. What proper role might conspiracy theory play in a self-governing republic, and how should a discerning citizen make use of it?After reflecting on this subject for some time, I have put together a little civic primer of five red flags that should remind us to PAUSE and be sure we haven’t lost grip of the thread of Ariadne while descending the labyrinth of internet-fueled conspiracy theories. These red flags don’t in and of themselves have the power to debunk a theory, but they are good guidelines for identifying thought patterns that actually undermine critical thinking instead of support it.P - Is the theory very personal?If the “bad guy(s)” in the theory always happen to be the same people with whom the theorist has a beef, that is a red flag. A good cartoon illustration of this comes from a subplot in the Hanna-Barbera series A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, in which Freddie repeatedly assumes that his personal nemesis, town bully Red Herring (aptly named), is the villain behind every mystery. Freddie is so fixated on taking down Red that he erroneously blames him for everything that goes wrong, and he has elaborate theories to make sense of it. Eventually when Red actually is to blame for something, you can see how Freddie’s undisciplined habit of accusation compromises any conviction of Red. The Know-Nothing Party in mid-1800s U.S. similarly fixated on Catholics as a source of corruption. During the Constitutional Convention, some Americans, with King George III fresh on their minds, obsessed over the notion that there was a plot to crown a European prince King of America.A - Adherents of the theory, is there a lack of dissension amongst them? Watch the followers of a theory. There should be healthy variation of opinion on some details. Even the Gospels have some variance of perspective in written history that indicates authentic observation of actual events. But when everyone is in lockstep repetitive defense of a storyline, posting the same phrases in every comment section, the community of theorists is likely drifting into cult territory.U - Is it unable to be disproven? A theory that cannot be disproven is not a legitimate theory. To take a lesson from science, whenever dealing with a structured explanation for the workings of the world, you can’t just ask questions. You have to develop clearly defined tests to answer those questions and determine what would falsify your hypotheses. If you keep pivoting every time you don’t get the answer you want, chances are you are not dealing with an intellectually honest theory. Consider the numerous times the end of the world was “predicted” to occur on an exact date, and how quickly the theorists moved on to another date after their first date was demonstrated to be incorrect. Consider analysis of Erika Kirk’s face in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination: her smiles, stares, and tears alike get conflictingly interpreted as suspicious. Anything she does can be interpreted as suspicious retrospectively if someone desperately wants her to be suspicious.One way of making a theory un-disprovable is to arrange indisputable facts in a fallacious manner. There’s a reason the Bible harshly condemns gossip and prohibits false witness in the Ten Commandments. If somebody can project fictional guilt for a factual crime, it only takes a little conjecture to cause serious damage. The details can be true, while the narrative operates in an intangible space layered over them, forcing them into a pattern that isn’t there. Reflect on various points in your own life - things you’ve said, people you’ve worked with, places you’ve traveled, awkward moments, funny coincidences for which you have no natural explanation - and now imagine someone really wants to make you look evil and conniving. How many dots are just begging to be connected because you can’t deny certain details? This is when conspiracy theory delegitimizes itself. We should handle conspiracy theory like blades and turpentine for scraping away damaged paint. If you keep scraping to the point that you damage everything under it, you’ve gone beyond the tools’ usefulness and are now causing harm.S - is it serial? “You have to watch it from the beginning to see how it makes sense!” This is something we normally say about narrative fiction. If it requires watching 20 hours of sequential YouTube documentaries to understand, that’s a red flag. That doesn’t necessarily mean the productions have no valuable information or by default are completely wrong, but the more complex something is, the more room there is for error and manipulation. Theatre is dependent upon the audience zoning out of reality and forming a collective mind to consume its narrative. If the same thing is necessary to get hooked on a conspiracy theory, it might be more theatrical than real.Sometimes drifting down the conspiratorial labyrinth primes a palate for results that are increasingly extreme. We know pornography affects the dopamine system in the brain, making addicts crave increasingly perverted content to maintain arousal. It could be that an addict of conspiracy theories likewise seeks out darker, deeper, and more extreme explanations of the world to maintain mental stimulation, to the point that simple truths are no longer palatable.E - does the theory allow adherents to evade any responsibility or escape any risk? Conspiracy theories appeal to our fears and desire for control. If Charlie Kirk was murdered by an unhinged LGBTQ supporter, that’s scary for all of us because it’s unpredictable and out of our control. But if it’s because he got caught up in a tangled web of financial support from Zionist Jews, theory adherents can tell themselves that will never happen to them and maintain a false sense of security. In a free republic, the proper role of conspiracy theory is to test boundaries by asking questions. Conspiracy theory cannot, however, be a reliable source of answers, because in its very nature, conspiracy theory is deconstructionist. It is about tearing down establishments, uprooting traditions, slaughtering sacred cows, and overall indiscriminate destruction of “the world as we know it.” Occasionally outlaws do good things, but that is not the norm for anarchy, and conspiracy theory is to research what anarchy is to government.A final question worth asking ourselves in this mass media age is, If True, Then What?Will it change the way that you live? Will it change the way that you vote? Does the conspiracy theory actually matter, or is it idleness? Are you disciplined enough to let it be a form of entertainment that gets you thinking without losing your mind? The decision before you as a citizen is how you will allow conspiracy theory to inform the way you govern yourself in a constitutional republic rather than burn your country to the ground. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

One of the biggest obstacles to self-governance is apathy, which could be described as simply the status of not caring. Despite how obvious it is that we should care about important things, I think that we can insidiously foster an overall attitude of carelessness when we make apathy towards anything a boasting matter. It brings to mind the trite meme of Julie Andrews twirling around the Austrian countryside with the caption “This is me not caring about football,” or whatever topic is trending at the moment. A rather ironic image, actually, considering Maria Von Trapp was a heroine because she was so caring and attentive in selfless ways.Thanks for reading Republican Motherhood! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Sure, there are things we don’t care about, and don’t need to care about. I’ve never kept up with the Kardashians – but I’ve also never considered that something to warrant bragging. Announcing that you don’t know who won the Super Bowl, or don’t care that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are engaged, or don’t care whether your chicken eggs are cage free or free range, or don’t care how your iPhone is made, doesn’t mean you are accomplished. It just means you’re ignorant about some things that interest many other people.It is certainly not necessary for you to care about everything. We are, after all, finite human beings with a limited capacity for attention. But if you genuinely don’t care about something, the least you can do is not feed the internet algorithm on that topic with a comment showing off your superior lack of interest. At worst, doing so only models callousness, especially for younger internet users, who then may become more comfortable adopting the same attitude towards other things.This brings to mind Dr. Russell Kirk’s observation in his book The American Cause, under the aptly titled chapter, “Ignorance – A Dangerous Luxury.”“When, in the Second World War, our troops landed in North Africa, the French were astonished at how politically naive American soldiers seemed. For most Frenchmen are passionately interested in political notions; while most Americans – like most English people – are not. This lack of interest in abstract politics is not always a harmful thing. One reason that the Americans, like the English, do not spend much time arguing over theories of politics is that for a very great while nearly all of us have been contented with our society and our form of government. We have not been revolutionaries since 1776 because we have felt that we have enjoyed as good a society as any people reasonably can hope for.”(Yes, notice that even in the aftermath of civil war, the U.S. resumed normal operations and carried on!)Clearly, he was specifically speaking about apathy towards politics, and the double edged sword of the American experiment’s success: our constitutional republic has functioned well enough that average Americans often feel comfortable letting it run on autopilot.Furthermore, over the past few generations many Americans absorbed the faulty notion that maintaining healthy relationships requires avoidance of discussing anything potentially controversial or uncomfortable, hence the idea that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion. But it’s not that politics and religion or many other subjects that are inherently impolite. Rather, many have lost the skill of talking about them politely.When we prioritize our own feelings (or lack thereof) about a topic over any other value related to it, we support a culture of apathy in general, which feeds the cycle of ignorance and poor conversational skills that weaken self-governance.In order to raise a citizenry that maintains its republic through self-governance, we need to develop a balanced, productive mindset in the way we relate to culture and politics. This is a series on cultivating self-governance which can be found at my educational compendium, RepublicanMotherhood.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

republicanmotherhood.comhttps://www.thefire.org/news/2026-college-free-speech-rankings-americas-colleges-get-f-poor-free-speech-climatehttps://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102https://youtu.be/zVCAXR1S-xY?si=tg6Wp1Ok2kZ0Crft This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

www.republicanmotherhood.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com

We can insidiously foster an overall attitude of carelessness when we make apathy towards anything a boasting matter.In order to raise a citizenry that maintains its republic through self-governance, we need to develop a balanced, productive mindset in the way we relate to culture and politics. This is a series on cultivating self-governance which can be found at my educational compendium, RepublicanMotherhood.com.One of the biggest obstacles to self-governance is apathy, which could be described as simply the status of not caring. Despite how obvious it is that we should care about important things, I think that we can insidiously foster an overall attitude of carelessness when we make apathy towards anything a boasting matter. It brings to mind the trite meme of Julie Andrews twirling around the Austrian countryside with the caption “This is me not caring about football,” or whatever topic is trending at the moment. A rather ironic image, actually, considering Maria Von Trapp was a heroine because she was so caring and attentive in selfless ways.Sure, there are things we don’t care about, and don’t need to care about. I’ve never kept up with the Kardashians – but I’ve also never considered that something to warrant bragging. Announcing that you don’t know who won the Super Bowl, or don’t care that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are engaged, or don’t care whether your chicken eggs are cage free or free range, or don’t care how your iPhone is made, doesn’t mean you are accomplished. It just means you’re ignorant about some things that interest many other people.It is certainly not necessary for you to care about everything. We are, after all, finite human beings with a limited capacity for attention. But if you genuinely don’t care about something, the least you can do is not feed the internet algorithm on that topic with a comment showing off your superior lack of interest. At worst, doing so only models callousness, especially for younger internet users, who then may become more comfortable adopting the same attitude towards other things.This brings to mind Dr. Russell Kirk’s observation in his book The American Cause, under the aptly titled chapter, “Ignorance – A Dangerous Luxury.”“When, in the Second World War, our troops landed in North Africa, the French were astonished at how politically naive American soldiers seemed. For most Frenchmen are passionately interested in political notions; while most Americans – like most English people – are not. This lack of interest in abstract politics is not always a harmful thing. One reason that the Americans, like the English, do not spend much time arguing over theories of politics is that for a very great while nearly all of us have been contented with our society and our form of government. We have not been revolutionaries since 1776 because we have felt that we have enjoyed as good a society as any people reasonably can hope for.”(Yes, notice that even in the aftermath of civil war, the U.S. resumed normal operations and carried on!)Clearly, he was specifically speaking about apathy towards politics, and the double edged sword of the American experiment’s success: our constitutional republic has functioned well enough that average Americans often feel comfortable letting it run on autopilot.Furthermore, over the past few generations many Americans absorbed the faulty notion that maintaining healthy relationships requires avoidance of discussing anything potentially controversial or uncomfortable, hence the idea that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion. But it’s not that politics and religion or many other subjects that are inherently impolite. Rather, many have lost the skill of talking about them politely.When we prioritize our own feelings (or lack thereof) about a topic over any other value related to it, we support a culture of apathy in general, which feeds the cycle of ignorance and poor conversational skills that weaken self-governance. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit republicanmotherhood.substack.com