Reign of the Judges—Republic.
It is however in the matter of the Nephite "reign of the Judges" or the "Nephite Republic" that an illiterate, modern writer would most likely have betrayed himself. Especially an American writer strongly imbued with the excellence, to say nothing of the sanctity, of the American form of government.
That Joseph Smith, as also his early and later associates, were imbued with such opinions concerning the American system of government is notorious. Joseph Smith declared the constitution of the United States to have resulted from the inspiration of God: "And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers, and are in authority over you, according to the laws and constitution of the people which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles, that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto them, that every man be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."[[5]]
On another occasion the Prophet said: "Hence we say, that the constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of its liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of [oppression's] sun."[[6]]
Still more especially would an illiterate modern writer be likely to betray himself if the American system of government was practically the only one of which he had any definite knowledge. If then his description of a "reign of judges," based upon democratic principles, among an ancient people, escape not only some but all modern refinements of democratic government—some of which were unknown until employed in the establishment of the republic of the United States [[7]]—then indeed are we well within the realm of the marvelous. And this we may claim for the Book of Mormon description of the "reign of the judges," viz. that while it outlines a government based upon the central principle of democracy—government by the people[[8]]—yet there is nothing modern in that republic. The principle of representation no where appears; a division of the political power into co-ordinate and independent departments no where appears; there is no indication of a federation even, much less any of those modern refinements which distinguish modern federated republics from more ancient federated republics.
Of course democratic government existed from very ancient times and there have also been from of old confederated republics, but the government of the United States rests upon some principles that are recognized as entirely modern. The principal differences between the modern republics and the ancient are these: first, the modern republics recognize the principle of representation: that is, masses of the people delegate authority to act for them to selected representatives; second, the powers of government are lodged in three distinct co-ordinate departments, the law making, the law executing, and the law determining departments; third, the federal government has the same division of political power as the respective states, viz., legislative, executive and judicial; and also has conferred upon it power, within the limits prescribed by the constitution, to act directly through its own instrumentalities upon the citizens of the respective states. The last item the French philosopher De Tocqueville, in speaking of the republic of the United States, declared to be a wholly novel theory which he characterizes as a great discovery in modern political science. "In all the confederations which precede the American constitution of 1789," he says, "the allied states, for a common object, agree to obey the injunctions of a federal government; but they [the respective states] reserve to themselves the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the union. The American states which combined in 1789, agreed that the federal government should not only dictate but should execute its own enactments. In both cases the right is the same but the exercise of the right is different; and this difference produced the most momentous consequences. The new word which ought to express this novel thing does not yet exist." (De Tocqueville, U. S. Constitution, Vol. I.)