Brutus Vs Publius The Dangers And Benefits Of A Large Republic

843 Words Aug 1st, 2015 4 Pages
Final EXAM Part II: A Brutus vs Publius the Dangers and Benefits of a Large Republic

Both AntiFederalists and Federalists wanted to secure liberty but clashed in their opinions on whether a large republic would achieve this end. Antifederalists saw large republics as historically flawed, impractical, undemocratic and dangerous to liberty. Brutus attempted to build his case against consolidating the United States into one large republic by first citing the political writings of Montesquieu. “‘…[In] a large republic the public good is sacrificed to [only] a thousand views…[but] [in] a small one, the interests of the public is easier perceived,…[and] abuses are of less extent…”” (EA pg. 111). Montesquieu asserted that large republics typically failed, because a few wealthy aristocrats would assume power and make decisions in their own interests at the expense of the other citizens. To prevent abuse of power and maintain the will of the people a republic had to remain small in size. Brutus contended history supported Montesquieu by claiming the historic downfalls of the free governments of Greece and Rome were attributed to their expansions into large republics (EA pg 111). In addition, Brutus claimed tyranny resulted from the inability and impracticality of a large republic to remain truly democratic and representative of the will of the people. Brutus argued the people are the ultimate sovereigns in a free government who give their assent to the laws through elected…

More about Brutus Vs Publius The Dangers And Benefits Of A Large Republic

Open Document