Brutus Vs Publius The Dangers And Benefits Of A Large Republic

He also brought up the fact that the large republic could not incorporate all the views of the small republics. The government would be too far away to even care about the concerns of a small town thousands of miles away. Brutus also thought that the government would only consist of the wealthy “elite” people and wouldn’t represent the needs of the common people. (Brutus 1).

There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

In what is considered the first anti-federalist paper, “Brutus” writes: “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.” This clash of ideas, opinions and lifestyles, he argued, did not lend itself to any overarching federal government. He continues: “The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other” (Anti-Federalist 1). The Federal Farmer adds: “Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be

A republic, like Rome, moves at a maddeningly slow pace. Legislation is put through a system of checks and balances where rivals debate ad nauseum over proposed policies. In a perfect world, this ensures that only which is most beneficial for the state and her peoples becomes a reality. A Tyrant, however, can accomplish a great deal in only a short amount of time. A good leader, like Augustus, can propel his people forward unhindered by the chains of a republic. The Roman people, according to Tacitus: “prefered the security of the current regime to the dangers of old” (Yardley 2008, 3). Even if it lacked freedom, many were willing to submit to an empire if it meant stability and security.

America is an incredibly vast, diverse country, and has been this way for hundreds of years. The sheer size of America, even when it was only composed of thirteen states with a total population of nearly three million people (Brutus, essay 1, p. 64), concerned many Americans in the 1780s, due to this inquiry: was America simply too large for a republican style government to work? Many anti-federalists claimed that republics could only work on a small scale, while the federalists believed that having a large republic was the only way to go and would be beneficial to the public good. Before this time, history furnished no examples of a well-functioning republic as big as America, so the federalists and anti federalists were stepping into a completely new untouched territory.

Some policies and institutions of the Roman Republic were useful to help them succeed in conquering first Italy and then the Mediterranean world. Before of the institution of the republic, the romans were a monarchy since their beginning and they were basically a pastoral people. Rome suffer several changes and improvements under the control of the Etruscan kings. The Etruscan were civilization settled north of Rome in Etruria, and they once had control over almost all the Italic peninsula. The Etruscans influences in Rome were profound, they transformed Rome from a pastoral community to a city (91). The Etruscan built the street and roads that help the development of temples, markets, shops, streets, and houses. They basically brought urbanization to Rome. It is fairly to say that the Rome republic was a fusion between the elements of the Etruscan civilization and the Rome elements. The combination of the different political institutions and policies made the Romans succeed in their conquest territories.

Instructions: Copy and paste the following text into a document or create a document that

Brutus’s patriotism enables him to be a strong leader because his desire for a strong republic is based on his devotion to the Roman citizens and not selfishness, like Caesar was. His debate of

The Roman Republic was a “democratic” republic, which allowed first citizens to vote, and to choose their governors in the senate (Hence, their consuls). However, it was a nation ruled by its aristocracy, and, consequently, the entire Republic`s power was concentrated in a few individuals. Furthermore, the Senate was controlled by Patricians, which directed the government by using wealth to buy control and power over the decisions of the senate and the consuls. This situation aroused the inconformity of the people; as result, a civil war took place in the Republic (destroying it), and then the Roman Empire was born.

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Also Caesar and Brutus have extremely strong reputations. Reputation is defined as the estimation in which a person or thing is held, by the community or the public generally. Caesar got his reputation by his ability to command and take over. “And then he offered it the third time. He put it the third time by, and still he refused it (I.ii.241-242). Casca says that he saw Antony offering Caesar the crown three times by the approval of all the citizens of Rome. People usually only get the crown offered to them once but Caesar got it offered to him three times so it proves that the citizens of Rome love Caesar so much that they gave him more chances then he needed. Though Caesar has a strong reputation Brutus also has a reputation but he has the stronger reputation of the two. Brutus got his reputation by where he came from and what his family has done in the past. “Brutus had rather be a villager” (I.ii.172). When Brutus states that he would rather be a villager rather than have power, he means that if Caesar continues to rule he would he could not tolerate Caesar’s tyranny. This shows the power Brutus has by implying, that if Caesar was chosen for king he would abuse his authority. Reputation is a huge thing but if others do not know how to control it they should not be given that power.

After the fall of Tarquinius Superbus’ reign of Rome, the Brutus and Collatinus led patrician revolution leads to the beginning of a new era in Roman history: the republic. The early republic is mostly a patrician favoring institute and created it in order “to restore power and privileges that popular royal tyrants had usurped from them” and to make it “difficult for any one aristocrat to acquire too much power at the expense of the rest” (Ward 59). Greek historian, Polybius, in his book, Histories, talks about the greatness of this Roman republic and its constitution by claiming: “Now the elements by which the Roman constitution was controlled were three in number, … and all aspects of the administration were, taken separately, so fairly

The citizens of Rome begin to see Brutus’s way of thinking and they understand that he really did think of the good of the people while making his decision.  They also understand that Brutus was not thinking selfishly like they had assumed, but logically. This helps them to trust him more because he thought about the situation in an unbiased way.  The plebeians respond to Brutus’s explanation by saying, “Live, Brutus, live, live! / Bring him with triumph home unto his house… This Caesar was  tyrant. / Nay, that’s certain. / We are blessed that Rome is rid of him” (III.ii.49-50 and 75-77).  The Plebeians learn that Brutus had honest intentions and they respect and praise him for it.  The knowledge that Brutus was selfless enough to kill his friend in order to save them from tyranny, earns their respect.  A final situation where this theme is developed is during the events surrounding the death of Brutus.

He states that if there is not similar interests among the people in a large republic then there will be continuous disagreements against each other.

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most well known in the history of Roman Emperors, yet there is no denying that his reign was filled with controversy, no reason more so than his devious rise to power and his mischievous ways of suppressing the senate. There is no doubt that in ruling as a Dictator; Caesar lost the support of the Roman people, who had fought for freedom against an Etruscan King, a role in which Caesar was playing. His death in 44BC coincided with what many believe to be the year in which the Republic completely its eventual ‘fall’ that it had been plummeting to since 133BC, and it is only by looking at the differences in the end of his reign to that of Augustus’ in 27BC that