Primary Source: Brutus, Essay No. 1 (article) | Khan Academy (2024)

Table of Contents
Summary Document Excerpt References

Summary

“Brutus” was the pseudonym for one of the most forceful Anti-Federalist voices during the ratification debates over the U.S. Constitution. While scholars still debate the author of the Brutus Essays, most believe that they were written by New York Anti-Federalist Robert Yates. Yates was a New York state judge. He was a close ally of powerful New York Governor George Clinton. He represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, but he left early because he opposed the new Constitution emerging in secret in Philadelphia. Later, he served as a leading Anti-Federalist delegate in the New York state ratifying convention. Brutus published his essays during the debates over ratification of the Constitution—expressing a range of doubts. For Brutus, the ratification debates turned on one key question: do the American people want a system driven by the states or one organized around a powerful national government? Echoing influential political theorists like Montesquieu, Brutus feared that a republican form of government could not succeed in a large nation like America. As a result, he favored placing most key powers in the governments closest to the American people: their state and local governments. Brutus’s essays were so incisive that they helped spur Alexander Hamilton to organize (and co-author) The Federalist Papers in response.

Document Excerpt

Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not?

We must first ask if it is a good idea to combine thirteen states into one large republic.

It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such a one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?

We all agree that any government we pick should be free; the real question is if such a large republic could actually protect liberty over such a large nation.

If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these increasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two.

Some of the smartest political writers, like Montesquieu, warned that free republics can only work in small societies.

The one is the baron de Montesquieu . . . . “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” . . .

Large republics inevitably fail because they contain too many wealthy people who are self-interested and able to exploit their fellow citizens. In addition, large republics contain too many interests. The people are too different to settle on a common good.

In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. . . .

For a government to be free, people have to consent to the laws that control them.

Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldy, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.

But in a large republic, the distance between the people and their representatives are too big, and representatives don’t fully represent the people.

The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not. . . .

The United States is already so big, and it will only grow. We are too large and the interests of the people too varied to form a single, national republic.

The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers; the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. . . In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.

In a free republic, people have faith in their representatives because they know them personally. But in a large republic, people can’t know their representatives, so they have less faith in government serving their needs.

In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.

In a republic as large as the United States, the representatives would not need to worry as much about voter opinion. And without that check by the people, the government would be able to abuse its power.

These are some of the reasons by which it appears that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.

Large republics are destined to fail. The Constitution shouldn’t be ratified.

Primary Source: Brutus, Essay No. 1 (article) | Khan Academy (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Van Hayes

Last Updated:

Views: 6317

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (46 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Van Hayes

Birthday: 1994-06-07

Address: 2004 Kling Rapid, New Destiny, MT 64658-2367

Phone: +512425013758

Job: National Farming Director

Hobby: Reading, Polo, Genealogy, amateur radio, Scouting, Stand-up comedy, Cryptography

Introduction: My name is Van Hayes, I am a thankful, friendly, smiling, calm, powerful, fine, enthusiastic person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.