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. 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. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon the latter by the will of one, or a few. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind. 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.” Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. 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. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. 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. 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? 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? 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. Brutus’s essays were so incisive that they helped spur Alexander Hamilton to organize (and co-author) The Federalist Papers in response. As a result, he favored placing most key powers in the governments closest to the American people: their state and local governments. 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. Brutus published his essays during the debates over ratification the Constitution-expressing a range of doubts. Later, he served as a leading Anti-Federalist delegate in the New York state ratifying convention. He represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, but he left early because he opposed the new Constitution emerging in secret in Philadelphia. He was a close ally of powerful New York Governor George Clinton. While scholars still debate the author of the Brutus Essays, most believe that they were written by New York Anti-Federalist Robert Yates. “Brutus” was the pseudonym for one of the most forceful Anti-Federalist voices during the ratification debates over the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |