Public Good In A Large Republic

The government would be stretched out too thin for such a big nation, “a republic of such vast extent as the United-States,” wrote Brutus, “the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts.” Montesquieu was quoted in “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.” Other anti federalists were worried that the federal government would …show more content…
It is easier for a thousand people to agree on something than it is for 10,000 to come together and agree. Since large coordinated factions would strain to form, more people would be protected.However,Madisonrecognizedthatindeedtheremightbeaneedforfactionstoform. Inthis vein, large government would still allow the creation of a large faction to reach consensus on how to change that government. Majority rule nevertheless would still protect the minorities, because it would force the large factions to come to understanding with those minorities. The majority would still rule, but the minority would be taken into consideration. Also the democracy that the anti Federalists were promoting requires citizens to meet in person, but a Republic does not. Only their representatives need