bject; 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” (Brutus chap 4).
In contrast, the interest of the public themselves are easier perceived and achieved in a small republic due to the similarity in manners, sentiments and interests, with greed and abuses such as those mentioned greatly minimized; thus, the vision of a homogeneous and virtuous society where all are treated equally with deserved respect regardless of background and/or the color of their skin.
Like Brutus, Sam Adams’ letter to John Scollay had real concerns about the inconsistencies of the authorities powers granted in the United States Constitution. A crusader of true independence that entailed equality and freedom to all men, Sam, an ardent Christian living by the same principles, was against the institution of slavery, arguing that liberty had to be directed towards benevolent/kind/caring purposes, otherwise, it risked being an excuse for immorality in the new nation; he envision a nation grounded on Christian principles of mutual preservation of liberty and where every life is treated with respect and dignity (Harris and Kidd 172-173).
Brutus argues that the opinion of the greatest men as well as the experience of mankind bear him testimony against the idea of an extensive republic, and gives a plethora of examples, right from the Grecian and Roman republics, to the monarchies of Europe that all ‘proved the destruction of liberty and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic’.
An experienced judge, Robert Yates was against the independence of the judiciary, more particularly with regards to the Supreme Court that he argued would become a source of almost unlimited federal powers. Yates asserted