Extended Republic

1812 Words 8 Pages
The Feasibility of an Extended Republic in America Governments are only as effective as their structure allows them to be. A government that is large and unwieldy will rarely be efficient due to the red tape and bureaucracy bogging it down. The power structure in a monarchy differs from the structure in a republic. When deciding the shape of the American government, the Founding Fathers carefully considered all shapes and sizes of government to try and find what would suit the new nation the best in the wake of the Articles of Confederation. Their decision to establish an extended republic was a revolutionary idea that attracted much criticism and attention because it was an untested idea. The feasibility of an extended republic is tested …show more content…
All attempts at establishing a republic in the ancient times had been in small states like Sparta, which lasted for about five hundred years. Sparta is an example used often in the debate over the virtues of an extended republic. The rules established by Lycurgus in an effort to unite the city-state into a republican nation were harsh but effective. The reason they were so effective was because the state was small enough for the laws to be enforced and the will of the people to be influenced by the leaders. Commerce was banned and inhabitants were banned from traveling abroad due to fear of contamination by outside influences (Plutarch 8). The homogeneity that emerged from the enforcement of these harsh rules is a characteristic found in many republics because, in the eyes of many Anti-Federalists and philosophers, it was the only way to ensure that everyone in the republic was willing to work for the common good. In the eyes of Brutus and other Anti-Federalists, there should be similar manners and sentiments, otherwise the principles of the people will constantly clash (Brutus 6). The diversity of those who live in America today is celebrated as an innate part of the country’s heritage, but in the time of the Federalists, there was a push towards similarity and homogeneity in the population. Though the interests would vary from state to state, all Americans believed in certain ideals that brought …show more content…
The election of these representatives would take place in their own districts, and they would be held responsible for properly conveying the concerns of their constituents to the larger body. Though this seems fair and equal, there was the fear that the citizens would not really know their leaders well enough. In such a large nation, there would be very few people who were recognized by the entire nation, and the Anti-Federalists were afraid that it would be these same people who ended up getting elected each time to lead the people. This would create a “natural aristocracy” where those elected would be truly unlike those who were voting for them (Storing 17). While it is true that the first few leaders tended to be those who were prominent for their role in shaping the country, it was a largely unfounded fear. The representatives, who were elected in their own districts, were also held responsible for their actions. Their limited tenure meant that it was unlikely that they would disobey the will of the people, allowing that part of government to remain under the consent of the governed. This did not pacify the Anti-Federalists, as they believed that rotating the legislators made it easier to pass the blame to the predecessor, making it difficult for the people to recognize whose incompetency led to the mistake. Now, this is no longer

Related Documents