Brutus I October 17, 1787 (Near My Birthday)Posted: September 2, 2011
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 encreasing 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. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. “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.” Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.”
Do you think the united states can be represented in a republic? Even if you do not respond here, way your thoughts deeply on this matter. There is certainly a power in being united, look at what happened to what could of been Gran Colomonbia (which would of kicked America’s ass by the way) united and not torn apart by regional differences. What torn apart these countries though was not being spread apart, it was letting larger nations destroy them through interparty war. The number of columbians that have died over the simple question “what is your stance towards america” in the Nunez years, and I’m sure even now into the Uribe puppetry phase has been a source of war and conflict for central america since our “war on drugs” which gave us exucses to hang out in colomobia illegally.
But Bolivar himself believed that there would be beauty in ecuador as a textile place, venezuela as an agricultural center, colombia as an export of cocao, and new granada as a source of gold, all working together. why wouldnt’ of they learned to coperate? the simple rule is do what is best for the 1000 miles around you, for instance, giving the US the panama canal is bad for everyone, so this is a bad move, but other than that, go ahead and be PANAMA and have your own army. This is what we want to, we don’t want china or japan building an airport base outside of corpus kristi if Texas is its own State and the national government collapses. (Neither do we want multi-national corporations which are larger than nations doing it either, but hey) there was a way to work con-federately, and liberals in the 1000 day war of 1899-1902 in columbia died for that ideal. how many of us think we are fighting for it? I used to think I was, but I was only fighting for an ideology not a modality, modality’s require sacrifice and sometimes arms and hard work.
I think we can find a common ground between dividing up nations into colonial nation states like estonia/czech/serb or panama/peru/chile/colombia/venezuela to make them useless, nor to build a giant nation with an empire. Is there a way between it? Let’s look at this