Montesquieu’s Republics

Abstract

The leading Antifederalists all agreed in attributing their most important argument against the Constitution —‘that a very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom¹ to Charles Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu.² Montesquieu had stated that ‘It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.’ Large republics had ‘men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation’, who would make themselves ‘glorious’ by oppressing their fellow citizens. ‘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’³ Both ‘Cato’ and ‘Brutus’ quoted these passages in their entirety to criticize the United States Constitution,⁴ and others referred to them frequently, whether or not they had ever read The Spirit of the Laws. ⁵