Brutus No. 1
Warning and Core Conflict
Brutus No. 1 was published on October 18, 1787, in the New-York Journal, about a month after the Constitutional Convention ended. It was the first of 16 essays signed "Brutus," each addressed "To the Citizens of the State of New-York." Brutus was a pen name, and the real author isn't known for sure. It was probably Robert Yates, a New York delegate who walked out of the Convention (some historians credit Melancton Smith, another New York Anti-Federalist). For the exam, what matters is that Brutus was a leading Anti-Federalist.
Brutus warns that ratifying the Constitution is essentially irreversible: "when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force." The fundamental choice, as he frames it, is between thirteen sovereign states loosely confederated versus one large republic under strong federal control. Brutus clearly favors the former.
Threats to State Sovereignty
Brutus argues the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause together would give the federal government "absolute and uncontrollable power."
- Necessary and Proper Clause: he sees this as dangerously broad, capable of justifying "almost any law."
- Supremacy Clause: since federal law wins whenever it conflicts with state law, Brutus predicts the states' remaining powers will eventually be wiped out entirely. In his words, the power the states keep, "small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States," so Congress will naturally want it gone.
Powers Leading to Tyranny
- Taxation: Congress's power to tax directly signals, to Brutus, the end of the confederation model. Taxing is the great means of protection in a good government, but he warns it is also "the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one."
- Standing Armies: Congress could raise armies "as well in peace as in war." Brutus warns that standing armies "have always proved the destruction of liberty," since a government with an army on hand can force people to obey. A free republic, he argues, should depend on the support of its citizens instead.
- The Supreme Court: he predicts the federal judiciary will use the Supremacy Clause to gradually swallow up the power of state courts entirely.
Argument for Small Republics
Brutus argues history shows no example of a free republic as large as the proposed United States, pointing to Greek and Roman republics that stayed free only while small, and became tyrannical once they expanded into empires.
- He favors participatory democracy, believing pure democracy only really works in a small area, like a single city, and wants citizens as directly involved in policymaking as possible.
- Flawed representation in a large republic: either you have enough representatives to actually know the people's views, making the legislature unworkably huge, or you shrink the legislature to a workable size, at which point representatives no longer know what their constituents actually want, undermining the whole idea of a republic.
- Diversity as a weakness: Brutus argues the country is too diverse in interests and values to function as a single republic, predicting Congress would be paralyzed by constant clashing factions.
Uses for Argumentative Essays
Brutus No. 1 is useful for arguing in favor of states' rights, defending individual liberty against a potentially tyrannical central government, and supporting participatory democracy, since his core concern throughout is maximizing the people's direct influence over policy.
- Principles: popular sovereignty, limited government, and states' rights. Brutus stands for popular democratic theory: a small, decentralized republic where representatives stay close to the people.
- Where it shows up: Unit 1, Topics 1.2 and 1.3. EK 1.2.A.2 uses the debate between Brutus No. 1 and Federalist No. 10 to show the tension between participatory democracy and the more filtered pluralist and elite models, and EK 1.3.A.2 names Brutus No. 1 as the key Anti-Federalist writing.
- Pair it with Federalist No. 10: AP questions often ask you to compare the two. Brutus says a large republic can't represent such a varied people and will slide into tyranny. Madison says a large republic is exactly what protects liberty, because so many competing factions make it hard for any one to take over.