Brutus argues that in a republic, "the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar…if not, there will be
a constant clashing of opinions and the representatives of one part will be constantly striving against the other." Should a republic be made up of a small group of like-minded people? Or, is diversity of opinion beneficial to the success of a federal government?
Brutus' vision of republic is outdated. Diversity of opinion is vital for a republic.
It's necessary for a republic to have people who represent all kinds of people in it. Different classes live different lives, and it's hard for a person who belongs to one class to be aware of the needs, manners, interests of people from a different class. For this reason, diversity is a very important part of a republic.
A republic should <em>NOT</em> be made up of a small group of people who think in a similar way. On the contrary, it <em>should</em> be made up of people from different backgrounds, in order to better represent its people.
The American Revolution was disastrous for the Iroquois. The confederacy, as such, refused to take part in the conflict but allowed each tribe to decide for itself, and all the tribes, except the Oneida, joined the British.
