Transcript from the Jeremy Sarber program – 12/4/09
Hello everyone. Good morning to you and welcome to the program. I’m very excited about today’s show. It’s actually a continuation of some good discussion we had on yesterday’s program over a subject which is rarely talked about and, I’m guessing, somewhat controversial. I know it was controversial at least back in our Founders’ day. In modern times, we hardly ever discuss it and I’m not sure there is really any common debates about it. The subject is standing armies. Since probably World War I, the United States has maintained a standing army in peacetime, so for most of us living today, that’s all we’ve ever known. Why would we question it? The questions arise when you begin looking back through history. For instance, many of the Founders opposed a standing army. Thomas Jefferson said, “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
I imagine we can all agree with the dangers of a standing army, even if we believe it to be a necessary evil of sorts. The Anti-Federalist who called himself “Centinel” wrote a series of letters in late 1787 and early 1788. He referred to standing armies in his second letter as “that grand engine of oppression.” Another said that under the new Constitution Congress “will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years.” He then voiced his objection to standing armies by saying, “I see so many men in America fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families.” He also said that “we all agree, that a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people.” Another anti-federalist, “Old Whig” stated that “the unlimited power of taxation will give them the command of all the treasures of the continent; a standing army will be wholly at their devotion.” I believe history confirms their fears. I gave the example of Hitler yesterday where he turned the German army against many of the German people. By the way, I don’t want to hear the common excuse, “That’ll never happen here in America.” I believe that mentality is dangerously naïve.
But on the other hand, not all of the Founders were opposed to a standing army. Any time I have questions about a political issue, I always look for an answer in four places. First, the Bible. That’s right, the Bible. There are more governing principles in the Bible than you would ever imagine. Second, I look at the Constitution. Third and fourth, I read through the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers. Now I’ve already given you some quotes from the Anti-Federalists, what about the Federalists? Well, I looked in two places. Federalist number 8 and Federalist number 24. Number 8 is titled, “The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States.” Number 24 is conveniently titled, “The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered.”
In number 8, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free. The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it.” In other words, Hamilton says it is natural and even expected that we would trade a bit of our freedom from a standing army for the sake of security. But here, he is not writing specifically about a federal army, but rather, state armies.
In number 24, Hamilton wrote, “Though a wide ocean separates the United States from Europe, yet there are various considerations that warn us against an excess of confidence or security.” He goes on to describe the potential threats around the world. He then says, “Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable…The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature.”
He goes on from there. Of course, even Hamilton knew of the dangers of a standing army, yet he considered it necessary to some degree. There are a million questions within the issue of a standing army. For instance, is it even constitutional? Obviously, Hamilton believed it was. But he did write in Federalist number 24, quote, “…the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.” He appears to suggest that the Constitution does allow for a standing army within, what he refers to as evident necessity.
To quote the Constitution exactly, Article 1 Section 8 reads, defining the powers of Congress, “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Perhaps there are a couple of other issues so closely connected with the issue of standing armies that we cannot separate them. Two that come to my mind are state sovereignty and foreign policy. When it comes to state sovereignty, what exactly is the role of the states versus the federal government in this issue? Concerning foreign policy, is it possible that our foreign policy is so screwed up that it becomes all the more necessary for a standing army when perhaps the army would not be as necessary if we were still to abide by Washington’s formula, for instance. He spoke out against permanent alliances and so on. What about standing armies, not only at home, but abroad? Maybe those are things we need to talk about as well.
And what about the militia? I do know of at least one case where Washington federalized the militia to suppress the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion. Now we have the National Guard. Does that constitute a true militia? If so, do we still need a standing army in peacetime? If we ever have peace, that is. Maybe that’s another point to be made. Or perhaps that just returns us to the root issue of a faulty foreign policy where we are in perpetual war efforts. There is a lot to consider here which makes it such an interesting subject. Yet, it is rarely discussed.
Well, we’re changing that today. As I said, I am very excited this morning and you should be too. You won’t have to listen to me rant for an hour. I have invited five very special guests this morning who are going to weigh in and discuss this topic with me. They are radio hosts, writers, and political thinkers and I imagine we’ll hear a unique perspective from each of them. Without further a due, let’s bring them all on. The conversation may get wild and crazy at times, but we’ll try to keep things civil, organized, and we’ll attempt to speak one at a time if at all possible. Let’s do an introduction slash role call and see if everyone is here.
After this brief introduction to the subject, I brought on the special guest panel which included Rick Pearlstein (Freedom and Liberty Show), Andrew Lawton (Strictly Right), Patriot Greg (The Christian Patriot), Clint Stutts (Dueling Patriots), and Vinson Howell (The Conservative Bugle).
This is a very refreshing post. I just recently completed my undergraduate thesis, titled: "Classical Principles in American Government." As a Classics major, looking to the original sources the founding fathers did was a real treat-especially the influence the confederacies of Greece and Rome had in the crafting of our constitution at the convention. The fathers had a rather prescient fear that America would overextend itself in military pursuits. Sparta and Carthage were crushed because they tried to expand beyond their territory, and Rome became an oligarchy due to, as Thomas Jefferson said, over-commercialization because of the expansion of their empire.
I sometimes wonder if American has made the same mistakes Rome has. Our "Punic Curse" might be this perpetual war-time you so astutely observe our country to be engaging.