historicaldocuments:anti-federalist:antifed24
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revision | |||
— | historicaldocuments:anti-federalist:antifed24 [2021/02/23 16:15] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [[historicaldocuments: | ||
+ | ====== ANTI-FEDERALIST No. 24 ====== | ||
+ | ===== OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING ARMY (PART I) ===== | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | The first essay is taken from the ninth letter of " | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | . . . . Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people. . . . [If] necessary, the truth of the position might be confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I presume it would be useless, to enter into a labored argument, to prove to the people of America, a position which has so long and so generally been received by them as a kind of axiom. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some of the advocates for this new system controvert this sentiment, as they do almost every other that has been maintained by the best writers on free government. Others, though they will not expressly deny, that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous, yet join with these in maintaining, | ||
+ | |||
+ | A writer, in favor of this system, treats this objection as a ridiculous one. He supposes it would be as proper to provide against the introduction of Turkish Janizaries, or against making the Alcoran a rule of faith. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [ A citizen of America (Noah Webster), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution proposed by the late Convention held at Philadelphia. With Answers to the Principal Objections Raised Against the System (Philadelphia, | ||
+ | |||
+ | From the positive, and dogmatic manner, in which this author delivers his opinions, and answers objections made to his sentiments - one would conclude, that he was some pedantic pedagogue who had been accustomed to deliver his dogmas to pupils, who always placed implicit faith in what he delivered. | ||
+ | |||
+ | But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because, says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is admitted then, that a standing army in time of peace is an evil. I ask then, why should this government be authorised to do evil? If the principles and habits of the people of this country are opposed to standing armies in time of peace, if they do not contribute to the public good, but would endanger the public liberty and happiness, why should the government be vested with the power? No reason can be given, why rulers should be authorised to do, what, if done, would oppose the principles and habits of the people, and endanger the public safety; but there is every reason in the world, that they should be prohibited from the exercise of such a power. But this author supposes, that no danger is to be apprehended from the exercise of this power, because if armies are kept up, it will be by the people themselves, and therefore, to provide against it would be as absurd as for a man to "pass a law in his family, that no troops should be quartered in his family by his consent. " This reasoning supposes, that the general government is to be exercised by the people of America themselves. But such an idea is groundless and absurd. There is surely a distinction between the people and their rulers, even when the latter are representatives of the former. They certainly are not identically the same, and it cannot be disputed, but it may and often does happen, that they do not possess the same sentiments or pursue the same interests. I think I have shown [in a previous paper] that as this government is constructed, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Besides, if the habits and sentiments of the people of America are to be relied upon, as the sole security against the encroachment of their rulers, all restrictions in constitutions are unnecessary; | ||
+ | |||
+ | The idea that there is no danger of the establishment of a standing army, under the new constitution, | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is a well known fact, that a number of those who had an agency in producing this system, and many of those who it is probable will have a principal share in the administration of the government under it, if it is adopted, are avowedly in favor of standing armies. It is a language common among them, "That no people can be kept in order, unless the government have an army to awe them into obedience; it is necessary to support the dignity of government, to have a military establishment. And there will not be wanting a variety of plausible reasons to justify the raising one, drawn from the danger we are in from the Indians on our frontiers, or from the European provinces in our neighborhood. If to this we add, that an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry, and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay them, and perhaps sooner. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A writer, who is the boast of the advocates of this new constitution, | ||
+ | |||
+ | He sets out with calling in question the candor and integrity of those who advance the objection; and with insinuating, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The man who reproves another for a fault, should be careful that he himself be not guilty of it. How far this writer has manifested a spirit of candor, and has pursued fair reasoning on this subject, the impartial public will judge, when his arguments pass before them in review. | ||
+ | |||
+ | He first attempts to show, that this objection is futile and disingenuous, | ||
+ | |||
+ | He next tells us, that the power given by this constitution, | ||
+ | |||
+ | I shall not undertake to inquire whether or not Congress are vested with a power to keep up a standing army in time of peace; it has been a subject warmly debated in Congress, more than once, since the peace; and one of the most respectable states in the union, were so fully convinced that they had no such power, that they expressly instructed their delegates to enter a solemn protest against it on the journals of Congress, should they attempt to exercise it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | But should it be admitted that they have the power, there is such a striking dissimilarity between the restrictions under which the present Congress can exercise it, and that of the proposed government, that the comparison will serve rather to show the impropriety of vesting the proposed government with the power, than of justifying it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It is acknowledged by this writer, that the powers of Congress, under the present confederation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Under the present confederation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[historicaldocuments: | ||
+ | [[historicaldocuments: |
historicaldocuments/anti-federalist/antifed24.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:15 by 127.0.0.1