In the modern world, it is difficult to imagine a nation without a professional standing army, but throughout history such armies have been considered antithetical to people’s freedom. At the time of the founding of the United States, this debate was far from settled. Today, standing armies are considered by many to be absolutely necessary, and standing armies are recognized by many thinkers to be the natural forerunner of empire, a force that forces host nations to constantly expand.
At a time when conservatives are gradually beginning to question the eternal wars that our ruling elites have exploited to waste this nation’s blood and treasure, it is imperative that our leaders maintain a large professional combat force. It is worth pausing to assess the role played in forcing demands on the United States. Constant conflict.
The best thing Americans can do may be to remain wary of the imperial temptations that a standing army presents.
It is the right instinct for American soldiers to reflexively support conservatives. Volunteering and putting yourself at risk to protect your own people is a noble act. The American military has become a largely hereditary warrior caste, drawing heavily from the population of red states to form the most effective fighting force. It is perfectly natural for conservatives to admire the honorable service of their brothers, neighbors, and children.
One of the main reasons the U.S. military is facing a recruiting crisis is because it has demonized and purged the conservative soldiers who have traditionally occupied its ranks. So, as we consider the virtues and dangers of a standing army, let us remember that we are not questioning the honor of those who have served this country so diligently.
to protect freedom
Niccolo Machiavelli is best known for The Prince, but most people don’t realize that the political theorist was not a monarchist. In fact, he was an ardent supporter of the Republican form of government. For Machiavelli, the nature of a state’s military defense was the most important factor in its ability to secure freedom, and he wrote at length on this subject.
Renaissance Italy was plagued by constant wars between competing city-states, and the regular use of mercenaries caused serious problems for Machiavelli’s hometown of Florence. After experiencing repeated betrayals by troops with no personal connection to the city-states they served, Machiavelli came to the conclusion that no matter how wealthy a country became, it must have a fighting force loyal to the people it protected. It’s arrived.
Machiavelli understood the vital need for an army that was personally connected to the state, but in his book The Art of War he warned about the dangers of maintaining a professional army in times of peace. He believed that the ruling class must always fear professional soldiers because soldiers had no other means of making money. Large standing armies are very expensive, and unless they are constantly deployed overseas to collect booty and secure trade, their costs can quickly add up. If states do not continue to send professional troops overseas and there is no consistent way to pay them, idle armed soldiers with no other form of employment will soon become a threat to the ruling class.
War can also be a great way for the ruling class to make money by funneling tax money extracted from the people through defense contractors that are either owned by politicians or funneled back to politicians. This means that those in charge of countries with large professional fighting forces always have an incentive to find new wars to make money and keep large parts of their forces occupied abroad. Empires provide a natural solution to many of the problems imposed on ruling classes by standing armies.
As an alternative, Machiavelli encourages republics to adopt citizen militias as a solution to the problem of standing armies. By making all capable citizens into soldiers, the Republic ensures that its troops are personally loyal to the nation while also avoiding the temptation of constant deployment and conquest.
Militia members are trained as soldiers but maintain civilian jobs that allow them to support their families and pay their mortgages. Militia defend the homeland when a threat to the nation arises. However, once the danger passes, the militia return to normal life. There is no constant need to find the money to pay the military, no reason to keep them regularly deployed, and no incentive for a lucrative defense industry to grow around the military.
Machiavelli pointed out that when ancient Rome was a republic, its army was a citizen militia, and each citizen provided his own weapons and armor. However, as armies became professionalized and men began to take up the profession of soldiering, nations inevitably moved into empires.
What the founders thought
The American Founders were also big fans of the ancient Roman Republic and recognized many of the concerns expressed by Machiavelli in his writings.
Thomas Jefferson regularly spoke of the threat that a standing army posed to the liberties of free people, and James Madison and Alexander Hamilton acknowledged these dangers when writing The Federalist. While defending the legislature’s ability to maintain standing armies under Article 24, Hamilton argues that two state constitutions, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, have provisions explicitly warning that standing armies in peacetime are a danger to liberty. He pointed out that there is.
In Federalist 29, Hamilton explained that a well-regulated citizen militia could make a standing army superfluous, but in his mind he believed that a standing army would be better suited than a complete ban on the creation of a standing army. I thought it was a much better way to avoid the dangers of
If a well-regulated militia is the most natural defense of a free nation, it certainly should be subject to regulation and left to the discretion of the bodies that constitute the guardians of national security. If standing armies were dangerous to liberty, the protection of the state should give effective authority to the militias charged within their organization, and remove, as far as possible, incentives and pretexts for such unfriendly institutions. It should be removed. If the federal government could direct militia assistance in emergencies that require military force to support civil magistrates, it would be better able to avoid the use of other types of military forces. If the former is not available, you will be forced to revert to the latter. Eliminating the need for an army would be a surer way to prevent its existence than thousands of bans on paper.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding the wording of the Second Amendment. Citizen militias were considered the default armed defense of free republics. Of course, every individual had the right to bear arms. How else can the United States protect itself?
To be clear, none of this justifies the left’s claim that the Second Amendment is obsolete. Just because the United States has a professional military does not mean the right to self-defense ceases to exist. However, it is important to understand the context in which these important documents were written. The Founding Fathers were aware of the temptations posed by a standing army, and agreed with both the ancient Romans and Machiavelli that citizen militias were the natural defense of a republican form of government.
War has changed greatly since Machiavelli’s time. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and aircraft mean military threats can emerge at a moment’s notice. Using and maintaining highly complex weapons systems requires intensive training and expertise. Even with regular militia training, the idea that we would have time to develop a citizen militia to effectively repel threats from great powers seems tenuous at best. Even if the United States wanted to reduce its military to a temporary force, other global players are unlikely to follow suit.
And, frankly, Americans have become accustomed to the idea that someone else will fight their battles. The idea of each citizen defending the country seems like an oddity from a bygone era. If citizen militias are the price of freedom, that price is likely too high for the average American.
As John Adams said, the Constitution was created to govern good people, and in that respect we exist beyond its reach. The best thing Americans can do may be to remain vigilant against the imperial temptations that a standing army presents.
Conservatives are already starting to lose their taste for eternal war, tired of having their sons serve an empire that no longer cares for them. Hopefully, this will eventually lead the American ruling class to refocus on the common interests of its people.
