Quote:
Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois
Here's something from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
EDSITEment - Lesson Plan
Madison repeatedly called for a standing army as well while he was a Congressman and later when he was President.
He calls for the army to be no more than 1% of the population and our present army is even smaller than that. It's about 1/3 of 1%. It seems that different Founders had different ideas about whether or not to have a standing army, with the principle Founder being in favor of it. |
Again, you're cherry picking.
First of all, there is a conflict of interest with your source - it is a
government source justifying more
government power. Imagine that...
Secondly, the quantifier in the quote: "still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger" - does not support your interpretation. He is saying that one cannot say that the state militias could not do the job - therefore a standing army is unnecessary in the final equation.
Thirdly, I will admit that there does seem to be a change at times in Madison's
words regarding support of a standing army. After Jefferson was elected President in the House of Representatives, Madison said:
"True to his Democratic-Republican party creed that a standing military is a threat to liberty, Madison writes to Jefferson, "And what a lesson to America & the world is given by the efficacy of the public will when there is no army to be turned [against] it!"
Jefferson's, who Madison was very happy to see elected, quotes on standing armies were:
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson
"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207
"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
"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." --Thomas Jefferson
Back to Madison. Now, when we're looking at such a change, one must ask:
When did he say it? Why did he say it? And what were his actions after he said it?
If Bill Clinton said "I truly believe in the institution of marriage and that one man can be faithful to one woman" - it would be meaningless because his actions would refute his words. If he said it before getting married or after a divorce, the context would change the validity of the statement as well.
So when did Madison change and begin to allegedly favor a standing army? It was during wartime, during the War of 1812, in which the capital was burned. Obviously, quite an emotional experience for someone to live through, and emotion has a way of clouding reason:
(from the same source)
"the 63-year-old Madison remained on horseback for most of four days and nights while the capital burned and then returned immediately to its charred ruins to resume official business. Within a month of the burning of the White House he sends his sixth State of the Union message to Congress candidly acknowledging England's potential "deadly blow at our growing prosperity,
perhaps at our national existence."
His choice of words there is clearly emotional. America could not have been conquered by England.
Another factor that most likely influenced his thinking on the issue was that the war was not popular, and some of the state governors exercised their independent rights and refused to allow their militia to serve in the war:
"Initially the war goes badly, and Madison, who has made some bad appointments, must bear some of the blame. Federalists heap criticism upon Madison's leadership and label the war "Mr. Madison's War." The merchants in New England trade with the enemy, and in reward the British blockade imposed in 1813 exempts New England. New England's Federalist governors refuse to let their militia serve outside their own states."
Since Madison was seeing the results of the war first hand, and had to watch Washington DC being burned, such a refusal by governor's could obviously seem very threatening.
But what were Madison's actions after the war ended? Did he relentlessly pursue a standing army? No.
In fact, he reiterated his support of the militia in his state of the union speech in 1815. He did call for more military schools, which would also potentially be used for training of the militia as well, but he did not want the primary means of defense to be a standing army:
"As an improvement in our military establishment, it will deserve the consideration of Congress whether a corps of invalids might not be so organized and employed as at once to aid in the support of meritorious individuals excluded by age or infirmities from the existing establishment, and to procure to the public the benefit of their stationary services and of their exemplary discipline.
I recommend also an enlargement of the Military Academy already established, and the establishment of others in other sections of the Union; and I can not press too much on the attention of Congress such
a classification and organization of the militia as will most effectually render it the safeguard of a free state. If experience has shewn in the recent splendid achievements of militia the value of this resource for the public defense, it has shewn also the importance of that skill in the use of arms and that familiarity with the essential rules of discipline which can not be expected from the regulations now in force. With this subject is intimately connected the necessity of accommodating the laws in every respect to the great object of enabling the political authority of the Union to employ promptly and effectually the physical power of the Union
in the cases designated by the Constitution."
Link
Madison would not have supported today's foreign policy. You will note from his writings that he constantly states of "asking Congress," "asking Congress" and "asking Congress." He knows the President has no authority to do such things at his own whim. He would not have been in favor of a President able to deploy troops or other military operatives, such as the CIA, to foreign countries in the defense of abstract "American interests."