2013 APRIL
16 THINKING - THIS LITTLE OLD GRAMMA LADY IS THINKING ABOUT NUMBER 8 OF THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS
Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in 1787/88 wrote a series of ‘articles’
to explain the then proposed Constitution of the United States to the people
who were going to be voting to accept or reject it. The collection is called the Federalist
Papers. They are addressed to the People
of the State of New York, one of the thirteen states at the time.
I am just a
little old gramma lady but I can read and I can think and I can have opinions,
last I heard.
While I was
reading the Federalist Papers certain things made me pause for a moment. Since I was in a hurry to get through them,
having not read them before, I didn’t stop to take notes but simply wrote down
some of the numbers of the ones that gave me pause.
So I’ll
begin with number 8, which is the first number I wrote down (although if I
remember correctly there were interesting and pertinent remarks in previous
ones as well).
Re-reading
it, I’m struck by this comment: ‘It is of the nature of war to
increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.’
This phrase
is stuck smack in the middle of a discussion on the value of having large
standing armies.
The gist of
what I got out of it is that in a nation that’s basically at peace, there’s no
need for large standing armies internally.
Troops need to be available in case of emergency, but large standing
armies are counter-productive except when the nation is at war.
His
paragraphs related to this describe the dangers of the armed forces
outnumbering the citizens and brought to mind Hitler and his armies. When the military is larger and better armed than
the citizenry it can become not something to protect them but a weapon against
them; if the executive is so-minded he has a tool ready at hand.
Now, I’m not
as well-informed as many, but I found a horrified thought crossing my
mind. We keep getting into conflicts
everywhere all the time. What’s up with
that? I’m just sayin’ is all. The thought did cross my mind.
The point was made that the military does
need to be big enough and strong enough, in conjunction with local and state
militia, to repel aggression by outsiders as well as any internal threats
that might arise. To me, that reads as a recommendation for a DEFENSIVE military.
In case you
need to have it spelled out for you, here’s my take on it: Let’s say we have an executive that has
dictatorial leanings, or is inclined to think a monarchy might be a good idea. According to what I’ve gotten out of this
reading, he can up his power base by wars and increasing the military, while
rendering the legislative branch less authority in the process. With the strength of the military, this
person could conceivably challenge the authority of the People (Hitler comes
back to mind).
I am NOT
suggesting an isolationist policy, and nobody has more respect and admiration
than I do for our form of government and the military. We need to be able to protect ourselves and
aid our allies. I might have a problem
with the administration of that government and military at some particular time,
though. So did some of my ancestors. I can perfectly well love my
country/government and support our military without necessarily supporting
every last administrative decision. That’s
a thing we American Citizens appreciate.
In this
paper Hamilton is directing his thoughts toward, and issuing a warning about, NOT
preserving the Union. The individual
states or groups of states might take to becoming militarily bigger than their
neighbors and therefore stronger and hence tempted to help themselves to
someone else’s stuff. In response, the
other states would up their military until the whole shootin’ match ends up an
armed camp.
Now, if we
were small and vulnerable, surrounded by hostile governments who might invade
us at any time, it would make sense to have as big a military as possible and a
powerful executive in charge of it, because the threat would be at our doors
and windows.
We are not
small and vulnerable. Our neighbors do
not threaten us with military invasions.
If ever the
United States were to be ‘invaded’ by a military aggressor it would not be by
land or sea but via the air.
Nobody in
their right mind wants to take on a country on its own turf where not only the
military but the CITIZENS would stand against them with arms. Nobody is that stupid. There are over three hundred million of us;
who’s going to take us on face to face?
Nobody. That’s a big part of the
security we enjoy.
It’s my
admittedly insignificant opinion that if an attempt to attack the USA by air
should occur, it would be shot down in no time flat. This little old gramma lady has confidence on
THAT count.
So where is
the threat that justifies having a huge standing army?
If the Constitutional
purpose of the military is defense,
how does it serve us to have our troops dispersed over the globe? Would it not better serve ‘We the People’ to
have our well-trained troops, in appropriate proportions, at HOME? Aside from forces designed for prevention,
which do need to be otherwise distributed, how is it that the soldiers who are
supposed to be our defense are so far from home? What if we needed them HERE?
We might ask
ourselves who stands to gain from war, who stands to gain from disarming our
citizenry, and who stands to gain from having huge numbers of our military
scattered around the world. This little
old gramma lady doesn’t think it’s ‘We the People’.
And that’s
about it for my thoughts at the moment on #8 of the Federalist Papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment