Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-03-05

To maintain national rights, when infringe d
It IS necessary to employ military force o
some sort and, the militia being neither Gas
slticd nor trained, what resort is there but To al
army raised by regular enlistment But we
are told that this army will destroy freedom
yet freedom cannot be maintained wit hout ii
What is this but to say that the existence oil
freedom is impossible since, whether protect
ed or unprotected, itequaly perishes
Politicians who speak without distinctions,
will necessarily speak without accuracy. A
terrible hobgobin has been engendercd by the
hippant repetition of common saw, & that old
saw. has been misapplied. The republican
maxim, which we have derived from our Eng
hsh ancestors, is this "a Standing Army is
dangerous to civil liberty in time of peace"
The phrase sufficiently explains ITSELF Tbs
army, to be dangerous, must be kept OH foot in
time of peace. In this sense the maxim has al
ways been understood by British Statesmen, rs
may be clearly collected from the par!iamenta-
nv speech of Sir Thomas Hammer in the year
17l3, from that of Mr.. Saippen in l7Sl, rs well
as from what has been said upon the subject of
the Lords Bathurst and Carteret in 1892. These
were all learned men and celebrated frie ntls of
English freedom. The latter very explicitly APP
piled the maxim to an army which is voted
from year to year as thing Of course, without
any reference 70 state otpelce or war: "Thst
country have been unlone; tbs cRSton, Of keep
ing up q Standing army in time Of PEACE"
TINS maxim, and the reason of it, are just: But
they both apply more forcibly against stand
ms military force under the British monarchy
than under the government ofthe United States.
In the British monarchy the fear is that the eA-
lstence of standing army will give the crown
L preponderance over the other branches of the
government there is no apprehension that the
al a.
arms against the royal authority; but the dread
is that the royal authority itself will destroy
he Legislature and make itself absolute. In
the United States the argument is sustained By
different supposition: it is imagined that the
actual commander of the troops may convert
them into an engine of destruction against the
Presidency well against Congress and the
State Assemblies. In monarchy the danger
to freedom is Immediate in 4 republic, it is re-
mote. It is much easier for the British King
with an army to make himselfs despot, than
for General entrusted with command to crush
every department of government lawfully es-
tablished, in the support ofwhich the people have
a vital interest.
But whatever substantial objection may ex-
ist against standing armies in time of peace, it
has been never commended by wise men that
regular armies are dangerous 20 freedom i'll
time of Suar The rhetoric of Mr.. Randolph,
is rhetoric without demonstration 1t may ex-
cite the feelings, but will not convince the I'M
derstandmg, Neither history nor reason exem-
plify thatan army actively employed in repelling
an enemy is dangerous to the liberty of the citi-
zen. Orators imagine parallel cases whose
similitude vanishes on 4 close scrutiny. The
familiar instances OF Caesar and Cromwell are
differing occurrences of successful usurpation,
invariably referred to by hectic politicians. The
fret of 81, Of
which assigned the government of particular
provinces to particular persons, with an almost
unlimited military command The second
was produced by the ardent fires of religion:
ianaticIsm and political anarchy. And they
are both prevalent to the institutions and actu
al condition of the United States Mr. Ran
dolph, and some other gentlemen of Congress,
do not discriminate between absolute and rela
tive truths between truth i'll mathematics and
truth in politics. That one added to one make
two, is an absolute, and therefore universe
truth. 1t is as true in Russia or China as it is
IN France, in England, or America; and it i!
true at all times and under all circumstances
But it is not an absolute, and consequently no
al universal truth, that armies of regular troop.
are destructive of freedom. All that we Cal
assert in politics is relative truth If a regu
lar army be overmatch for the eicctiy,
population of the country; if the General at the
head Of it be man ofgreat capacity and Of vi
cious and despotic principles; If the army be
devoted to him when these circumstances con
cur, then an army Of regular troops may be de
structive of liberty in republic. Their con
currehce at any time would be rare in time o
war altogether improbable. The truth of the
maxim being relative, it varies with circum
stances isand thus, an army, which Is either
perniciods or beneficial to liberty, according tC
the purposes 20 which it is applied, may be use
full so freedom when engaged in defence Of ma
tional rights and is hurtftil only when employ
ed against them.
. But what is it that constitutes a regular army
believe it is nothing more than the duration Of
the term of enlistment and the universally OIL
their service. The species of troops that we
cali militia, grew out Of the corruption and a
BOLTON of the feudal system. An army assem-
bed in virtue of feudal tcnures, was obliged tc
remain in the field only n few days, and wa:
quite as formidable to it's own sovereign as e
his foes. Towards the close OF the thirteenth
century the English monarchs began To ex.
change military service for pecuniary supplies
and enlisted forces by means OF a contract with
particular officers, whom they dismissed at tho
end ofthe war; This was, no doubt the origin
of the modern practice of recruiting Barons
and Knights, about the reign Of Edward thc
FIRST, did hot-disiain TO enter into these con
tracts With the King, and sent forth paroles on
their several estates to enlist men for his ser
vice. The discoveries of Christopher Colum
bus aud of Vasqucr de Grama at the end of tie
fifteenth and beginning Of the sixteentl centu
ries, enlarged commerce and navigation, increa
sed industry and the arts the mobiles, indug
ing i'll costly pleasures, squandered their for
tunes the common people increased in proper
ty and Importance and the Barons, gradually
relinquishing arms a profession, made way
for regular armies under tho direction of Off
ccts' commissioned at will by the monarch
Whilst the feudal laws were in force, the soy.
eregns OF England did not levy troops merely
as kings, but the territorial lords OF the c0un