
Hamilton writing in Federalist 24, deals with the problem of a standing army. The idea of a professional soldier would have been foreign to the colonists and a subject of concern. The British had a large standing army, and a navy that was unequalled in the world at the time. Their existence required a significant investment in the form of taxes, and the colonial experience with the British army was less than positive. Because England was so far away, and because the colonists were British, the army taxed the colonists both monetarily, and by quartering their soldiers at the expense of their largely unwilling hosts. Hamilton carefully explains why the new constitution would support a federal army given the justified skepticism driven by their past experience.
The key protection in the newly proposed constitution would be that the military would be created and funded by the legislature not the executive. In most parts of the world, it was the king who created and funded the military, as well as controlling the use of these same armed forces. By keeping that function in the hands of the popular legislature, the control of the military would naturally fall to the people. Further, Hamilton points out that of all the current state constitutions, only two prohibit standing armies. And even the Articles of Confederation do not prohibit one. To those who are against the new constitution on the grounds that it creates a standing army Publius responds that their objections amount to, “the dishonest artifices of a sinister and unprincipled opposition to a plan which ought at least to receive a fair and candid examination from all sincere lovers of their country!”[1] Apparently the decline in civility when dealing with the opposition is not entirely an issue for our modern times.
While the new continent is, essentially, an island by virtue of the Atlantic Ocean, Hamilton points out that the world is shrinking as a result of, “The improvements in the art of navigation…” Once again, we can see the parallels between then and now. He postulates that the British and the Spanish will continue to fortify their holdings on the continent, including the islands of the Caribbean, and that they will continue to be a threat to the states. And finally, Hamilton points out that the freedom of navigation is the essential component of the freedom to trade.
In Federalist 25 Hamilton explores the military question further. If the defense of the new territory were to be left to the states, the burden would inevitably fall on those states that share a border with the British territories or those of the Spanish. And the necessity of keeping a standing army is best explained by the inability to raise such an army quickly should the nation be attacked.
Hamilton goes on to explain that, human nature being what it is, individual states having individual armies, would inevitably lead to conflicts between those states. The idea of calling up an army when one is needed has the disadvantage of naturally resulting in an untrained army, and means that someone needs to determine when the threat is sufficient to raise that army, and when the threat has dissipated enough to disband the same. And further, if we leave the raising of an army to times of danger, “…how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger!” Hamilton is speculating that government would create crisis’ in order to get the results that it wants.
Publius points out that the state of Pennsylvania’s own constitution prohibits the existing of a standing army, yet one exists because of their ongoing disagreements with the state of Massachusetts.
And finally, Hamilton shows once again why we study the Greeks by citing the example of the admiral Lysander who was made admiral for successive terms even though that was forbidden. He points out that ongoing theme that human nature is immutable and that, “nations pay little regard to rules and maxims calculated in their very nature to run counter to the necessities of society.” And that there will always be necessities of society. Further that, “Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of a country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable.” Hamilton argues that we need to give government the power it needs to do what it needs to do, or else it will always be fabricating excuses, in the form of emergencies, to increase its power.
To read all of John Parillo’s work on the Federalist Papers, check here.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Hmmm….Ukraine comes to mind as the latest excuse for an emergency.