Is a standing army in time of peace dangerous to liberty?

OCR: 3 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (1775-03-25): George Washington believed that a standing army of mercenary forces was dangerous to the liberties of the people. He argued that such forces were 'always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties, of the people.' "any standing army of mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties, of the people," [1]
• BELIEF (1776-09-02): George Washington believed that a standing army was necessary during war to preserve liberty, and he argued that relying on militia or short-term enlistments was insufficient and dangerous. He stated that 'our Liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, If not entirely lost, If their defence is left to any but a permanent standing Army, I mean one to exist during the War.' (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (1776-09-24): George Washington believed that the jealousies and evils of a standing army were remote and not to be dreaded in their current situation. He argued that the consequences of lacking a standing army were more immediate and certain, leading to inevitable ruin. (key quote above) [3]
• BELIEF (1778-04-21): George Washington believed that standing armies are dangerous to a state, but only under proper limitations and in time of peace. He argued that this common opinion is certainly true in general cases, but should not be applied to the American army, as they are citizens with ties and interests beyond their military role. [4]
• BELIEF (1778-04-21): George Washington believed that standing armies are dangerous to a State, but only under proper limitations and in time of peace. He noted that this is a common and received opinion, though he distinguished between standing armies in general and the component parts of armies, which are dissimilar in nature. "The prejudices in other Countries has only gone to them in time of Peace , and these from their not having, in general cases," [5]
• ACTION (editor's note) (about 1778, editor's note; editor's note, not his words): The editor reports that the Marquis de Lafayette presented certain reasons to George Washington, presumably around 1778, regarding officers' objections to taking an oath due to concerns about a standing army. The editor states that it is presumed George Washington addressed these objections through his letter, leading the officers to take the oath. "It is presumed, that their scruples were satisfied by the above letter, and that they took the oath, since the objections were peculiar to themselves, and not advanced by any other part of the army." [6]
• BELIEF (1783-04-04): George Washington believed that an army in an irritable state, due to its sufferings and composition, is a dangerous instrument to play with. This belief is grounded on his concern about the potential for unrest and the army's susceptibility to being manipulated for political purposes. "I have two reasons for mentioning this matter to you : the one is, that the .Army (considering the irritable state it is in, its sufferings and composition) is a dangerous instrument to play with" [7]
• BELIEF (1783-09-08): George Washington expressed differing judgments on a peace establishment, including a standing force, and provided reasons for his views. He believed compensation for officers should remain the same, implying a belief in maintaining stability and consistency in military matters, which indirectly suggests a concern for balancing military needs with liberty. "The principal reasons for my proposing that the Pay and Subsistence of the Officers should remain the same as they now are (except in the instances specified) were, because, that compensation had generally been deemed adequate and not too" [8]
• BELIEF (undated): George Washington believed that a well-regulated and disciplined militia is essential for preserving the happiness, dignity, and independence of the country, implying that a standing army in time of peace is not the primary means for this purpose. He emphasized the importance of a militia over a standing force for maintaining liberty. "By keeping up in Peace 'a well regulated, and disciplined Militia,' we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country." [9]
• BELIEF (undated): George Washington believed that forming additional or light infantry companies would be most consistent with the genius of his countrymen and consonant to the spirit of the Constitution. He expressed a preference for a system that blends militia and organized forces, suggesting a cautious approach to standing forces. "I cannot conceal my private sentiment, that the formation of additional, or light Companies will be most consistent with the genius of our Countrymen and perhaps in their opinion most consonant to the spirit of our Constitution." [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [2], [6].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. George Washington acknowledged that standing armies are generally dangerous to liberty, particularly in time of peace. This is a common and received opinion he cited in 1778 [4].

2. However, he made a distinction between standing armies in general and the specific context of war, where he believed a standing army was necessary to preserve liberty [2].

3. He argued that the dangers of a standing army in time of peace were remote and not to be dreaded in the American context, given the circumstances of the Revolutionary War [3].

4. Washington also emphasized the importance of a well-regulated militia as a safeguard for liberty, suggesting that a standing army in time of peace was not the primary means of preserving freedom [9].

5. His belief in the necessity of a standing army during war, combined with his caution about its dangers in time of peace, shows a nuanced view that depends on context and the nature of the army [3].

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on whether George Washington believed a standing army in time of peace was dangerous in a modern context, but his statements during the Revolutionary War and early Republic provide related principles.

Extrapolation: George Washington believed that a standing army in time of peace could be dangerous to liberty, but he also recognized exceptions when necessary for national defense. He emphasized the importance of a well-regulated militia as a safeguard against the dangers of a standing army.

Competing readings: One reading is that Washington saw standing armies as inherently dangerous in time of peace, based on his 1778 letter [4]. Another is that he believed a standing army was necessary during war to preserve liberty, as stated in 1776 [2]. The record itself does not resolve this tension, but it shows a contextual approach.

Confidence: Moderate, as the record provides relevant principles but does not directly address the question in a modern context.

OCR: 9 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

Reporter's notes: some cited speeches survive only as a reporter's shorthand record, not the speaker's own text.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (1776-05): George Mason believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, as stated in his original draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State ; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty ;" [1]
• BELIEF (1776-06-12): George Mason believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, as stated in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Article XIII. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (1787-09): George Mason believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, as he explicitly mentions 'the danger of standing armies in time of peace' as one of his objections to the Constitution. "nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." [3]
• BELIEF (1788-06): George Mason believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty and ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit. (key quote above) [4]
• ACTION (1788-06): George Mason proposed that no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. This shows that he considered the presence of a standing army in time of peace to be a matter requiring significant legislative caution, implying a potential threat to liberty. "That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses." [5]
• BELIEF (1788-06-03; reporter's paraphrase): George Mason believed that a standing army is dangerous to liberty, particularly in time of peace, because it can lead to the loss of freedom and the destruction of the militia. He cited historical examples and warned of the potential for a standing army to be used to suppress liberty. [6]
• BELIEF (1788-06-03; reporter's paraphrase): George Mason believed that a standing army in time of peace was dangerous to liberty, because it could be used to suppress dissent under the guise of insurrection, thereby undermining state governments and liberty insidiously. "He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it, Congress ought not to have the power." [7]
• ACTION (editor's note) (undated; editor's note, not his words): The editor's note states that George Mason was the person who appreciated an 'exquisite bit of argumentative irony' in the context of militia resolutions. "George Mason, with his vein of sarcastic humor, was the person to appreciate this 'exquisite bit of argumentative irony,'" [8]
• ACTION (editor's note) (undated; editor's note, not his words): The editor's note reports that in the twelfth article of George Mason's draft, a well-regulated militia is advocated as the natural and safe defence of a free State, and standing armies are pronounced dangerous in time of peace. "standing armies are pronounced dangerous in time of peace" [9]
• ACTION (editor's note) (undated; editor's note, not his words): The passage reports that Fairfax Co., Va., Association resolved to recommend the formation of a militia composed of gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, and that they believed a well-regulated militia would render it unnecessary to keep standing armies among them, which are 'ever dangerous to liberty.' "render it unnecessary to keep Standing Armies among us — ever dangerous to liberty ;" [10]

What cuts against it

• ACTION (undated; editor's note): The editor's note states that George Mason introduced the subject of regulating the militia and thought "such a power necessary to be given to the general government." [11] He hoped there would be "no standing army in time of peace, unless it might be for a few garrisons." [11] This implies a conditional acceptance of standing armies in limited circumstances, which could cut against the absolute view that they are always dangerous. [11]

• ACTION (undated; editor's note): The editor's note reports that George Mason was the person who appreciated an "exquisite bit of argumentative irony" in the context of militia resolutions. While this is not directly about the danger of standing armies, it suggests a nuanced or ironic perspective that could imply a more complex view of military matters than a simple rejection of standing armies. [8]

• ACTION (undated; editor's note): The editor's note reports that in the twelfth article of George Mason's draft, a well-regulated militia is advocated as the natural and safe defence of a free State, and standing armies are pronounced dangerous in time of peace. This is not a direct contradiction but may suggest that Mason's concern was more about the relative danger of standing armies compared to militias, rather than an absolute condemnation of all standing armies. [9]

• ACTION (undated; editor's note): The passage reports that Fairfax Co., Va., Association resolved to recommend the formation of a militia composed of gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, and that they believed a well-regulated militia would render it unnecessary to keep standing armies among them, which are "ever dangerous to liberty." This is not a direct contradiction but may suggest that Mason's concern was more about the relative danger of standing armies compared to militias, rather than an absolute condemnation of all standing armies. [10]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. George Mason consistently expressed the belief that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, citing historical examples and warning of their potential for oppression. [6] [12] [4] [1] [3] [2]

2. He argued that a well-regulated militia, composed of the people, is the proper and natural defense of a free state, and that standing armies should be avoided as far as circumstances allow. [4] [1] [2]

3. Mason feared that standing armies could be used to suppress dissent and undermine state governments, particularly when combined with civil powers. [6] [12] [13] [7]

4. He proposed legislative restrictions to prevent the establishment of standing armies in time of peace, requiring significant legislative consensus. [5]

5. While there are some editor's notes suggesting Mason's nuanced or conditional views on standing armies, these do not contradict his core belief that they are dangerous to liberty in time of peace. [11] [8] [9] [10]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Extrapolation: George Mason believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. He consistently argued that a well-regulated militia is the proper defense of a free state and that standing armies should be avoided as far as circumstances allow.

Competing readings: The editor's notes suggest that Mason may have accepted the necessity of limited standing armies in certain circumstances, such as for garrisons. However, these do not contradict his core belief that standing armies are generally dangerous to liberty in time of peace.

Confidence: High. The record directly supports Mason's belief that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, with multiple statements and actions reinforcing this view.

1. WHAT THEY SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (1697): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that a standing army in time of peace is inconsistent with a free government and absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy. Their belief is grounded in historical examples, such as the 1629 project for a standing army, which they argue was intended to suppress parliamentary and national freedoms. (key quote above) [1]
• BELIEF (1697): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as it is inconsistent with a free government and absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy. They argue that once a nation is bound into a standing army, it cannot buy itself out because its estates, lives, and liberties will be at the army's command. "For when we have fooled ourselves into the Bondage of a Standing Army, how shall we ever get out of it again? ... Our Estates, Lives and Liberties will be all at their Command." [2]
• BELIEF (1697): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') argue that a standing army is dangerous to liberty, particularly when it is not composed of the nobility and gentry, and when it is under the command of mercenary officers who may not act in the interest of the people. They believe that such an army can be debauched and used for arbitrary designs, as seen in past governments. "They object, that such a Militia as this is a Standing Army, and will be as dangerous, and much more chargeable." [3]
• BELIEF (1697): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as it depends on the uncertain and capricious humours of the soldiery, which have historically caused violent and sudden revolutions. They cited examples from the Roman Empire and English history, including the actions of Cromwell and General Monk, to support this view. [4]
• BELIEF (1698): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believe that a standing army in time of peace is worse than a militia, as it becomes effeminate and dangerous to liberty. They argue that a militia, though undisciplined at first, is more suitable for peace and less threatening to liberty. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (1698): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as shown by their argument that such armies were not maintained in England during peacetime except for the Yeomen of the Guard, and that the virtue of past times prevented kings from keeping up forces in peace, as they would rather risk their own safety than enslave the country. "The Nation had such a Specimen in this Reign of a Standing Army, that I do not find any King from him to Charles the First, that attempted keeping up any Forces in Time of Peace... such was the virtue of those times, that they would rather run the hazard of forefeiting their Heads and Estates... than certainly inslave their Country." [6]
• BELIEF (1722): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, as they argue that all parts of Europe which are enslaved have been enslaved by armies, and that no nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties. They also provide historical examples to support this belief. "'Tis certain, that all Parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by Armies, and 'tis absolutely impossible, that any Nation which keeps them amongst themselves, can long preserve their Liberties;" [7]
• BELIEF (1722): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as it is the highest and most terrible of all mischiefs, leading to universal corruption and a military government. They argue that such an army undermines their excellent establishment built upon the destruction of tyranny. (key quote above) [8]
• BELIEF (undated): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believe that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, as they argue that such armies often play their own game in times of distress, change sides, and commit treachery, especially in civil wars where communication between former acquaintances is easy. They cite historical examples like Oliver Cromwell, Monk, and King James's Army to support this view. "This is and ever must be the case of all Countries which subsist by standing Armies. For there are few instances in History, to be given of Armies who did not play their own game, in times of distress; few instances of disobliged or unpreferred Officers, who did not change sides; too many have made their peace by some remarkable act of treachery" [9]
• BELIEF (undated): Trenchard and Gordon ('Cato') believe that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as they argue that peace should involve the cessation of the use of arms and the transformation of weapons into tools for agriculture, and they express concern that maintaining a standing force undermines the nature of peace and poses a threat to liberty. "Peace is a Cessation of the Exercise of the Use of Arms, that we may with Safety turn our Swords into Plough-shares, and Spears into Pruning-hooks;" [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated): Trenchard and Gordon ("Cato") argue that peace involves the cessation of the use of arms and the transformation of weapons into tools for agriculture, suggesting that maintaining a standing force undermines the nature of peace. However, they also acknowledge that armies may be necessary for defense, which could imply a more nuanced view. "Peace is a Cessation of the Exercise of the Use of Arms, that we may with Safety turn our Swords into Plough-shares, and Spears into Pruning-hooks;" [10]

• ACTION (undated): Trenchard and Gordon ("Cato") acknowledge that standing armies may be necessary in times of distress and that officers may change sides or commit treachery, but they do not explicitly argue that standing armies are always dangerous in time of peace. "This is and ever must be the case of all Countries which subsist by standing Armies. For there are few instances in History, to be given of Armies who did not play their own game, in times of distress;" [9]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Trenchard and Gordon ("Cato") believed that a standing army in time of peace is inconsistent with a free government and absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy. (key quote above) [1]

2. They argued that once a nation is bound into a standing army, it cannot buy itself out because its estates, lives, and liberties will be at the army's command. "For when we have fooled ourselves into the Bondage of a Standing Army, how shall we ever get out of it again? ... Our Estates, Lives and Liberties will be all at their Command." [2]

3. They believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as it is the highest and most terrible of all mischiefs, leading to universal corruption and a military government. (key quote above) [8]

4. They argued that a standing army in time of peace is worse than a militia, as it becomes effeminate and dangerous to liberty. (key quote above) [5]

5. They believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty, as it depends on the uncertain and capricious humours of the soldiery, which have historically caused violent and sudden revolutions. [4]

3. THEIR TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Extrapolation: Trenchard and Gordon ("Cato") believed that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty. They argued that such armies are inconsistent with a free government and absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy. They provided historical examples to support this view, including the 1629 project for a standing army, which they argued was intended to suppress parliamentary and national freedoms.

Competing readings: None of the record directly contradicts this view. The record supports the belief that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty.

Confidence: High. The record directly addresses the question and provides multiple historical examples to support the belief that a standing army in time of peace is dangerous to liberty.