Is a standing army in time of peace consistent with a free government?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon argues that keeping a large standing army in time of peace is justified by the need to suppress potential plots, particularly by Jacobites, and to prevent them from organizing and becoming a threat. He implies that a standing army is necessary for public safety in such circumstances. (key quote above) [1]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that a standing army in time of peace is inconsistent with a free government, arguing that such a government must be founded upon liberty and the free choice of its people, and cannot be supported by principles contrary to liberty. He viewed the use of standing armies as a sign of corruption and a step toward tyranny. "It is Madness in Extremity, to hope that a Government founded upon Liberty, and the free Choice of the Assertors of it, can be supported by other Principles; and whoever would maintain it by contrary ones, intends to blow it up, let him alledge what he will." [2]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that a standing army in time of peace is inconsistent with a free government, because wherever they are strong enough to master their country, they will certainly master it. He argued that Great Britain preserved its liberties by avoiding great standing armies, though some troops are necessary for guards and garrisons. (key quote above) [3]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous and often lead to revolutions, because whoever controls the army can control the state. He bases this belief on historical examples like Tiberius and Severus. "Where-ever there are great standing Armies, Revolutions are suddenly brought about, and therefore will be often attempted; for whoever has the Army, has or may have the State." [4]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believes that standing armies are problematic and have historically led to treachery and violence, especially in times of distress. He cites historical examples, including the Roman soldiery and English Civil War, to support his view that such armies are prone to betrayal and double-dealing. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that maintaining great armies is burdensome and dangerous, and that such armies, if well-disciplined, are not necessarily less formidable to a country. He argued that military power leads to dependence on military men and is injudicious, vain, and destructive. "The Burden and Danger of maintaining great Armies... The Folly of conquering further urged and exemplified." [6]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that a standing army in time of peace is inconsistent with a free government. He argued that in arbitrary countries, the whole government rests upon a single person, and the power of such a prince comes from his armies. This makes the prince vulnerable to revolution, as an angry faction or soldiery can remove him. In contrast, in a free government, the prince is protected by the states of the country and public consent, and does not rely solely on armies for his power. "An angry faction, or a tumultuous soldiery, or even one desperate fellow, can effect a Revolution, where it is to be effected by removing a single person, since upon a single person in all arbitrary countries, the whole Government rests." [7]

What cuts against it

• Nothing in the retrieved passages cuts against the answer beyond the ledger entries above.

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

1. Thomas Gordon believed that standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with a free government, as they pose a danger to liberty and can lead to tyranny. "Great Britain has preserved its Liberties so long, because it has preserved itself from great standing Armies" [3].

2. He argued that wherever standing armies are strong enough to master their country, they will do so, making them a threat to free governance. "which, where-ever they are strong enough to master their Country, will certainly first or last master it" [3].

3. He cited historical examples, such as the Roman Empire and the English Civil War, to show that standing armies often lead to treachery and revolutions. "This is and ever must be the case of all Countries which subsist by standing Armies" [5].

4. He also believed that maintaining a standing army in time of peace is burdensome and dangerous, and that such armies are not necessarily less formidable even if well-disciplined. "The Burden and Danger of maintaining great Armies" [6].

5. However, he acknowledged that some troops are necessary for guards and garrisons to prevent sudden insurrections, but not a large standing army. "Some troops we must have for guards and garisons, enough to prevent sudden Insurrections" [3].

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on whether a small, limited standing army for specific purposes (like garrisons) could be consistent with a free government, and whether exceptions could be made in extraordinary circumstances.

Extrapolation: Thomas Gordon would likely oppose a standing army in time of peace as inconsistent with a free government, but might allow for limited, temporary military forces for specific defensive needs.

Competing readings: The record supports both a strict opposition to standing armies and a pragmatic allowance for small, temporary forces. The latter is not stated in the record but is an inference from his acknowledgment of the need for guards and garrisons.

Confidence: Moderate, as the record provides strong support for his opposition to large standing armies but is silent on limited exceptions.