“The man who reproves another for a fault, should be careful that he himself be not guilty of it.” — Brutus, Essay IX, 17 January 1788, in a rebuttal of Federalist Paper 24
Some off-blog discussions with Andrew got me curious about whether the Anti-Federalists truly deserved F24’s bile. Purely as rhetoric for its own sake, the Paper’s strong language could serve as a check to current political discourse – but if Publius’s criticism was actually warranted, it would pack even more of a punch. So I dusted off my copy of The Anti-Federalist, which is actually an abridged version of The Complete Anti-Federalist, edited by Herbert J. Strong. Even within the constraints of the abridged version, the Anti-Federalists have lots and lots to say about the evil of standing armies! Interestingly enough, the majority of anti-standing army essays seem to have been written after F24. Apparently Publius’s angry expostulations set off quite the firestorm of reaction on this particular topic.
But I’m getting ahead of myself: first, as to whether the cold rage of F24 fell upon deserving heads: I would say, in the end, no. Of the Anti-Fed writings that predate F24’s 12/21/87 publication, consider the following:
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. . . . A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens.
– Brutus, Essay I, 18 October 1787, writing, as Publius does, “To the Citizens of the State of New-York”
Patrick Henry also weighed in, somewhat less coherently (but we forgive him, since this is only the transcription of a speech rather than a considered piece of writing):
Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbours cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable demands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders?
– Speech to the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788
There is anger and fear here, but both Brutus (whoever he was) and P. Henry also appeal to reason and to a sober consideration of the examples of history, as Publius himself loves to do in his more didactic moments. Even more tellingly, the United States has historically always refused (and continues to refuse to this very day) to deploy its military on American soil. So in that sense, the Anti-Feds have won out. In short, Brutus and Henry voice entirely legitimate objections, and it is hardly fair of Publius to label them unprincipled or disingenuous or sinister.
Brutus was apparently of the same opinion, because in a mid-January 1788 address to the New York citizenry, he devotes a good bit of space to laying out a blow-by-blow refutation of F24, which he prefaces with the following:
A writer, who is the boast of the advocates of this new constitution [take that, Hamilton!], has taken great pains to shew, that this power [of maintaining a standing army] was proper and necessary to be vested in the general government. He sets out with calling in question the candour and integrity of those who advance the objection, and with insinuating, that it is their intention to mislead the people, by alarming their passions, rather than to convince them by arguments addressed to their understandings. The man who reproves another for a fault, should be careful that he himself be not guilty of it. How far this writer has manifested a spirit of candour, and has pursued fair reasoning on this subject, the impartial public will judge, when his arguments pass before them in review.
– Brutus, Essay IX
Hamilton, unlike the Anti-Feds, pretty much deserved this kind of dressing down. And what is more, Publius really set himself up for a hypocrite’s fall with F24’s over-reaction.
All that said, The Ham still can’t be beat for pure rhetorical beauty. And even if the words of F24 weren’t entirely disingenuous, I still wish more of today’s politicians and talking heads would take them to heart.
September 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“So in that sense, the Anti-Feds have won out.”
very good to have the Brutus reply here. like a good debate, this swings me away from the pro-publius reaction i had after reading F24.
that said, having sat a bit after initially reading this post, i wonder if i agree that the anti-feds really won out. is the fact that the US avoided throughout our history a deployment on US soil rather a testimony that the anti-feds were hyperventilative (new word) in their opposition to a standing army? it seems to me that this is evidence in favor of Hamilton’s position; that, in other words, arguments against the standing army are mere fear tactics without substance.
in that respect, henry’s speech strikes me as, ultimately, ridiculous and worthy of Hamilton’s rhetoric. much as, and in recognition of the need for thoughtful deliberation on the topic, the rhetoric squirts of ‘death squads’ and ‘you lie’ are worthy of dismissal (again, while well-intentioned opposition is worthy of thoughtful deliberation or rebuttal).
September 15, 2009 at 12:54 am
Seems like this might actually be another instance of the Feds winning out on the abstract, theoretical level, but the anti-Feds’ ideas being more practical when we get down to brass tacks. The Feds didn’t want the Bill of Rights and crafted the Constitution to be complete without it. But the Anti-Feds eventually pushed the Bill through anyway, and much of our Supreme Court’s jurisprudence ended up being built off it. Likewise: the Feds got their way and got to have a standing military, but in practice that military has always implemented the anti-Feds’ desire by keeping in place a policy never to deploy on American soil, no matter how tempting (e.g. to help out in Katrina-magnitude natural disasters).