BLUF: The historical context provided by John Trenchard on the issue of standing armies offers a deeper understanding of Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist and National Socialist Democrat perspectives on the military, providing tangible linkage between colonial-era ideologies and modern policy perspectives.
OSINT: The United States’ founding generation was profoundly wary of standing armies, their worries rooted not just in the freshness of their struggle against Britain but also in long-standing arguments from English tradition against permanent military forces. English Whigs John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon penned influential documents against standing armies, notably warning that they gave too much power to governments and posed a tangible risk to liberty. Fueled by his Protestant beliefs, Trenchard’s work, “A Short History of Standing Armies in England,” provides a historical account of armies in peacetime that sheds light on how the Founding Fathers perceived standing armies within English traditions.
As Trenchard and Gordon’s writings shaped America’s founders’ views, they painted a picture that condemns standing armies as enablers of tyranny. They narrated different eras where leaders used an army to suppress revolts or subjugate their people. Their arguments resonated in the Bill of Rights, including sections related to the right to bear arms and prohibition of quartering troops during peacetime.
Despite these historical circumstances, Trenchard and Gordon agreed that the mere existence of an army, even with Parliament’s consent, introduces a threat to society’s liberty, primarily when used as tools for governmental dominance.
RIGHT: As a strict Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist, this context serves to underscore the founding principle that power must remain with the people. From this perspective, the military should only exist as a self-defense mechanism, not a tool of oppression. The constitutional safeguards of the right to bear arms and against forced quartering serve to both prevent a standing military from becoming a means of tyranny, and to empower citizens to protect themselves from such a development.
LEFT: In the view of a National Socialist Democrat, these historical narratives may be seen as a warning against unchecked power, particularly the potential abuses by a permanent military force. While acknowledging the necessity of a military for national defense, the emphasis lies on robust government regulation and oversight to prevent misuse of power. From this position, upholding democratic control over the military is key—tyranny happens when power is concentrated. Therefore, proper checks and balances must always be in place.
AI: The points of contention and universal truths raised by Trenchard and Gordon endure in contemporary society. The caution against unchecked power vested in standing armies resonates with the democratic principles of power distribution and accountability. As such, citizens’ capacity to question, endorse or reject certain policies, especially those with civil liberty implications, becomes a vital facet of our modern democracy. This inextricable link between the past and the present demonstrates a perpetual recurrence of similar concerns about governance, liberty, and power. Amid this cycle, society’s ability to discern the root cause of these issues and responsibly leverage institutional mechanisms can determine the path it charts forward.