Populism sure does feel good, and since this election season has yielded the Republicans the Presidency, Senate, and House, we might be inclined to indulge our nationalistic tendencies a bit. I enjoyed the music video (Trump edition) for Lee Greenwood’s rock version of “God Bless the U.S.A.” as much as you did. But it’s precisely at this moment that we, as American patriots, need to check our emotions and act rationally.
A powerful military is a hallmark of the Republican party generally, and of Trump’s personal platform. It’s common to see stirring images of him with Chinooks swarming overhead, of flyovers, and of him saluting the men and women who serve. The power of this military (however real or imagined) is effective at least in a “peace through superior firepower” type of way, that is, as a deterrent. The Democrat party, for whatever it’s worth, obviously enjoys a strong military too, since it supports ‘forever wars’ and pursues modern day imperialism, it just doesn’t advertise it proudly the way Trump does.
But to have a strong and permanent standing army is profoundly un-American. The commander in chief of all branches of the military is the President, and for him to have the authority he currently enjoys would have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. The Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War were not professionally trained soldiers, or mercenaries. They were men who had jobs, trained in small groups called militias, and joined the army in times of war. When war was over, they would return home and continue working their ordinary jobs.
The United States of America was founded in such a way that our government has checks and balances. That is one way the Founders sought to protect the rights of man. The other way that they attempted to protect our freedom is by making the government easy to overthrow if it infringes upon our rights. Thomas Jefferson attempted to provide for this in two ways: first, by limiting the power of the executive branch, and second, by arming the citizens of the country. Thus, in an 1803 circular to the governors of each state, he argued that the ‘standing army’ built up under the Federalist party be disbanded in favor of an ‘armed country.’1 This would keep the balance of power between the ruled and rulers in check, and provide a very pointed reminder to the President that he is the elected representative of his constituents.
We are so far departed from this ideal that it is hardly noteworthy when a sitting President threatens the citizens with his standing army. In 2023, when he was speaking about federal firearm regulation, Joe Biden scoffed at those who defend the Second Amendment: “Well, if […] you want to work against the government, you need an F-16,”2 he said, implying that the government can easily defeat its own citizens if they have the audacity to challenge its authority. Well, first of all, the real reason Joe Biden wants to disarm his constituents is not because he cares about us or our safety, as he says. It’s because he fears us, and he fears us because he is a tyrant, and because he knows that we are armed. That’s a separate topic. But the fact that a sitting President would– and more importantly could– credibly argue this should have awakened us “like a fire-bell in the night.”3 Our founding fathers understood that power corrupts, and that a standing army will, given enough time, be turned on its constituents.
This debate, between a Federalist party standing army and a Democratic-Republican collection of militias, has been completely dead and buried since Lee’s surrender to Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse. Since then, the story of the American military has been one of growth and celebration, from Chester Arthur’s “All-Steel Navy,” to Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, to the expansion in the first and second World Wars, to the creation of the Air Force, and the creation of the Space Force– not to mention the creation and maintenance of atomic weaponry. And it’s not just our military that’s expanded during this time; no, global superpowers have at least kept pace. So it would be almost suicidal to suggest we disband our standing army and return once more to militas and musket balls.
But not even Jefferson, in his two-term presidency, abolished the standing army. He reduced its power, yes, but still recognized the modern need for a military capable of contending with the world’s greatest powers. After all, history teaches that if one cannot defend his land, it will quickly become someone else’s. Rather, he believed in controlling the scope and size of the army to keep it in proportion with the power of the citizens of the U.S.A. Likewise, to simply disband our military (arguably the strongest in the world) would almost certainly lead to another global war and our nation’s annihilation. But there might be a middle ground, like the one Jefferson attempted to take.
Nearly every American is aware of the fact that the Second Amendment of the Constitution gives the people the “right to bear arms,” but the full text reads thusly: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The primary purpose of the American military is not to defend from foreign invaders, but rather to be put to use by the people against a tyrannical government. Note, too, that the right enumerated is that of a “free State.” The Bill of Rights, in which the Second Amendment is found, is an addendum to the Constitution that Anti-Federalists requested. They feared the overreach of a centralized federal government and wanted to make sure the autonomy of a state in the Union would not be infringed upon.
I suggest we delegate the power to declare and engage in war to the state governors, not to the President. I suggest that Florida, for example, raises its own militia composed of Floridians. The States’ individual militias could be trained in such a way that in times of national emergency they could work together seamlessly, but that the only the governor of each state would have the authority to send his milita to war. The national draft would be disbanded, and the states would assume that responsibility as well. Therefore, if the nation were to go to war, it would be guaranteed that it would be in the direct best interest of each state involved. If a governor were not convinced that a war is worthy of his constituent’s lives, he could decline to join the war, and no punitive action could be taken against him. This would add a democratic element to our international warfare, and would in theory reduce the number of times we– or at least I– question just why American blood is spilled in remote foreign wars.
There remains the question of sharing military resources between states fairly (do they get equal armament? Armament based on population size?) but this could be solved along the lines of our bicameral legislature; that is, each state gets a proportion of equal armament and armament based on size or population. Finally, funding could be kept at the federal level to ensure equal distribution of funds to the states.
I recognize that there are countless counterarguments, nuances, and developments to be made here; and to quote the band Gangstagrass, “I welcome all challengers.” However, this is, and remains, the beginning of a solution to the problem of our standing army– and our tyrannical, un-American leaders. To reclaim authentically American freedom, we need to place military authority closer to where it belongs— the hands of the people.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Lander's Forge 