Showing posts with label Historical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historical. Show all posts

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Anti Federalist Papers No. 25 – Objections To A Standing Army (Part II)

The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise; but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority they are raised, and establish one [rule] according to the pleasure of their leaders.
We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. Two instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions - I mean Rome and Britain.

In the first, the liberties of the commonwealth were destroyed, and the constitution over-turned, by an army, led by Julius Caesar, who was appointed to the command by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame . . . is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage - the most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.

The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people that liberty they had so dearly earned.
You may be told, these instances will not apply to our case. But those who would persuade you to believe this, either mean to deceive you, or have not themselves considered the subject.

I firmly believe, no country in the world had ever a more patriotic army, than the one which so ably served this country in the late war. But had the General who commanded them been possessed of the spirit of a Julius Caesar or a Cromwell, the liberties of this country . . . [might have] in all probability terminated with the war. Or bad they been maintained, [they] might have cost more blood and treasure than was expended in the conflict with Great Britain. When an anonymous writer addressed the officers of the army at the close of the war, advising them not to part with their arms, until justice was done them - the effect it had is well known. It affected them like an electric shock. He wrote like Caesar; and had the commander in chief, and a few more officers of rank, countenanced the measure, the desperate resolution. . . [might have] been taken, to refuse to disband. What the consequences of such a determination would have been, heaven only knows. The army were in the full vigor of health and spirits, in the habit of discipline, and possessed of all our military stores and apparatus. They would have acquired great accessions of strength from the country. Those who were disgusted at our republican forms of government (for such there then were, of high rank among us) would have lent them all their aid.

We should in all probability have seen a constitution and laws dictated to us, at the head of an army, and at the point of a bayonet, and the liberties for which we had so severely struggled, snatched from us in a moment. It remains a secret, yet to be revealed, whether this measure was not suggested, or at least countenanced, by some, who have bad great influence in producing the present system. Fortunately indeed for this country, it had at the head of the army, a patriot as well as a general; and many of our principal officers had not abandoned the characters of citizens, by assuming that of soldiers; and therefore, the scheme proved abortive. But are we to expect, that this will always be the case? Are we so much better than the people of other ages and of other countries, that the same allurements of power and greatness, which led them aside from their duty, will have no influence upon men in our country? Such an idea is wild and extravagant. Had we indulged such a delusion, enough has appeared in a little time past, to convince the most credulous, that the passion for pomp, power, and greatness, works as powerfully in the hearts of many of our better sort, as it ever did in any country under heaven. Were the same opportunity again to offer, we should very probably be grossly disappointed, if we made dependence, that all who then rejected the overture, would do it again.

From these remarks, it appears, that the evils to be feared from a large standing army in time of peace, do not arise solely from the apprehension, that the rulers may employ them for the purpose of promoting their own ambitious views; but that equal, and perhaps greater danger, is to be apprehended from their overturning the constitutional powers of the government, and assuming the power to dictate any form they please.

The advocates for power, in support of this right in the proposed government, urge that a restraint upon the discretion of the legislatures, in respect to military establishments in time of peace, would be improper to be imposed, because they say, it will be necessary to maintain small garrisons on the frontiers, to guard against the depredations of the Indians, and to be prepared to repel any encroachments or invasions that may be made by Spain or Britain.
The amount of this argument stripped of the abundant verbiages with which the author has dressed it, is this:
It will probably be necessary to keep up a small body of troops to garrison a few posts, which it will be necessary to maintain, in order to guard against the sudden encroachments of the Indians, or of the Spaniards and British; and therefore, the general government ought to be invested with power to raise and keep up a standing army in time of peace, without restraint, at their discretion.
I confess, I cannot perceive that the conclusion follows from the premises. Logicians say, it is not good reasoning to infer a general conclusion from particular premises. Though I am not much of a logician, it seems to me, this argument is very like that species of reasoning.

When the patriots in the parliament in Great Britain, contended with such force of argument, and all the powers of eloquence, against keeping up standing armies in time of peace, it is obvious they never entertained an idea, that small garrisons on their frontiers, or in the neighborhood of powers from whom they were in danger of encroachments, or guards to take care of public arsenals, would thereby be prohibited.

The advocates for this power further urge that it is necessary, because it may, and probably will happen, that circumstances will render it requisite to raise an army to be prepared to repel attacks of an enemy, before a formal declaration of war, which in modern times has fallen into disuse. If the constitution prohibited the raising an army, until a war actually commenced, it would deprive the government of the power of providing for the defense of the country, until the enemy were within our territory. If the restriction is not to extend to the raising armies in cases of emergency, but only to the keeping them up, this would leave the matter to the discretion of the legislature, and they might, under the pretence that there was danger of an invasion, keep up the army as long as they judged proper - and hence it is inferred, that the legislature should have authority to raise and keep up an army without any restriction. But from these premises nothing more will follow than this: that the legislature should not be so restrained, as to put it out of their power to raise an army, when such exigencies as are instanced shall arise. But it does not thence follow, that the government should be empowered to raise and maintain standing armies at their discretion as well in peace as in war. If indeed, it is impossible to vest the general government with the power of raising troops to garrison the frontier posts, to guard arsenals, or to be prepared to repel an attack, when we saw a power preparing to make one, without giving them a general and indefinite authority to raise and keep up armies, without any restriction or qualification, then this reasoning might have weight; but this has not been proved nor can it be.

It is admitted that to prohibit the general government from keeping up standing armies, while yet they were authorised to raise them in case of exigency, would be an insufficient guard against the danger. A discretion of such latitude would give room to elude the force of the provision.

It is also admitted that an absolute prohibition against raising troops, except in cases of actual war, would be improper; because it will be requisite to raise and support a small number of troops to garrison the important frontier posts, and to guard arsenals; and it may happen, that the danger of an attack from a foreign power may be so imminent, as to render it highly proper we should raise an army, in order to be prepared to resist them. But to raise and keep up forces for such purposes and on such occasions, is not included in the idea of keeping up standing armies in times of peace.

It is a thing very practicable to give the government sufficient authority to provide for these cases, and at the same time to provide a reasonable and competent security against the evil of a standing army - a clause to the following purpose would answer the end:

As standing armies in time of peace arc dangerous to liberty, and have often been the means of overturning the best constitutions of government, no standing army, or troops of any description whatsoever, shall be raised or kept up by the legislature, except so many as shall be necessary for guards to the arsenals of the United States, or for garrisons to such posts on the frontiers, as it shall be deemed absolutely necessary to hold, to secure the inhabitants, and facilitate the trade with the Indians: unless when the United States are threatened with an attack or invasion from some foreign power, in which case the legislature shall be authorised to raise an army to be prepared to repel the attack; provided that no troops whatsoever shall be raised in time of peace, without the assent of two thirds of the members, composing both houses of the legislature.

A clause similar to this would afford sufficient latitude to the legislature to raise troops in all cases that were really necessary, and at the same time competent security against the establishment of that dangerous engine of despotism, a standing army.

The same writer who advances the arguments I have noticed, makes a number of other observations with a view to prove that the power to raise and keep up armies ought to be discretionary in the general legislature. Some of them are curious. He instances the raising of troops in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, to show the necessity of keeping a standing army in time of peace; the least reflection must convince every candid mind that both these cases are totally foreign to his purpose. Massachusetts raised a body of troops for six months, at the expiration of which they were to disband . . . ; this looks very little like a standing army. But beside, was that commonwealth in a state of peace at that time? So far from it, that they were in the most violent commotions and contests, and their legislature had formally declared that an unnatural rebellion existed within the state. The situation of Pennsylvania was similar; a number of armed men had levied war against the authority of the state and openly avowed their intention of withdrawing their allegiance from it. To what purpose examples are brought, of states raising troops for short periods in times of war or insurrections, on a question concerning the propriety of keeping up standing armies in times of peace, the public must judge.

It is further said, that no danger can arise from this power being lodged in the hands of the general government, because the legislatures will be a check upon them, to prevent their abusing it.

This is offered, as what force there is in it will hereafter receive a more particular examination. At present, I shall only remark, that it is difficult to conceive how the state legislatures can, in any case, hold a check over the general legislature, in a constitutional way. The latter has, in every instance to which their powers extend, complete control over the former. The state legislatures can, in no case - by law, resolution, or otherwise of right, prevent or impede the general government, from enacting any law, or executing it, which this constitution authorizes them to enact or execute. If then the state legislatures check the general legislature, it must be by exciting the people to resist constitutional laws. In this way every individual, or every body of men, may check any government, in proportion to the influence they may have over the body of the people. But such kinds of checks as these, though they sometimes correct the abuses of government, [more) often destroy all government.

It is further said, that no danger is to be apprehended from the exercise of this power, because it is lodged in the hands of representatives of the people. If they abuse it, it is in the power of the people to remove them, and choose others who will pursue their interests. . . . That it is unwise in any people, to authorize their rulers to do, what, if done, would prove injurious - I have, in some former numbers, shown. . . . The representation in the proposed government will be a mere shadow without the substance. I am so confident that I am well founded in this opinion, that I am persuaded if it was to be adopted or rejected, upon a fair discussion of its merits without taking into contemplation circumstances extraneous to it, as reasons for its adoption, nineteen-twentieths of the sensible men in the union would reject it on this account alone; unless its powers were confined to much fewer objects than it embraces.

Battle of the Hook, 2013
Battle of the Hook, 2013 (Photo credit: Battleofthehook)
BRUTUS
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Battle of the Hook, 2013, Art Print No 1



























We are presently working on producing a series of art prints from the Battle of the Hook.  If these get enough attention, we will make them available for purchase.  In the mean time we will be releasing our series on a daily basis for everyone to enjoy.  These are under copyright at this time.  You are free to share them on social networks, however, these can not be copied and used on other websites or printed without our express permission.  Give us your feedback on these as we present them, it's greatly appreciated.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 18, 2013

Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's kids 36, Yorktown





Battle of the Hook Pre Show.  Liberty's Kids episode number 36, Yorktown.  This ends the pre show for the Battle of the Hook as the event officially kicks off October 18th, 2013 and everything up to this exact episode are the events that led to the Battle of the Hook.  Now this battle took place just before Yorktown, it was a part of the battle plans and strategy of the siege of Yorktown.

  We will not be posting any further videos until after the event at which time we will finish the series in commemoration of the Battle of the Hook event.  Our present plans are to be on site at Warner Hall taking early pictures and video and we hope to get them up later in the evening for everyone to get the early view of what will be coming.  We are very excited about all of this and have spent the past few days preparing all of our equipment and we even looked at shooting live event feeds, however, no WiFi is available in the area which is a requirement for us to produce the live feeds.

   Below is information you are going to need if you are attending this event.  It shows you where you need to go to park for the event.



Gloucester, VA Crier, Battle of the Hook, Event Parking from Chuck Thompson

  Now because we are going to be spending a great deal of time at the event, we will be limiting our posts on the site over the next three or four days but we will be coming back with a vengeance as we start to produce media from the event.  Look for it.  See you there.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 35, James Armistead




Battle of the Hook Pre Show.  Liberty's Kids episode number 35, James Armistead.  We are now only a few short days away from the event of the Battle of the Hook here in Gloucester, Virginia.  If you have not heard about this event until now, what rock have you been hiding under?  This is the event of the year.  An American Revolutionary War Reenactment and one of the largest and most complete ever seen in one location.  If you are just hearing about this now and you have the time to spare and do not mind traveling, we highly recommend it.  The are here is sold out of rooms but Williamsburg still has rooms left and is only about a 30 minute drive away along one of the most incredible roads in the nation.

Below are directions on how to get to Gloucester from the main points around Virginia.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Battle of the Hook Pre Show, Liberty's Kids 34, Deborah Samson




Battle of the Hook Pre Show.  Liberty's Kids episode number 34, Deborah Samson Soldier of the Revolution.  We are now only days away from the event of the Battle of the Hook.  If you are new to the site, the Battle of the Hook is an event that occurred just before the siege of Yorktown where America won the biggest battle against the British effectively winning the war for American Independence.  In essence, the Battle of the Hook was a part of the siege of Yorktown and it is also the location of the final surrender of Cornwallis troops to American and French soldiers.

  All of this happened in Gloucester, Virginia which is just across the river form Yorktown, Virginia.  The Battle of the Hook event is this coming weekend.  Below are directions to Gloucester from major points around the state.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Anti Federalist Papers No 23 Certain Powers Necessary For the Common Defense, Can and Should Be Limited

In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the necessity for an energetic government. "BRUTUS" replied.

Taken from the 7th and 8th essays of "Brutus" in The New-York Journal, January 3 and 10, 1788.

In a confederated government, where the powers are divided between the general and the state government, it is essential . . . that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist, should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a division and apportionment....

No such allotment is made in this constitution, but every source of revenue is under the control of Congress; it therefore follows, that if this system is intended to be a complex and not a simple, a confederate and not an entire consolidated government, it contains in it the sure seeds of its own dissolution. One of two things must happen. Either the new constitution will become a mere nudum pactum, and all the authority of the rulers under it be cried down, as has happened to the present confederacy. Or the authority of the individual states will be totally supplanted, and they will retain the mere form without any of the powers of government. To one or the other of these issues, I think, this new government, if it is adopted, will advance with great celerity.

It is said, I know, that such a separation of the sources of revenue, cannot be made without endangering the public safety-"unless (says a writer) [Alexander Hamilton] it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, etc."(1) 
(1 Federalist, No. 23.)

Read The Rest Below;






https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8PKB4B3Z5-kME0yNE5UaDBIX0E/edit?usp=sharing
You can also read the document at the above link as well as download a copy from either the link above or from Slideshare.


http://www.putlocker.com/file/1EEE405F1ED8DA2
B
You can also download a free copy at this above link.

Liberty Education Series.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 10, 2013

American Civil War, The Monitor vs Merrimac Sea Battle

English: Monitor, Union warship, as drawn by S...
English: Monitor, Union warship, as drawn by Samuel Ward Stanton. Shown in combat with Confederate armored steam ram Merrimac, also known as Virginia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
History has been a big part of this site for some time now.  Especially Virginia history and we continue this tradition by bringing you history in a way that others simply do not.  We do not try to rewrite history.  It's already been written a long time ago by others and so we present older history books that themselves are now a part of history.  The book we are presenting today is a book written over 100 years ago.  Much closer to the time period of the actual event.  This book below was published in 1907.  It has not been subjected to revisionists for changes to make anyone feel good or bad.



We allow free downloads of this book from our Slideshare site.  You will either have to sign in with a Facebook account or LinkedIn account or you can create a free account on Slideshare to get the download.  If you deal with PDF's or create presentations, you will find the service they provide invaluable.  We also use Scribed but prefer Slideshare as our main hosting provider.

Enhanced by Zemanta