Do you need F-15s and nukes to move against the government, or might rifles do in a pinch? The 'blood of patriots and tyrants' bit that Joe Biden is rejecting is from Thomas Jefferson, so let's see what James Madison has to say.
The only refuge left for those who prophecy the downfall of the state governments, is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the states should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the states should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
OK, well, Madison got that one wrong.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
I've seen this argument floated as recently as this week. How many brigades can be fielded, given that it will take several per city? Having controlled the cities, how will you ensure the food and other logistics that would be required to sustain them will be coming from the countryside? Could you control the countryside instead with the relatively small number of troops under arms, even if they all chose to obey orders rather than revolt against tyranny?
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Ah, yes. That's come up this week as well.
And it is not certain that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Madison thinks it's not going to be close. Maybe some of that political prudence I've been suggesting to the government would be wise after all.
4 comments:
Similar to the famous statement about Trump's commentary, I would avoid taking Biden literally instead of seriously. It isn't going to be 'nukes and F-15s' or brigade combat teams. It's going to be what's happening on a smaller scale right now to the 6 January protestors. Law enforcement agencies weaponized by politicized federal, state, and local prosecutors. The IRS and other agencies turned loose with lists of targets. Financial institutions closing accounts and refusing access under threat of regulatory action. Our entire IC turned inward and colluding with social media and other platforms to gather data and disrupt communication. Eventually businesses will succumb to intimidation and stop operations in 'problematic' areas.
This didn't start with Trump. Regan was accused of colluding with the Iranians (and Ted Kennedy actually asked the Russians to disrupt his election). W was 'selected' and then supposedly won Ohio with rigged election computers. It's been over three decades since a Democrat conceded the Presidential election on Election Day, and yet every time a Democrat wins the office the election was supposedly the cleanest and fairest in history.
The chances that 2022 will be a debacle on the scale of 1994 or 2010 for the Democrats are growing every day, 2024 isn't looking much better regardless of which body is occupying the Oval Office, and I think they are well aware of it. Biden's comments are a declaration they intend to hold power by whatever means they deem necessary.
The Afghans and Somalis are pretty good counter examples. And if Austin, Milley, and Giday are representative of our military leadership, then a revolt has a fair chance of succeeding.
A drone just did some serious damage in Iran
Nukes are important, but as we've learned there are lots of kinds of conflicts you can't win with them.
An armed people is harder to push around, even if you do have a 1st-world army. Sooner or later you have to reach an accommodation with them. It can't always be about nuking them into submission, especially if you want them to keep making things and paying taxes.
Post a Comment