Our National Defense: The Patriotism of Peace — John Shaqi
Our National Defense: The Patriotism of PeaceMaxwell, George Hebard
History
Our National Defense: The Patriotism of Peace
Maxwell, George Hebard
United States -- Defenses
Second, the defense of the nation and of its social, civil, and political
institutions from internal disturbance and civil conflict.
It may safely be assumed that there will never again be a civil conflict
between any two different sections of this country. That there will
inevitably be such a conflict between contending forces within the body
politic itself, no sane man will deny, if congested cities and tenement
life are to be allowed to continue to degenerate humanity and breed poverty
and misery. They will ultimately undermine and destroy the mental and
physical racial strength of the people. We will then have a population
without intelligence or reasoning powers. Such a proletariat will
constitute a social volcano, an ever present menace to internal peace.
Conflicts such as that which so recently existed in Colorado, approach very
closely to civil war. They have occurred before. They will occur again.
They may occur at any time. Whenever they do occur, it may be necessary to
invoke the power of the nation, acting through the army as a police force,
to preserve the peace and protect life and property.
For that work it must be conceded that we need an army. As it has been well
expressed, we need "a good army but not a large army." It may be conceded
that we need for that purpose, and for Insular and Isthmian Service, and
for garrison duty, an army as large as that now authorized by Congress when
enlisted to the full strength of 100,000 men, _but no more_. Set the limit
there and keep it there, and fight any plan for an increase.
The question whether we should have an army of 50,000 men or 100,000 men is
of comparatively small importance. As to that question there need be no
controversy on any ground except that of comparative wisdom of expenditure.
There are other things this country should do, _that it is not doing_, of
more importance than to maintain an army of 100,000 instead of 50,000, or
than to build more battleships at this time.
An army needed as a national police force to safeguard against any sort of
domestic disturbance is a very different proposition from the army we would
need in the event of a war with any of the great world powers. An army of
100,000 is as large as we will ever need to safeguard against domestic
disturbance. An army any larger than that, for that purpose, should be
opposed as a menace to the people's liberties, and a waste of the nation's
revenues.
It is conceded on all sides, however, that if it ever did happen, however
remote the possibility may be, that the United States became involved in a
war with a foreign nation of our own class, an army of 100,000 men would be
impotent and powerless for national defense. So would an army of 200,000
men. An army of 200,000 is twice as large as we should have in time of
peace. In the event of war with any first-class power we would have to
have an army five or ten times 200,000.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account