Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Thom Hartmann: Rangel and Jefferson Agree on a National Service Program

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Thom Hartmann

Many of the world's mature democracies require every high-school graduate to serve a year or two of either military or nonprofit service, as Congressman Charlie Rangel has proposed every year for some time now. At first blush, this may seem like an oppression by government, but history shows it's actually one of the best ways to prevent a military from becoming its own insular and dangerous subculture, to prevent the lower ranks of the military from being overwhelmed by people trying to escape poverty, and to keep military actions of the government accountable to the people.

The Founders of America extensively considered this same issue. Many were strongly against there ever being a standing army in America during times of peace, although they favored a navy to protect our shoreline borders, and today would no doubt favor an air force. The theory was that an army had too much potential for mischief, to oppress people, or even stage a military coup and take over an elected government (as recently happened in Pakistan and has happened in several other nations over the past century).

Thomas Jefferson first suggested that we not have a standing army, and wrote a series of letters in 1787, as the Constitution was being debated, urging James Madison and others to write it into the Constitution.

The idea was, instead of a standing army, for every able-bodied man in the nation to be a member of a local militia, under local control, with a gun in his house. If the nation was invaded, word would come down to the local level and every man in the country would be the army.

Switzerland has such an army, and many have suggested it's one reason why Hitler never tried to invade this neighbor.

To facilitate this, it was suggested that three things were necessary. A ban on a standing army; a provision making every able-bodied male a trained member of a local militia that could come under nation control if the nation was attacked; and a provision making sure every male had a weapon handy if that day ever came.

Step one would be to write a ban on a standing army into the Constitution. When Jefferson received the first draft of the new Constitution in 1787, he wrote that without an addendum, a Bill of Rights, he would recommend that Virginia oppose it.

In a Feb. 12, 1788 letter, he noted to his friend Mr. Dumas, "With respect to the new Government, nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i. e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections..."

The topic was hotly debated, and Alexander Hamilton wrote an extensive article about it, first published in a newspaper titled The Daily Advertiser on January 10, 1788. This article is now known as Volume 29 of The Federalist Papers. (The entire text is at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html .)

"If standing armies are dangerous to liberty," Hamilton wrote, "an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions." A citizen's militia, Hamilton noted, "appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it..."

But while many Founders saw a standing army as a threat to democracy, others pointed to threats ranging from hostile Indians to French Canadians and Spanish Floridians as reasons to keep it.

The debates among the Framers of the Constitution led to a clumsy compromise, with the ban on a standing army and universal requirement for membership in a militia chopped away, to be revisited at some (presumably near) future time. The tattered and compromised remnant of that discussion is today known as our Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, in its entirety: "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."

(As you can see, the Second Amendment thus had virtually nothing to do with the "we can rise up against an oppressive government" argument put forth by today's advocates of ownership of assault weapons, or the "right to self defense in your own home" argument put forth by the NRA.)

As president, Jefferson again tried to revive his argument. He slashed the size of the army to just over 3000 soldiers, closing forts and cutting costs. But he couldn't kill off the army altogether, because the citizen's militia had never been formalized at a federal level.

After he left office, Jefferson came to the conclusion that if he couldn't get rid of the army, then every man should be a member of it, if only for a brief time. This would insure diversity of opinions in the army, and minimize the chances of a military coup or a military culture that could become so powerful it would influence the government or seduce the president into playing commander-in-chief too often in foreign adventures.

Jefferson was also morally offended by the idea of an army that people would join only because they were so poor there was no other way to get an education and a job (for such people, he wanted universal free public education, including free college tuition - which he brought into being when he founded the University of Virginia).

He wrote his thoughts on the topic in a June 18, 1813 letter to his old friend and future president James Monroe.

"It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies," he wrote, pleased that his army had taken on a different nature during his tenure as President, just completed five years earlier. "But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings."

He noted that so-called "voluntary" armies depend upon a "pauper class" for their existence. By the end of his presidency (1808), Jefferson had largely done away with America's standing army, and he was thus inspired to write to his friend Dr. Thomas Cooper, on September 10, 1814, that "our men are so happy at home that they will not hire themselves to be shot at for a shilling a day. Hence we can have no standing armies for defence, because we have no paupers to furnish the materials."

In history, Jefferson found justification for his opinion. "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies," he wrote in that letter to Monroe, "yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier, and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

He noted that such a system of universal service "was proposed to Congress in 1805, and subsequently; and, on the last trial was lost, I believe, by a single vote only. Had it prevailed, what has now happened [in the War of 1812] would not have happened. Instead of burning our Capitol, we should have possessed theirs in Montreal and Quebec. We must now adopt it, and all will be safe."

He noted that three-quarters of a million men qualified for a draft in 1814, and added, "With this force properly classed, organized, trained, armed and subject to tours of a year of military duty, we have no more to fear for the defence of our country than those who have the resources of despotism and pauperism."

As history shows, Jefferson was more often right than wrong. We should institute a universal draft in the United States, with a strong public service option - from planting trees to assisting in schools to helping in hospitals - easily and readily available for those young people who don't want to go into the military.

The result will be a generation of citizens who feel more bonded with and committed to their nation, who have experienced the critical developmental stage of a "rite of passage" into adulthood, and who have experienced more of America and the world than just their own neighborhood.

Universal service would also help calm President Dwight D. Eisenhower's fears. The old general left us the following warning as he left office in 1960: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never," he added, "let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."

As Jefferson wrote to Monroe: "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."

Herbert Hoover correctly noted, "Old men declare war. But it's the youth who must fight and die." When the children of our President, Vice President, and members of Congress are all obliged to serve, the odds are infinitely higher that our leaders won't speak so glibly about the acceptability of "a few casualties" in optional wars of choice like Iraq.

By including women, and adding a very broad government-funded option of national public service, we can bring about a modern version of Jefferson's vision and create both a more egalitarian society and a less belligerent and poverty-driven military. And prevent future "adventures" like Iraq.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning, New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His 17 published books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His most recent book is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

Call to service

Why not? Someone told me once that everyone should "do time" outside the US so that they could see what benefits the US offered to them VS. other countries, unfortunately at this time I feel that some other countries have more to offer but that in and of itself would be good to experience for it would likely force more people into advocating for change in this country.

Peace.

Three Little Words

For Rangel: Chuck You Farley. Instead, Do your Constitutional duty to declare (a just) war OR NOT, and if not, cut Bushists off at the bills for any consequent illegal war.

The draft didn't bring an

The draft didn't bring an end to Vietnam very quickly. I guess there just wasn't enough outrage. I notice that all the people who seem so in to this idea are well over draft age. I am 25 and I can tell you that I would never risk my life, for any of your generations ideals. The WW2 vereans like both of my grandfathers and 5 of my great uncles gave you a very promising future, and you all blew it. With your ridiculous wars in Vietnam and the Middle East. Your destruction of labor and the middle class with your damn Reaganomics. Your racism, fascism, and greed. Your support of dictators and overthrow of democratic governments.

This country has been invulnerable to invasion since the invention of the atomic bomb, and yet sending the young to die in your wars has never ceased. How much safer do you think this world would be if you had spent all the money you have spent on you wars in the last 50 years and instead spent it improving peoples lives?

Conscripted service IS oppression

To propose that everyone MUST serve in the military and to propose an amendment to the constitutional is abhorrent and is playing right into the hands of the Military Industrial Congressional K Street Complex.

The only people who should be required to serve in the military are those who are in favor of starting wars. Those chickenhawks should be the first to serve on the front lines and they should be the first to die in their war, regardless of their age or physical condition. If they expect our soldiers to die for our country in a war that they start, then they should be willing to be the first to die.

When we invaded Iraq illegally to murder, torture, terrorize, loot, pluder and destroy their country forever with DU WMDs, the people of Iraq did not volunteer for our war of choice. Iraqi women, their children, the old, the infirm and almost every other Iraqi citizen HAD no choice, they had to stay and they had to experience the full wrath of our merciless imperialist aggression.

So the next time the Military Industrial Congressional K Street Complex wants to start another war of choice so they can make another blood profit, we need to tell them that this time, they will be the first to go, they will be the first to die, and they will be the last to return, if they return once their war is over.

If every country followed this principle, then there would be no more war in the world. This is the way to everlasting peace.

National Service Program

I really do appreciate Thom's essays. They speak to the exquisite element of government. There is a beauty to a well thought out, high minded system of government. It clearly is tragic that our current system has strayed so far from those ideals that now it can only be called a corporateocracy, much closer to Mussolini’s vision than Jefferson's. Without an educated citizenry, it seems far fetched to think that we can ever turn this around.

Everybody?

Handicapped? Mentally-ill? Mentally-challenged? Prisoners?

I am for it too...Let's include everybody.

We have an all-volunteer force and it works. This is just a political maneuver from an angry disillusioned idiotic and democratic congressman.

We got bigger problems to resolve in congress than this bullshit of an issue :)

Everyone?

Zorro as a socialworker who works with the mentally ill, I resent your comment. The republicans supported a coup that put a mentally ill man in the highest office in the land. Yes some congressman are angry, the were lied to support a war. Then the jackass made jokes about looking for WMD. Myself I think it is a great idea to have every youth spend a year serving our country. Maybe it's time we turn to solving our own problems instead of fighting the whole world. It's not fair to have an army of only those who are willing because their parents can't afford to send them to college. I think that we should hold king george up to his bargain with the US government in the 60's, sense he didn't serve out his term in the guards I think he should get up on his horse and lead the charge and take his twins with him.

Mandatory military service? Why not?

As long as we put it in our Constitution, that ALL young citizens must serve. It should be unconstitutional to look for deferments. And that should go for the rich too. Every single child of present and past presidents, male OR female. Every single child of congresspeople, male OR female. Everybody serves, or NOBODY serves. Also - the "privileged class" leaves the privileges behind when they enlist. Another thing: the "privileged class" gets shipped out to actually fight a war, and NOT hide in a cushy jobs provided by moms/dads/good friends.
My daughter proudly served and was honorably discharged. She spent 5 years of her life as an MP. She was shipped out to Europe to former Yugoslavia territory. I was very worried many times. Yet I was proud that she was serving her country, and she served well.
If we want our country to stay on the path straight and narrow, we all have to agree with the above statement:"When the children of our President, Vice President, and members of Congress are all obliged to serve, the odds are infinitely higher that our leaders won't speak so glibly about the acceptability of "a few casualties" in optional wars of choice like Iraq."
If such amendment finds its way into the Constitution, namely: everybody serves, no deferments, no exceptions - we will ALL benefit from it. We just must watch our employees, the senators, the reps, the president, so they don't pull a fast one on us, like they've been doing for 6 years now. We must not allow them to wiggle out of the military service.

why not

amen. And I think the twins and uncle dickie's children should be the first one's to be drafted.