« Thomas Jefferson: Class and Citizen Soldiers | PseudoCyAnts's Blog | Trent Lott: Senate Republicans Should Pursue Lieberman »

Richard Henry Lee: Dangers of Congressional Power to Tax and Raise Armies


My second exccerpt from The Nation's Founding regarding this week's TPM Cafe Book Club topic is: Anti-Federalist Richard Henry Lee, writing under the pen name, Federal Farmer, about the synergistic dangers in giving Congress the powers to lay and collect internal taxes, along with its powers respecting the armed forces.

The power in the general government to lay and collect internal taxes, will render its powers respecting armies; navies and the militia, the more exceptionable. By the constitution it is proposed that congress shall have power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; to provide and maintain a navy; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union; suppress insurrections, and repel invasions: to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia;" reserving to the states the right to appoint the officers, and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress; congress will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years; but a legislative act applying money for their support can have operation for no longer term than two years, and if a subsequent congress do not within the two years renew the appropriation, or further appropriate monies for the use of the army, the army will be left to take care of itself. When an army shall once be raised for a number of years, it is not probable that it will find much difficulty in getting congress to pass laws for applying monies to its support. I see so many men in America fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families. A power to raise armies must be lodged some where; still this will not justify the lodging this power in a bare majority of so few men without any checks; or in the government in which the great body of the people, in the nature of things, will be only nominally represented. In the state governments the great body of the people, the yeomanry, &c. of the country, are represented: It is true they will chuse the members of congress, and may now and then chuse a man of their own way of thinking; but it is not impossible for forty, or thirty thousand people in this country, one time in ten to find a man who can possess similar feelings, views, and interests with themselves: Powers to lay and collect taxes and to raise armies are of the greatest moment; for carrying them into effect, laws need not be frequently made, and the yeomanry, &c. of the country ought substantially to have a check upon the passing of these laws; this check ought to be placed in the legislatures, or at least, in the few men the common people of the country, will, probably, have in congress, in the true sense of the word, "from among themselves." It is true, the yeomanry of the country possess the lands, the weight of property, possess arms, and are too strong a body of men to be openly offended — and, therefore, it is urged, they will take care of themselves, that men who shall govern will not dare pay any disrespect to their opinions. It is easily perceived, that if they have-not their proper negative upon passing laws in congress, or on the passage of laws relative to taxes and armies, they may in twenty or thirty years be by means imperceptible to them, totally deprived of that boasted weight and strength : This may be done in a great measure by congress, if disposed to do it, by modelling the militia, Should one fifth or one eighth part of the men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will render them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenceless. The state must train the militia in such form and according to such systems and rules as congress shall prescribe: and the only actual influence the respective states will have respecting the militia will be in appointing the officers. I see no provision made for calling out the posse comitatus for executing the laws of the union, but provision is made for congress to call forth the militia for the execution of them — and the militia in general, or any select part of it, may be called out under military officers, instead of the sheriff to enforce an execution of federal laws, in the first instance, and thereby introduce an entire military execution of the laws. I know that powers to raise taxes, to regulate the military strength of the community on some uniform plan, to provide for its defence and internal order, and for duly executing the laws, must be lodged somewhere; but still we ought not so to lodge them, as evidently to give one order of men in the community, undue advantages over others; or commit the many to the mercy, prudence, and moderation of the few. And so far as it may be necessary to lodge any of the peculiar powers in the general government, a more safe exercise of them ought to be secured, by requiring the consent of two-thirds or three-fourths of congress thereto — until the federal representation can be increased, so that the democratic members in congress may stand some tolerable chance of a reasonable negative, in behalf of the numerous, important, and democratic part of the community.

Letters of a Federal Farmer by Richard Henry Lee; Letter III; October 10, 1787
Text transcribed from:
Ford, Paul Leicester. 1888. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States: published during its discussion by the people, 1787-1788. Brooklyn, N.Y.: [s.l.]. pp 304-306.


5 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

1. The anti-Federalists lost the argument.

2. Clarence Thomas is the first SC justice in history to interpret the Constitution through the views of the losing argument -- the views of those who OPPOSED its ratification.

3. If you read the Constitution, you'll find it includes authorization to tax, and gives that power to Congress.

4. You'll find that the Constitution also gives the power to regulate the military, regardless form, and to fund -- or not -- the use of the military to make war.

All in all, the anti-Federalist views are of interest to historians. Otherwise, especially as concerns law and our politics in relation thereto, they are moot.

user-pic

I find this to be a fairly loose reading of the constitutional requirement for limited funding of standing armies and the framers clear intent to leave the powers of the militias in the hands of the states.

It was clearly their intent that any armies we did fund and deploy at the national level be for short, specific engagements. The constitution says that the Congress shall appropriate funds to outfit state militias that are under the control of the governors of those states. On this point more than many others the constitution was perfectly clear.

As we dismantle the military-industrial complex and decide on new priorities for our national spending such as education and health care and green infrastructure, going back to a more strict reading of the defense provisions in the constitution will be a great help to President Obama as he frames the argument for changes that must be made.

Encouraging a renewed interest in what the constitution actually says about how we should run the republic and not what the supreme court or individual Congress thinks it says would be a great place to start.

user-pic

I'd love to see us dismantling the military-industrial complex. We spend over half the world's military expenditure. We need to become a nation no longer obsessed with war. We need to learn to live with existential anxiety - and together with other nations in peace. Using diplomacy.

user-pic

Couldn't agree more. I think it is inevitable that this change is coming. I expect nothing less than common sense from an Obama administration. Taking the red pen to the defense budget will be one of his first priorities I am sure.

user-pic

Are you even cognisant of who Richard Henry Lee was? You brush him away with a cursory derogation that he is only relevant to historians. Move along citizens, nothing to learn from the curiousities of history. Do the loop-the-loop:

  1. wash
  2. rinse
  3. spin
  4. Goto 1

Richard Henry Lee did not lose; he won. His opposition was to the Constitution, as first presented unamended. After Madison promised Amendments to the Constitution as a fix for many of its errors of omission, Lee supported it. Anti-Federalist "losers" like Lee were the reason we have The Bill of Rights.

I am wondering exactly what caused you to publish this response anyway. It was intended as an aside to this week's Book Club discussion, and was never portrayed as being anything other than what it is; a dissent from the Nation's Founding, pointing out a Constitutional weakness, which was prescient about how it could be abused to the detriment of The People's liberty. Care to come clean about your motivations for disliking Anti-Federalists?

"But what experience and history teach is this-that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, "The Philosophy of History", 1837, introduction

Leave a comment

PseudoCyAnts

user-pic

Following: 47
Followers: 23

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Party Boston Tea
  • Politics Jeffersonian

Favorites

  • Favorite Quotes "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795

Bio

Walkabout in the Dreamtime America

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address