why do you think brutus is against standing armies?

Brutus is against standing armies because he believes they almost always lead to tyranny and the loss of a free people’s liberty, especially in times of peace.

Quick Scoop: What’s Brutus Worried About?

When people talk about “Brutus” here, they usually mean the Anti‑Federalist writer who opposed parts of the proposed U.S. Constitution in the late 1780s. He saw standing armies (permanent, professional armies kept in peacetime) as a built‑in danger to any free republic.

In modern terms, Brutus is basically saying:
“If you let the government keep a permanent army, don’t be surprised when that army ends up controlling you.”

His Main Reasons Against Standing Armies

Brutus returns to this topic in several of his letters and Anti‑Federalist essays. Here’s why he is so strongly opposed:

1. Standing armies destroy liberty over time
   • He calls it almost an axiom (a widely accepted truth) that standing armies in peacetime are “dangerous to liberty” and often overthrow even the “best constitutions of government.”

 * He points to Rome and Britain as examples where permanent armies helped turn free systems into despotic regimes.

2. They are separate from the people
   • A standing army is “a body of men distinct from the body of the people,” governed by different laws and trained in blind obedience to commanders.

 * Because they follow orders rather than share the civic spirit of ordinary citizens, they can be used against the people instead of protecting them.

3. They enable ambitious leaders to seize power
   • Brutus stresses that ambitious rulers can use a large army to “awe” citizens into obedience and to support their personal power.

 * Later commentators summarizing Brutus’s view note that standing armies can help ambitious leaders overthrow or dominate the government and the people.

4. They’re especially dangerous in peacetime
   • He admits some troops are necessary for frontier posts, arsenals, and emergencies, but insists that this is different from a large, permanent peacetime army.

 * For him, keeping a big army when there is no war strongly suggests it is meant to control the population, not defend it.

5. They undermine a free republic’s character
   • Brutus argues that the principles and habits of Americans—who value self‑government and citizen militias—are “directly opposed” to standing armies.

 * In a free republic, he prefers a small force for basic security and a citizen militia that can be raised in emergencies, not a permanent war machine.

What He Thinks Should Happen Instead

Brutus doesn’t deny the need for any military power; he wants it tightly limited.

• Small garrisons for forts and arsenals only.

• Armies raised when there is clear, imminent danger, not as a default peace‑time institution.

• Legal limits so the government cannot easily expand a standing army without strong, broad support.

In one discussion, he even suggests language that would restrict armies to “bare essentials” and require a super‑majority in Congress to enlarge them, showing he is trying to build safeguards , not abolish defense entirely.

Putting It All Together: Answering Your Question

So, “why do you think Brutus is against standing armies?” A clear way to phrase it:

• He believes history proves that permanent armies in peacetime almost always end up being used to oppress the people and destroy their liberty.

• He fears that such armies are separate from the people, loyal to commanders, and easily turned into tools of ambitious rulers.

• Because of this, he argues a free republic should rely mainly on limited forces and citizen militias, not a large, permanent standing army.

TL;DR: Brutus is against standing armies because, in his view, they turn free republics into tyrannies by giving rulers a permanent, obedient force that can be used against the people, especially in times of peace.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.