why does brutus believe a standing army would be necessary under this government?
Brutus, an Anti-Federalist writer in the 1780s, argued that a standing army would become necessary under the proposed U.S. Constitution due to the federal government's expansive powers over a vast territory. He believed the government would rely on permanent troops to enforce its authority, maintain control, and suppress potential rebellions from distant states or citizens.
Brutus's Core Concern
Brutus expressed these views primarily in essays like Brutus I, X, and others published in New York newspapers during the ratification debates. He warned that Congress's unlimited power to raise armies "in peace as in war" under Article I, Section 8 would lead to a permanent military force. Without strict limits, leaders could use it to consolidate power, especially since the federal government lacked the people's direct oversight in a large republic.
"The power to raise armies, is indefinite and unlimited, and authorises the raising forces, as well in peace as in war."
Reasons for Necessity
Brutus outlined why the government would need—and thus maintain—a standing army:
- Territorial Scale : Governing 13 far-flung states required force to quell local resistances or enforce federal laws, unlike smaller republics reliant on militias.
- Revenue and Enforcement : Unlimited taxation and borrowing powers would fund armies indefinitely, making voluntary militias obsolete.
- Elite Ambitions : Many framers favored standing armies to "awe [the people] into obedience" and uphold "the dignity of government."
- Emergency Pretexts : Leaders could claim imminent threats to justify troops without declaring war, bypassing restrictions.
He contrasted this with historical examples, like British use of armies to oppress colonies, predicting tyranny if unchecked.
Counter Federalist Views
Federalists like Hamilton (Federalist No. 24-25) countered that armies were only for "cases of exigency," not peacetime permanence, and militias sufficed otherwise. Brutus dismissed this, arguing the "necessary and proper" clause enabled abuse. Modern scholars note his fears partially eased by the Bill of Rights and militia clauses, though the U.S. has maintained standing forces since 1789.
Aspect| Brutus's Belief| Federalist Rebuttal
---|---|---
Power Scope| Unlimited, enables peacetime army 1| Limited to
war/emergencies 5
Control Mechanism| None; leads to oppression 3| Congress/state oversight
5
Alternative| State militias only 10| Hybrid with small regulars 5
Modern Relevance
As of January 2026, Brutus's warnings echo in debates over military budgets amid global tensions, with the U.S. standing army exceeding 1.3 million active personnel. Anti-Federalist ideas resurface in forums questioning federal overreach.
TL;DR : Brutus saw a standing army as inevitable for federal control in a large nation, fearing it as a tool for despotism over liberty.
Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.