A standing army may be OK in a monarchy or dictatorship, but the last place it belongs is in a freedom-loving REPUBLIC like the United States.
In the U.S. schools, the children are taught that the colonists separated from Great Britain because of objections to taxation without representation. That is only half the truth, and half the truth is worse that an outright lie....It was the reason for the taxes that was most objectionable to the colonists . . . namely to support a STANDING ARMY in peacetime. This is exactly what is happening in the U.S. today with a Pentagon budget of over 500 BILLION DOLLARS paid for by the taxpayers!! The 7 Years' War or French and Indian War ended in 1763.... In 1768, 2 regiments of British soldiers under general Gage landed in Boston harbor, and this was the real commencement of the War of Independence: Within a few days after their separation, the troops arrived from Halifax. This was indeed a painful era. The American war may be dated from the hostile parade of this day; a day which marks with infamy the councils of Britain. At this period, the inhabitants of the colonies almost universally breathed an unshaken loyalty to the king of England, and the strongest attachment to a country whence they derived their origin. Thus was the astonishment of the whole province excited, when to the grief and consternation of the town of Boston several regiments were landed, and marched sword in hand through the principal streets of their city, then in profound peace. (Warren, History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution, p.3.
Mercy Otis Warren (1728-1814), was a War of Independence historian.
To maintain a standing army in peacetime, and then expect the colonists to PAY for it, was more than any freedom-loving people could bear. It was a sure recipe to drive the colonists to separate from the mother country.
General Thomas Gage (1719-1789), commanded the British standing army in Boston.
It is easy for armchair historians to write about historical events hundreds of years after they happen, but Mercy Otis Warren was THERE in Boston during these momentous times, and was personally acquainted with all the leaders of the Revolution.
The Boston massacre occurred in 1770 when a British standing army fired on colonists.
Because of the stationing of a standing army in Boston, Great Britain ignited a conflict which cost her the best land in the world.
The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a protest against British policy in her New World colonies.
Here is a quote from her eye-opening book: A standing army thus placed in their capital, their commerce fettered, their characters traduced, their representative body prevented meeting, the united petitions of all ranks that they might be convened at this critical conjuncture rejected by the governor; and still threatened with a further augmentation of troops to enforce measures in every view repugnant to the principles of the British constitution; little hope remained of a peaceful accommodation. The most rational arguments had been urged by the legislative assemblies, by corporate bodies, associations, and individual characters of eminence, to shake the arbitrary system that augured evils to both countries. But their addresses were disdainfully rejected; the king and the court of Great Britain appeared equally deaf to the cry of millions, who only asked a restoration of their rights. At the same time every worthless incendiary, who, taking advantage of these miserable times, crossed the Atlantic with a tale of accusation against his country, was listened to with attention, and rewarded with some token of royal favor. (Warren, p. 39). Here is another quote from her eye-opening book: The experience of all ages, and the observations both of the historian and the philosopher agree, that a standing army is the most ready engine in the hand of despotism, to debase the powers of the human mind, and eradicate the manly spirit of freedom. The people have certainly every thing to fear from a government, when the springs of its authority are fortified only by a standing military force. Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals, propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character. Threatened with the immediate introduction of this dread calamity, deprived by the dissolution of their legislature of all power to make any legal opposition; neglected by their sovereign, and insulted by the governor he had set over them, much the largest part of the community was convinced, that they had no resource but in the strength of their virtues, the energy of their resolutions, and the justice of their cause. (Warren, p. 36). Here is a quote by a GREAT Briton, written in the year 1697, about the menace of STANDING ARMIES to the liberties of the people: This subject is so self-evident, that I am almost ashamed to prove it: for if we look through the world, we shall find in no country, liberty and an army stand together; so that to know whether a people are free or slaves, it is necessary only to ask, whether there is an army kept amongst them? (John Trenchard). And another quote about the menace of standing armies within the seat of government: ...and I hope I shall make it appear, that no nation ever preserved its liberty, that maintained an army otherwise constituted within the seat of their government: and let us flatter ourselves as much as we please, what happened yesterday, will come to pass again; and the same causes will produce like effects in all ages. (John Trenchard).
