This is a continuation of a series of posts that are intended to be shorter, more understandable versions of the Federalist Papers. This post deals with Federalist #27, the original text of which can be read here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_27.html

Originally published December 25, 1787 by “Publius” – who was in this case, Alexander Hamilton.

Some people are saying that the government proposed in the Constitution can’t survive without military force. Like most of their arguments though, this is just an assumption, with no real evidence to support it. I don’t really understand it, but I think they assume that the people won’t listen to the Federal government on domestic issues. Now, we know there is no distinction in the document itself between foreign and domestic matters, but let’s try to figure out if there’s any merit to this idea nonetheless. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think the people would hate the Federal government any more than they hate their State governments (unless the Feds end up screwing up everything they try to do). Loyalty from the people is derived from how well a government runs. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but they’re exceptions. We have to look at these things in the way that they normally work.

I’ve outlined a lot of reasons why the Federal government will probably work better than the States’: the candidate base for the Federal government is the entire country; the Senate will be composed of quality men (since the State legislatures pick them); we’ll thus end up with smarter men who won’t be swayed by petty or local special interest groups to “do something” that might harm the people. You’ll also be able to see a lot more reasons once we start looking at the details of the structure of the proposed Federal government. Suffice it to say, that until the opponents of the Constitution can show that their fears have any basis, you have to assume that the people will treat the Federal government no different than they do the governments of the States.

If people think they can get away with ignoring a government, they will. If the government is strong, the people will listen to it. Isn’t it more likely that the people would follow the rules of a government that can marshal the resources of all the States, instead of just one? A small special interest group may be able to have influence in one State, but it can’t hope to influence all of them. If this is true, then there’s less danger with the Federal government than with the individual States.

Let me propose an idea (even if it is new to some of you): the more the people get used to the Federal government working in their lives – seeing it make things better and run properly – the more loyalty they will naturally feel toward it. We’re all creatures of habit. “Out of sight, out of mind”, right? If the people never have to interact with the Federal government, of course they won’t have any feelings about it! The strength and influence of the government with the people can only be increased with more interaction, and the more the people trust the government, the less it needs to resort to violence to get its way.

One thing is obvious: the proposed Constitution creates a government that is much less likely to need the threat of force than the weak confederacy of States that our opponents have in mind. We explained already that a system that has to deal only with States (who likely will ignore its provisions – as we’ve seen with our own experiment there) must resort to force sooner or later.

This Constitution, since it gives the Federal government the power to touch individual citizens (as opposed to just the States), will make it much easier for the Federal government to enforce its laws. Clearly, this arrangement will lead people to hold the Federal government in higher esteem and will mitigate the threat of rebellion against the government. We should also remember that under this plan, the powers specifically given to the Federal government are the supreme law of the land, and all of the States (and their officers and courts) have to follow the laws made by the Federal government. As long as the Federal government is well-run, there’s no reason to think that it will be ignored by the people. Of course we can assume that it will be horribly mismanaged, but can you show me any government that would survive in that case? Even if our opponents insist on thinking that we’d have terrible, nefarious leaders, how would those leaders ultimately benefit from their bad behavior in a system that is run by the people?

A few weeks ago, I made a trip that I’ve been meaning to make for years – ever since I was a kid reading my old, beat-up Time-Life Gettysburg book.

Of course, the book talked about Maj. Gen. Daniel Edgar Sickles (who I’ve mentioned before) and his role as commander of the III Corps of the Union Army of the Potomac at the Battle of Gettysburg. As you may have learned from my previous posts about Sickles, he suffered a serious wound on his right leg during the battle (as happens when a 12-lb cannon ball hits one’s shin) and had to have the lower part of that leg amputated.

My childhood Time-Life book describes his wounding and tells the story of how Sickles (knowing of the Army medical service’s new training and education initiative) used his political influence to have the bones from his amputated leg sent to the newly-created Army Medical Museum to be made part of their collection. Creepy as it may seem, he became a regular visitor at the museum, and would use the opportunity to spend some quality time with his lost appendage.

The Army Medical Museum no longer exists as an institution, but it has morphed into the National Museum of Health and Medicine and moved around a few times. The current building is in Silver Spring, MD just north of Washington, D.C. About a month ago, I found out that they were going to have a living history encampment at the museum, and I thought that would be a fun day for me and little John. I ended up inviting my friend John Dolan, and my mother-in-law along, too. My wife, sadly, had to work that day.

It’s a good, if somewhat small, museum. There are a number of examples of gruesome injuries on display – mostly from the Civil War era. They also have some artifacts from Presidential deaths. Slices of U.S. Grant’s tumor are displayed on slides in one of the cases, alongside the bullet-holed spine of James Garfield. There is also a collection of artifacts from Lincoln’s autopsy including small pieces of his skull, and the bullet that killed him. All of this in a free museum! If you’re visiting the Washington, D.C. area, and have any interest at all in medical history, it’s well worth the trip.

Toward the back of the museum is what I came to see: General Sickles’ leg along with an example of the type of artillery round that caused the wound.

As far as I know, the leg has been displayed like this – semi-reassembled with the metal rods and the wooden base – for years. At least in the new museum, it doesn’t really have a flashy, special place. If you weren’t looking for it, you’d probably miss it.

Since I had heard the story of the leg since I was a kid, I couldn’t resist the chance to get a picture with it. I’m left wondering whether Sickles himself – eccentric old character that he was – ever did something similar.

This is a continuation of a series of posts that are intended to be shorter, more understandable versions of the Federalist Papers. This post deals with Federalist #26, the original text of which can be read here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_26.html

Originally published December 22, 1787 by “Publius” – who was in this case, Alexander Hamilton.

It was a surprise when the revolution ended up bringing us to a place right between POWER and PRIVILEGE, trying to keep our rights while giving the government some power. We didn’t get it quite right though, and that has been the source of our trouble. This mistake should be corrected, or else our future attempts to fix it won’t really change anything at all.

Removing government power over the military sounds like a better idea than it actually is. Even though we seem to have invented the concept, we aren’t really employing it ourselves – only Pennsylvania and North Carolina have – everyone else refuses to consider it, and really they are right. You have to trust someone, and it’s a better idea to take the risk of abuse-of-power, than to leave us in a state where the government can’t protect us. Those who oppose the Constitution are at odds with the majority in this regard, and rather than moderating their own views, they want to drive us deeper into extremes. They recommend a solution that has been flatly rejected before, and frankly, they’d make this country ungovernable. It’s a good thing that won’t happen – the people are too smart for that. We know how important a sufficiently powerful government is. I’m sure of that.

But where does this idea come from? You might think it came about because history teaches us about the tendency for military encroachments on freedom. It actually comes from England.

Their King had almost total power for centuries. Over time, that power was eroded away by the aristocracy and the people to the point that there’s no real danger left. Eventually, the English Glorious Revolution secured this arrangement permanently. Various monarchs had kept troops – in increasing numbers – for their own purposes over the years. The Bill of Rights made it illegal for standing armies to exist without Parliament’s permission.

Even at the height of awareness of liberty in England, they had the good sense to not restrict the power of the legislature over the military. They understood that troops were necessary for emergencies that might come up, and they knew that the legislature was the safest place for the military power to be held.

Since we come from England, we’ve grown up in this same fear of standing armies. We got so caught up in the Revolution that we’ve gone too far in a few instances (like Pennsylvania and North Carolina did above). We mistakenly extended our fears from the King to the legislature, and put unnecessary provisions in some of our State constitutions. Of course the power to raise armies should belong only to the legislature – it goes without saying! The constitution of New York (clearly one of the greatest) says absolutely nothing about the subject.

Even in the two States that seem to fix the problem, they only say that standing armies shouldn’t be kept in time of peace, not that they can’t be kept. In using this wording, it’s obvious that the authors realized that a total prohibition would be a dangerous thing.

And of course, isn’t it true that any prohibition would be read as merely a suggestion if a crisis came up? What use would any of this language be if it was simply ignored when “necessary”?

So how is the situation different with the proposed Constitution? In the government it creates we do have a limit (though a perfectly reasonable one) that Congress can only set aside money for an army for a 2-year period. Since this isn’t anywhere near as extreme as a total prohibition on standing armies, it is more likely to be followed and have the desired effect.

This rule basically forces the Congress to discuss and vote on whether we need to have an army at least once every 2 years. They aren’t allowed to give the President a blank check for the military (even if they’re dumb enough to want to). This also forces the majority party to be open about what it is doing with both the people and the States. It would be hard to continue a tyranny for very long under this system.

In order to have a military build-up strong enough to threaten the people’s freedom, it would take a long time and require the constant cooperation of both the Congress and the President. It’s unlikely that such a coalition would survive for long with elections in Congress every 2 years. Would every new member of Congress instantly play along with the conspiracy and not raise the alarm? If you’re afraid of that, we can’t have any kind of federal system at all.

Even if a conspiracy like this began, it wouldn’t remain hidden. It would become obvious when the size of the army is being increased every 2 years. As soon as people know what is going on, the scheme will be finished.

Some people will argue that the President wouldn’t need the support of Congress once he has a sizable army – he can merely raid the countryside for supplies. But of course, how would he get an army that big in the first place? They’ll tell you that an army raised to counter a threat may stick around and be used against the people, but aren’t they really arguing that we shouldn’t ever have an army to defend ourselves? If we legitimately need a huge army to counter a specific threat, there’s really no way to prevent it from being used to attack freedom. No government can totally stop that.

But this isn’t really a concern for us as a united country. I can’t imagine a situation where the entire country was under attack at once, and we therefore needed a massive army (that would also threaten our freedom) to protect us. Especially when you consider that we’ll still have a militia. If we don’t go for a Union though, it’s almost inevitable that our liberty would constantly be threatened by the military (as we discussed before).

Earlier this week, a friend sent me a photo that she took at Monocacy. She knows that I’m interested in Civil War battlefields, and that I have a collection of photos that my friends and I have taken over the years on my work computer that I use when my screen is locked.

It got me thinking though – I’ve never been to Monocacy. I go to Gettysburg constantly. I’ve been to Antietam and Manassas a few times. I’ve even started to branch out to the Fredericksburg / Spotsylvania battlefields. But I’ve never been to Monocacy, and it’s closer to my house than any of those other fields. Since my wife was working this weekend, and I’d have to watch John anyway, I figured that we might as well have an adventure.

I wanted to do my homework first. I went looking for information about the battle in my “new” Time-Life Civil War books. Strategically, I thought the Battle of Monocacy was part of the Overland Campaign, but there was no mention of Monocacy in the book that covers it. No mention in the book about the Petersburg siege either. It wasn’t until I checked the book about the Shenandoah Valley that I found info. While Early did travel to Maryland via the valley, I don’t think I’d consider his move a part of those campaigns. Regardless, there was a decent overview of the action, and it gave enough context that I wouldn’t be lost when I got to the field.

The basics are these: The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia has been bottled up in the defenses of Petersburg, VA following Grant’s horribly bloody Overland Campaign. In an attempt to relieve some of the pressure of the siege, Lee sends Lt. Gen. Jubal Early with 15,000 men, north to threaten Washington, DC. Since the capital’s defenses had been more-or-less cleared-out to strengthen Grant’s army, Early didn’t expect much resistance. Major Gen. Lew Wallace, commanding the Middle Department, called for help from all quarters. He was able to pull together about 6,600 troops from militia units, emergency volunteers, and even the Washington defenses, and set out toward Frederick hoping to meet the advancing Confederates. Wallace knew he didn’t have much of a chance to defeat Early’s overwhelming number of battle-hardened troops, but he hoped to do exactly what he ended up doing – delay Early’s advance long enough for the reinforcements that Grant was sending to arrive in the capital.

Armed with my basic understanding, I packed John up this morning and got on the road west to Frederick after lunch. It took less than 45 minutes to get to the visitor center.

Now this was a pretty small battle by Civil War standards – only about 20,000 troops in total were engaged, and there were less than 25 cannons present between the two armies, so I went into this experience not expecting any artillery nerdery. My arrival at the visitor center got my hopes up though:

Between the parking lot and the building itself, there’s a real, live Napoleon, and it’s a Revere. The muzzle markings are in fine shape and are as follows:

• Manufacturer – Revere Copper Co.
• Year Built – 1862
• Serial Number – 46
• Weight – 1231 lbs
• Inspector – T. J. R.

My source shows this weapon as being held by the Antietam National Battlefield a few miles down the road, so this piece must have been recently transferred. That happens from time to time. According to the Register of Inspections, this gun was accepted into service on May 20, 1862, so not only would it have been on the field in time for Gettysburg, but for Antietam, too – which is probably why they were the owners of the piece at one time. Like the other Reveres, it has the ornate “U.S.” acceptance mark on the top of the barrel between the trunnions. This was fun (and unexpected) to see.

The visitor center is on the small side – it’s comparable in size to Chancellorsville’s. There’s an information desk and gift shop on the main floor, and museum exhibits upstairs. There’s more flashy interactive stuff there than actual artifacts, but it’s very well put-together. The whole building seems very new, although I’m not really sure when it was built.

I got my park map, and started out on the auto tour. One of the other nice things that the park management has put together is a downloadable audio component to complement the tour – it’s also sold as a CD in the visitor center for less than $3. Having that audio really made for a nice experience. Each of the 5 tour stops has about a 5 minute clip associated with it. Combined with well-produced wayside markers at each stop, and the fact that the battle only lasted for 1 day and didn’t have too many moving pieces, you can easily get a good understanding of what happened here back in 1864.

I had to do an artillery-related double-take at tour stop 1, though:

From a distance, I saw a bronze-colored Napoleon. I’ve never seen this on a battlefield before (outside of a gun brought by re-enactors). This is what the guns would have actually looked like during the war – the familiar greenish patina on the bronze weapons is what happens to copper when it “rusts”. Was this an extremely well-kept Napoleon?

Sadly, no. On closer inspection, it was obvious that this was an iron weapon that had been painted a bronze color – there were areas on the gun where the paint had chipped and you could see black (or even rust) underneath. There are no markings on the trunnions, rimbases, or muzzle. These are clearly reproduction guns meant only for display. While that’s disappointing, it’s nice to see a gun presented to the public on a battlefield, looking the way it would have looked at the battle. I’m a little torn on this.

I saw one other reproduction gun like this one on the Worthington Farm (stop 3 on the tour), and no other weapons anywhere on the field. That’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the artillery at this battle so far as I can tell.

It’s a similar situation for monuments. While explanatory waysides were plentiful, I counted only 5 commemorative monuments. One of these – and certainly the grandest one – was a monument to the 14th New Jersey Infantry, which became known as the “Monocacy Regiment” because it had served in this area early in the war defending the railroads, and then returned after a stint with Grant in the Overland Campaign to defend it once again. While I haven’t established a full service history for him yet, I’ve known that a distant cousin, John B. Skillman, served with the 14th NJ at some point during the war. Since it would be a family connection to this battle, and since my infant son is named John, too, this may be one of those things that I need to research further.

Other monuments include one placed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy next to a more descriptive one placed by the State of Maryland. There are also two other unit monuments: one remembering the 87th Pennsylvania, and another across the road for the 10th Vermont. None of these is easy to visit because of parking challenges, though.

There are a few walking trails on the property, and from what I can tell on the maps and from looking at the ground in person, they look like they’d be nice. Several of them go right down to the Monocacy river. The scenery is peaceful, and there’s plenty of interesting old farm buildings, too. It was oppressively hot today, and I didn’t have a good way of carrying John with me, so I didn’t attempt to walk them myself.

All-in-all, I’m glad I went to see the field. To my mind, it’s a relatively minor and simplistic engagement tactically, but it does end up buying time to bolster the defenses of Washington, DC – stifling any chance that the Confederates had of creating serious political problems for Lincoln right before the 1864 election. In this light, it is strategically important to the war, and a strategic Union victory.

It’s worth taking a couple hours to pay tribute to the men who fought here and learn a little about this part of our history.