Chapter XXII: Why Democratic Nations Are Naturally Desirous Of Peace, And Democratic Armies Of War 11- 9-2010 (part 1)

 Remember George W. Bush declaring how democracies did not go to war against one another? I took that as another sign that Yale does not teach history very well. John Adams had an undeclared war with democratic France, and then there was the War of 1812. If history is not enough, de Tocqueville gives a theoretical warning against democratic meaning pacifist.

... It is then no matter of surprise that democratic armies are often restless, ill-tempered, and dissatisfied with their lot, although their physical condition is commonly far better, and their discipline less strict than in other countries. The soldier feels that he occupies an inferior position, and his wounded pride either stimulates his taste for hostilities which would render his services necessary, or gives him a turn for revolutions, during which he may hope to win by force of arms the political influence and personal importance now denied him....

Chapter XXII: Why Democratic Nations Are Naturally Desirous Of Peace, And Democratic Armies Of War

I do not recall any time that American soldiers preferred military power over private success. Lincoln worried over McClellan's candidacy, but that came to nothing. Admiral Dewey and John J. Pershing refused political office. Yes, Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott and Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant sought to transmute military success into electoral success. I am not sure if Jackson did use his political connections to get him the militia appointment that led to the Presidency. None of the generals I mentioned above tried using military force instead of electoral politics — not even hot-tempered Jackson when he was denied the Presidency in 1828.

I ascribe the influence of Georg e Washington on the behavior of our military presidents. It may be the American temper was not in such awe of the military. I knew several veterans — two from WWII and one from Korea — who had no real respect for the Army and its bureaucracy. All three left their wars as sergeants. 

Here I think de Tocqueville misses a serious point about Americans:

Moreover, as amongst democratic nations (to repeat what I have just remarked) the wealthiest, the best educated, and the most able men seldom adopt the military profession, the army, taken collectively, eventually forms a small nation by itself, where the mind is less enlarged, and habits are more rude than in the nation at large. Now, this small uncivilized nation has arms in its possession, and alone knows how to use them: for, indeed, the pacific temper of the community increases the danger to which a democratic people is exposed from the military and turbulent spirit of the army....

Chapter XXII: Why Democratic Nations Are Naturally Desirous Of Peace, And Democratic Armies Of War

 I read that, and I do not think of America. [I doubt the Native Americans, or the Mexicans, thought of us as a pacific people. sch 11/10/23.] I do think of France at the time of their revolution, of Russia in 1917, of the Weimar Republic, of various South American coups, and The Spanish Civil War.

This is a lesson we did not learn until recently, in Vietnam:

... I foresee that all the military rulers who may rise up in great democratic nations, will find it easier to conquer with their armies, than to make their armies live at peace after conquest. There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult—to begin a war, and to end it.

Chapter XXII: Why Democratic Nations Are Naturally Desirous Of Peace, And Democratic Armies Of War

Looking back from 2010, I find the first sentence almost incomprehensible. No military rulers came to any great democracy. Americans found themselves almost eager to come home after the Civil War, and every other of our wars. But when did Americans go out to conquer? Lincoln made clear that the Union did not mean to conquer the Confederacy. Dwight Eisenhower captured the essence of American military aims when he titled his book Crusade in Europe. We turned loose of Cuba and, eventually, the Philippines. (Yes, we still hold Puerto Rico and the Marianas, but those do not compare with the conquests of Napoleon.) George W. Bush explicitly conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe we perfected implicitly the remedy de Tocqueville proposed against militaristic governments:

The remedy for the vices of the army is not to be found in the army itself, but in the country. Democratic nations are naturally afraid of disturbance and of despotism; the object is to turn these natural instincts into well-digested, deliberate, and lasting tastes. When men have at last learned to make a peaceful and profitable use of freedom, and have felt its blessings—when they have conceived a manly love of order, and have freely submitted themselves to discipline—these same men, if they follow the profession of arms, bring into it, unconsciously and almost against their will, these same habits and manners. The general spirit of the nation being infused into the spirit peculiar to the army, tempers the opinions and desires engendered by military life, or represses them by the mighty force of public opinion. Teach but the citizens to be educated, orderly, firm, and free, the soldiers will be disciplined and obedient....

Chapter XXII: Why Democratic Nations Are Naturally Desirous Of Peace, And Democratic Armies Of War