Interesting Editorial

THE most convenient government for a nation at war is a despotic monarchy; the most inconvenient—according to general opinion—a democratic republic. A despotic monarch, having no advisers to defer to, no responsibility to fear, and no laws to obey, can act with a promptitude, an energy, and a secrecy which are rarely compatible with the checks and trammels of limited governments. He can meet desperate emergencies with desperate remedies; and, while popular governments are studying how to conciliate existing laws with unforeseen crises, can despise or trample any thing and every thing which may stand in the way of his purpose. Him no Congressional debates delay, nor caviling Committees annoy; no newspapers baffle by premature betrayals of his plans ; no rules compel to disregard genius in the choice of his officers ; no laws hamper in the selection of the most efficient methods to attain his ends. If he has the money, the men, and the will, to prosecute the war is to him no task at all.

It is a very different matter in a democratic republic such as ours. In the first place, the Constitution—a document not framed in view of such wars as the present one, for instance, and full of checks on the authority of the Executive—ties the hands of the President, and forbids his doing many things which war may render it absolutely necessary for him to do. The laws of the United States—framed for the general good in time of peace—lay further restrictions upon him : leave him no power to stop unlawful trade, for instance, and none to interfere with constructive treason. Under the law he can neither enlist men to fight, nor pay them for fighting, without the previous decree of Congress. When he has got the men and the money, Congress still retains the power of directing how the money and the men shall be employed, and of appointing Committees to see that their directions are carried out. Even the Executive Authority of the President is constitutionally shared with a body of advisers who are entitled to a knowledge of his secrets. Over and above all, the Supreme Court enjoys and exercises the right of pronouncing the President's acts invalid, null, and void. Then come the people and the press. Though the people can not constitutionally act upon the Government except through the ballot-box, yet still " popular pressure" is a power known to and feared by all governments; where it can not be repressed by the arm of authority, it is almost irresistible. This pressure is mostly exercised through the press. The power of a free and an able press is such that wise men have doubted whether it were possible to carry on a long war in its presence. Wars—even the most glorious — make so many malcontents among those whose livelihood is taken away by the war, and discontent at home is so fatal to the administration of a Government engaged in a great war, that even English statesmen in our day have doubted whether the freedom of the press should be absolute in war as in peace—whether newspapers, working for private ends or in the interest of unpatriotic malcontents, should be suffered to weaken the hands of Government, during war-time, by malevolent opposition.

We are now testing these various inconveniences of the form of government under which we live. Our institutions are on their trial. We know that they work well in peace; we know that they do not prevent our carrying on a foreign war : it remains to be seen whether they are compatible with a great civil war.

Yep, Civil War.. as in War Between the States. Last night with some buddies, I was playing a game which simulates the First Battle of Manassas. I decided to do some reading today on the battle, learn more of the history, when I happened on a website that is an archive of Harper's Weekly from the Civil War period. Above was an editorial from the issue that covered that battle. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/august/editorial.htm

Reading the editorial I couldn't help but be struck by the same chords and concerns that we see now. We fear now, and feared then, that our institutions would be insufficient to the unusual situation. Somehow, maybe, our institutions must change because they are insufficient or even a risk to our success.

Why must we keep re-learning these lessons?