I was shocked and appalled when, in a recent presidential debate in South Carolina, the audience loudly booed Congressman Ron Paul for his suggestion that we should apply the Golden Rule in our international relations. I thought to myself, “What have we come to?” I thought of the cliche analogy of the frog who is placed in a pot of cold water while the heat is slowly turned up until he boils.

Today, I was reading D&C section 98. Let me quote verses 33-38:

“And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; and if that peole did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; Then I, the Lord would fight their battles, and their children’s battles and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.”

We, the members of the Lord’s church, are commanded to be an ensign unto the world. How many of us, (myself included), cheered when we took our own (not the Lord’s) vengeance on Iraq and Afghanistan? How many of us felt a sense of righteous release? We might say, “Well, times have changed. It’s no longer as simple as it used to be!” Really? Do we think for one minute that the Lord didn’t see our day when this scripture was written, when this commandment was given? Was the Lord so short sighted that His commandments, declared by His very word to have been in effect for His “ancients”, have lost their effect after only 150 years?

No!!!!! We must stand with the Lord, even in these difficult, complicated times. We must trust in His promise that He will fight our battles. We must “lift a standard of peace” as we have been commanded. We cannot side with those in this country, in this world, who would wage pre-emptive war against a country like Iran (only the most current example in a long list of transgressions over the past century).

If we are to truly be an ensign unto the nations, to be members of the Lord’s Zion – the pure in heart, we must seek to understand the commandments of the Lord; we must trust in them, even if conventional “modern” wisdom suggests otherwise. We must each stand as a voice of reason, a voice of obedience, a voice of peace. His commandments are eternal, they have not expired, and they are just as valid today as they were in the days of the “ancients” and in the days of Joseph Smith.

And now some words from the scriptures:

“Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands. (3 Nephi 3: 18–21)

“And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them. But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.” (Mormon 4: 4–5)

Quoting from Ezra Taft Benson with regard to United States Foreign Policy:

“Ever since World War I, when we sent American boys to Europe supposedly to ‘make the world safe for democracy’, our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peace, prosperity and one-world government.

“…We mistake the object of our Government… Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active & energetic to rescue us from contempt & preserve our domestic happiness & security, it is all we can expect from them… (The Records of the Federal Convention [Max Farrand, Editor], 1: 402)

“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader.

“Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies.

“The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role.”

(Source: Ezra Taft Benson, “United States Foreign Policy“, Preston, Idaho, June 21, 1968)

And a message from Spencer W. Kimball:

“In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

“We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“”Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)”

(Source: The False Gods We Worship by Spencer W. Kimball)

Other related articles:

What do the scriptures teach us about war? (Article)
United States Foreign Policy by Ezra Taft Benson
Preemptive War & The Book of Mormon As a Record of Military Strategy by Hugh Nibley (Audio)

In these days of trial and sorrow, when Satan is “seeking to destroy the souls of men” (D&C 10:27), we send to the righteous everywhere our greetings with prayers for their blessing; to the Saints in all lands and on the islands of the Seas, we renew our testimonies and pledge our unselfish service, exhorting them to lives obedient to the gospel and the commandments of the Lord; we extend to them the hand of true and faithful fellowship, with deep and abiding love and blessing.

Our Testimonies

We bear witness to all the world that God lives, and still rules, that His righteous ways and His truth will finally prevail.

We bear testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the First Fruits of the Resurrection, the Redeemer of the World, and that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

We solemnly declare that in these the latter days, God has again spoken from the heavens through His chosen Prophet, Joseph Smith; that the Lord has, through that same Prophet, again revealed in its fulness His gospel—the plan of life and salvation; that through that Prophet and his associates He has restored His holy priesthood to the Earth, from which it had been taken because of the wickedness of men; and that all the rights, powers, keys, and functions appertaining to that priesthood as so restored are now vested in and exercised by the chosen and inspired leadership of His Church—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even as that priesthood has been exercised on the earth from the beginning until this day, whenever His Church was here or His work had place among the children of men.

These testimonies we bear in all soberness, before God and men, aware that we are answerable to God for the truthfulness thereof. We admonish all men to give ear to these testimonies and to bring their lives into harmony with the gospel of Christ, that on the day “when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,” they may stand with those on his right hand, to whom He will say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:31, 34)

We shall now speak first of some vital practical matters which should be uppermost in the minds of all Latter-day Saints.

Message to Parents

It is becoming increasingly clear that very many of our physicians and surgeons will be taken by the government for service in the armed forces. This is well, for we want our soldiers and sailors to have every care which it is possible to give them. But this will leave the civilians with curtailed and probably inadequate medical help. In some areas we shall be left with little more trained assistance than was available to our pioneer fathers. Yet it is our patriotic duty to be as fully effective in production at home as our boys are effective in combat in the field. Those in the front lines cannot be strong unless those behind the lines are strong also. To meet this patriotic duty and to prepare for this threatening condition, we urge all parents to guard with zealous care the health of their children. Feed them simple, good, wholesome food that will nourish and make them strong. See that they are warmly clad. Keep them from exposure. Have them avoid unnecessary crowds in close, poorly ventilated, overheated rooms and halls. See that they have plenty of rest and sleep. Avoid late hours. Keep them home in the evenings and remain home to enjoy them. Teach them strictly to observe the Word of Wisdom which is God’s law of health. You parents observe these rules yourselves, and keep the other commandments of the Lord. You bishops and presidents of stakes, first lead your people by example and then they will follow your precepts. Parents, prepare yourselves and your children for the times to come. So live, day by day, that you may with confidence ask the blessings of health with which the Lord clothes those whom, living righteously, He delights to succor.

Message to the Youth

To the youth of the Church we repeat all the foregoing advice, but above all we plead with you to live clean, for the unclean life leads only to suffering, misery, and woe physically—and spiritually it is the path to destruction. How glorious and near to the angels is youth that is clean; this youth has joy unspeakable here and eternal happiness hereafter. Sexual purity is youth’s most precious possession; it is the foundation of all righteousness.

Times approach when we shall need all the health, strength, and spiritual power we can get to bear the afflictions that will come upon us.

Welfare Work

We renew the counsel given to the Saints from the days of Brigham Young until now—be honest, truthful, industrious, frugal, thrifty. In the day of plenty, prepare for the day of scarcity. The principle of the fat and lean kine is as applicable today as it was in the days when, on the banks of the Nile, Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. Officials now warn us, and warn again, that scant days are coming.

We renew our counsel and repeat our instructions: Let every Latter-day Saint that has land produce some valuable, essential foodstuff thereon and then preserve it; or if he cannot produce an essential foodstuff, let him produce some other kind and exchange it for an essential foodstuff; let them who have no land of their own and who have knowledge of farming and gardening, try to rent some either by themselves or with others and produce foodstuff thereon and preserve it. Let those who have land produce enough extra to help their less fortunate brethren.

The Welfare Plan should be carried forward with redoubled energy that we may care for the worthy, needy poor, and unfortunate, and many of us may hereafter enter that class who now feel we are secure from want.

As the Church has always urged since we came to the valley, so now we urge every Church householder to have a year’s supply of essential foodstuffs ahead. This should so far as possible be produced by each householder and preserved by him. This course will not only relieve from any impending distress those households who so provide themselves but will release just that much food to the general national stores of foodstuffs from which the public at large must be fed.

The utmost care should be taken to see that foodstuffs so produced and preserved by the householder do not spoil, for that would be waste and the Lord looks with disfavor upon waste. He has blessed His people with abundant crops; the promise for this year is most hopeful. The Lord is doing His part; He expects us to do ours.

False Political Isms

We again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery and then enslave them.

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs,” (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.

Gospel of Love

The gospel of Christ is a gospel of love and peace, of patience and longsuffering, of forbearance and forgiveness, of kindness and good deeds, of charity and brotherly love. Greed, avarice, base ambition, thirst for power, and unrighteous dominion over our fellowmen can have no place in the hearts of Latter-day Saints nor of God-fearing men everywhere. We of the Church must lead the life prescribed in the saying of the ancient prophet-warrior:

“I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country.” (Alma 60:36)

Hate Must Be Abolished

Hate can have no place in the souls of the righteous. We must follow the commands of Christ Himself which declare the true life:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45)

These principles must be instilled into the hearts of our children, taught to our youth, given by way of instruction to our vigorous manhood and womanhood, lived in very fact and deed by the aged, ripened in experience and wisdom. These are the principles which God enjoins upon all who teach, in whatever capacity or in whatever place. The Lord has declared that those who “teach not their children light and truth, according to the commandments” shall be afflicted, the wicked one shall have power over them (D&C 93:42), and the sin shall be upon their heads (D&C 68:25). Woe will be the part of those who plant hate in the hearts of the youth and of the people, for God will not hold them guiltless; they are sowing the wind, [and] their victims will reap the whirlwinds. Hate is born of Satan; love is the offspring of God. We must drive out hate from our hearts, every one of us, and permit it not again to enter.

Mission of the Church

The Lord has established His Church in these latter days that men might be called to repentance, to the salvation and exaltation of their souls. Time and time again He told the Prophet Joseph and those with him that “the field is white already to harvest.” (D&C 4:4, 6:3; 11:3; 12:3; 14:3; 33:3, 7)

Over and over again He commanded them to preach nothing but repentance to this generation (D&C 6:9; 11:9; 14:8), finally declaring:

“And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains and upon every high place and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.

“And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.

“And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

“Behold, this is a great and the last commandment which I shall give unto you concerning this matter; for this shall suffice for thy daily walk, even unto the end of thy life.

“And misery thou shalt receive if thou wilt slight these counsels, yea, even the destruction of thyself and property.” (D&C 19:29–33)

These commands we must obey that men shall come to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent, “for this is life eternal.” (John 17:3)

For this cause was the Church organized, the gospel again revealed in its fulness, the priesthood of God again restored, with all its rights, powers, keys, and functions. This is the mission of the Church. The divine commission given to the Apostles of old (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:15) has been repeated in this day, that the gospel shall be carried to all nations (D&C 38:33), unto the Jew and the Gentile (D&C 18:26), it shall be declared with rejoicing (D&C 28:16), it shall roll to the ends of the earth (D&C 65:2), and it must be preached by us to whom the kingdom has been given (D&C 84:76). No act of ours or of the Church must interfere with this God-given mandate. The Lord will hold us to this high commission and exalted duty, imposed by His commandment to us when He said:

“And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.” (D&C 59:21) We shall be excused from this divine commission, individually and as a Church, only if some power beyond our control shall prevent our obedience to God’s commands; then they who hinder must bear the penalty. (D&C 124:49) But to that point of hindrance, it is our bounden duty to carry on.

Sending of Missionaries

It is our duty, divinely imposed, to continue urgently and militantly to carry forward our missionary work. We must continue to call missionaries and send them out to preach the gospel, which was never more needed than now, which is the only remedy for the tragic ills that now afflict the world, and which alone can bring peace and brotherly love back amongst the peoples of the earth. We must continue to call to missionary work those who seem best able to perform it in these troublous and difficult days. Our duty under divine command imperatively demands this. We shall not knowingly call anyone for the purpose of having him evade military service, nor for the purpose of interfering with or hampering that service in any way, nor of putting any impediment in the way of government. These would be unworthy motives for a missionary life. Our people have furnished and we expect them to continue to furnish their full quota for those purposes, but we see no alternative, until new rules are made by the government, but to continue to call the best and most effective men into missionary work, if they are available therefor.

Having in mind that the worldwide disaster in material and spiritual matters has brought vital and difficult problems to the nation and to the Church—the nation because of need of manpower for the armed forces and defense works, and to the Church because of the imperative need it brings to us to employ in our missionary work the experience, testimony, and faith possessed by our more mature brethren—we have instructed our bishops, presidents of branches, and presidents of missions, to confine until further notice their recommendations of brethren for missionary service in the field to those who on March 23, 1942, were seventies or high priests. Furthermore, in recommending these brethren, none but those who are and have been living worthily should be chosen; and as to these, they should choose those only who have not received their notice of induction, who are not likely to receive it within a short time, and who have a real desire to do missionary work.

To preach the gospel under ordination from the priesthood of God is a great privilege, to be enjoyed by those only who are thoroughly qualified and who are and have been strictly living the commandments and attending to their Church duties. Every bishop will carefully examine every one whom he considers for a mission, to be sure he meets these requirements. No lukewarm or unworthy person should be recommended. The bishop must not in any way play favorites, thus avoiding giving just ground among the people of his ward for that unworthy, unrighteous thought, sometimes voiced by those whose sons have gone into the service, that because their sons have gone into the army, every other parent’s son should go into the army, and that none should be sent on missions. This feeling has behind it thoughts that do not comport with the teachings of our Heavenly Father. Moreover, those going on missions are amenable to selection for army service as soon as they return. A mission exempts from army service only for the term of the mission.

Church and State

The Church stands for the separation of church and state. The Church has no civil [or] political functions. As the Church may not assume the functions of the state, so the state may not assume the functions of the Church. The Church is responsible for and must carry on the work of the Lord, directing the conduct of its members, one towards the other, as followers of the lowly Christ, not forgetting the humble, the poor and needy, and those in distress, leading them all to righteous living and a spiritual life that shall bring them to salvation, exaltation, and eternal progression, in wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and power.

Today, more than ever before in the history of the Church, we must bring the full force of the righteous living of our people and the full influence of the spiritual power and responsibility of the holy priesthood to combat the evil forces which Satan has let loose among the peoples of the earth. We are in the midst of a desperate struggle between truth and error, and truth will finally prevail.

The state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.

Nevertheless, as a correlative of the principle of separation of the church and the state themselves, there is an obligation running from every citizen or subject to the state. This obligation is voiced in that Article of Faith which declares:

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

For one hundred years, the Church has been guided by the following principles:

“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

“We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

“We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

“We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

“We believe . . . that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed.” (D&C 134:1–6, 8)

Church Membership and Army Service

Obedient to these principles, the members of the Church have always felt under obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms was made; on occasion the Church has prepared to defend its own members.

In the days of Nauvoo, the Nauvoo Legion was formed, having in view the possible armed defense of the Saints against mob violence. Following our expulsion from Nauvoo, the Mormon Battalion was recruited by the national government for service in the war with Mexico. When Johnston’s army was sent to Utah in 1857 as the result of malicious misrepresentations as to the actions and attitude of the territorial officers and the people, we prepared and used measures of force to prevent the entry of the army into the valleys. During the early years in Utah, forces were raised and used to fight the Indians. In the war with Spain, members of the Church served with the armed forces of the United States with distinction and honor. In the World War, the Saints of America and of European countries served loyally their respective governments, on both sides of the conflict. Likewise in the present war, righteous men of the Church in both camps have died, some with great heroism, for their own country’s sake. In all this our people have but served loyally the country of which they were citizens or subjects under the principles we have already stated. We have felt honored that our brethren have died nobly for their country; the Church has been benefited by their service and sacrifice.

Nevertheless, we have not forgotten that on Sinai, God commanded, “Thou shalt not kill”; nor that in this dispensation the Lord has repeatedly reiterated that command. He has said:

“And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

“And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.” (D&C 42:18–19; see also 59:6)

At another time the Lord commanded that murderers should “be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness.” (D&C 42:79) So also when land was to be obtained in Zion, the Lord said:

“Wherefore, the land of Zion shall not be obtained but by purchase or by blood, otherwise there is none inheritance for you.

“And if by purchase, behold you are blessed;

“And if by blood, as you are forbidden to shed blood, lo, your enemies are upon you, and ye shall be scourged from city to city, and from synagogue to synagogue, and but few shall stand to receive an inheritance.” (D&C 63:29–31)

But all these commands, from Sinai down, run in very terms against individuals as members of society, as well as members of the Church, for one man must not kill another as Cain killed Abel; they also run against the Church as in the case of securing land in Zion, because Christ’s Church should not make war, for the Lord is a Lord of peace. He has said to us in this dispensation:

“Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace . . . ” (D&C 98:16) Thus the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war, unless and until the Lord shall issue new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled—the nations agreeing—by peaceful negotiation and adjustment.

But the Church membership are citizens or subjects of sovereignties over which the Church has no control. The Lord Himself has told us to “befriend that law which is the constitutional law of the land”:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

“And as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:4–7)

While by its terms this revealed word related more especially to this land of America, nevertheless the principles announced are worldwide in their application. and they are specifically addressed to “you” (Joseph Smith), “and your brethren of my church.” When, therefore, constitutional law, obedient to these principles, calls the manhood of the Church into the armed service of any country to which they owe allegiance, their highest civic duty requires that they meet that call. If, harkening to that call and obeying those in command over them, they shall take the lives of those who fight against them, that will not make of them murderers, nor subject them to the penalty that God has prescribed for those who kill, beyond the principle to be mentioned shortly. For it would be a cruel God that would punish His children as moral sinners for acts done by them as the innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign whom He had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist.

God Is at the Helm

The whole world is in the midst of a war that seems the worst of all time. This Church is a worldwide church. Its devoted members are in both camps. They are the innocent war instrumentalities of their warring sovereignties. On each side they believe they are fighting for home and country and freedom. On each side, our brethren pray to the same God, in the same name, for victory. Both sides cannot be wholly right; perhaps neither is without wrong. God will work out in His own due time and in His own sovereign way the justice and right of the conflict, but He will not hold the innocent instrumentalities of the war, our brethren in arms, responsible for the conflict. This is a major crisis in the world-life of man. God is at the helm.

Righteous Suffer with Wicked

But there is an eternal law that rules war and those who engage in it. It was given when, Peter having struck off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest, Jesus reproved him, saying:

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52)

The Savior thus laid down a general principle upon which He placed no limitations as to time, place, cause, or people involved. He repeated it in this dispensation when He told the people if they tried to secure the land of Zion by blood, then “lo, your enemies are upon you.” This is a universal law, for force always begets force; it is the law of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20). It is the law of the unrighteous and wicked, but it operates against the righteous who may be involved.

Mormon, recording the war of revenge by the Nephites against the Lamanites, pronounced another great law.

“But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.” (Mormon 4:5)

But, we repeat, in this war of the wicked, the righteous suffer also. Moroni, mistakenly reproving Pahoran “for sitting upon his throne in a state of thoughtless stupor, while his enemies were spreading the work of death around him, yea, while they were murdering thousands of his brethren,” said to Pahoran:

“Do ye suppose that, because so many of your brethren have been killed it is because of their wickedness? I say unto you, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain; for I say unto you, there are many who have fallen by the sword; and behold it is to your condemnation;

“For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.” (Alma 60:7, 12–13)

In this terrible war now waging, thousands of our righteous young men in all parts of the world and in many countries are subject to a call into the military service of their own countries. Some of these, so serving, have already been called back to their heavenly home; others will almost surely be called to follow. But “behold,” as Moroni said, the righteous of them who serve and are slain “do enter into the rest of the Lord their God,” and of them the Lord has said “those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them.” (D&C 42:46) Their salvation and exaltation in the world to come will be secure. That in their work of destruction they will be striking at their brethren will not be held against them. That sin, as Moroni of old said, is to the condemnation of those who “sit in their places of power in a state of thoughtless stupor,” those rulers in the world who in a frenzy of hate and lust for unrighteous power and dominion over their fellowmen, have put into motion eternal forces they do not comprehend and cannot control. God, in His own due time, will pass sentence upon them.

“Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)

Message to Men in Service

To our young men who go into service, no matter whom they serve or where, we say live clean, keep the commandments of the Lord, pray to Him constantly to preserve you in truth and righteousness, live as you pray, and then whatever betides you the Lord will be with you and nothing will happen to you that will not be to the honor and glory of God and to your salvation and exaltation. There will come into your hearts from the living of the pure life you pray for a joy that will pass your powers of expression or understanding. The Lord will be always near you; He will comfort you; you will feel His presence in the hour of your greatest tribulation; He will guard and protect you to the full extent that accords with His all-wise purpose. Then, when the conflict is over and you return to your homes, having lived the righteous life, how great will be your happiness—whether you be of the victors or of the vanquished—that you have lived as the Lord commanded. You will return so disciplined in righteousness that thereafter all Satan’s wiles and stratagems will leave you untouched. Your faith and testimony will be strong beyond breaking. You will be looked up to and revered as having passed through the fiery furnace of trial and temptation and come forth unharmed. Your brethren will look to you for counsel, support, and guidance. You will be the anchors to which thereafter the youth of Zion will moor their faith in man.

To you brethren and sisters who make up the body of the Church we send again our greetings and our blessings. We are grateful to our Heavenly Father for your loyalty, your devotion, and your righteousness. We love and bless you. We are grateful for your faithfulness in your tithes and offerings, the greatest in the last year in the whole history of the Church.

We remind you that as the Lord said to ancient Israel, so He says to us, in an eternal principle:

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

“And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

“And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 3:10–12)

We give thanks and praise to our Heavenly Father for the unselfish and righteous service of the officers of the stakes, of the wards, of the auxiliaries, of the priesthood, of the missionaries, and of every man and woman who is helping to advance the cause of truth. We give our blessing and love to all of you. We claim all of you as fellow servants of the Lord. To our Brethren of the General Authorities—the Twelve and their Assistants, the Acting Presiding Patriarch, the First Council of Seventy, and the Presiding Bishopric—we give our love and trust. We thank them and our Heavenly Father for their loyal support, their faith, their righteous works, which they carry on with an eye single to the glory of God and to the progress of His work, so magnifying in righteousness their callings.

We exhort all the Saints to remember the great commandment which Jesus gave:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

“This is the first and great commandment.

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:37–40) And as King Benjamin, the Nephite prophet king, said to his people:

“Learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mosiah 2:17)

May the Lord preserve the officers and the body of the Church in health and strength, increase our faith and our testimonies, endow us all with wisdom and understanding beyond measure, that we may all so live that when we are called home we may be saved and exalted in the celestial kingdom.

Our Heavenly Father: Hear us in our petitions before Thee: Let nothing stand betwixt us and Thee and Thy blessings; work out Thy purposes speedily; drive hate from the souls of men, that peace and brotherly love may again come to the earth and rule the hearts of Thy children, that nations may again live together in amity. Watch tenderly over Thy children in all lands; bless therein the sick and afflicted, care for those in distress; help us, their brethren bearing Thy priesthood, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to those who have no homes, comfort, Our Heavenly Father, with the full sweetness of Thy Holy Spirit, those who mourn, we humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The First Presidency

Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

“The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Testimony Vibrant and True,” Ensign, Aug 2005, 2-6)

The following are scriptures from the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants regarding war and its justifications. I’ll leave it up to you to come to your own conclusions; please consider leaving a comment below regarding your thoughts…

D&C 98: 23–38

Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.

And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.

And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles. And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

Alma 43: 45–47

Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

Alma 48: 14–16

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

Third Nephi 3: 18–21

Now the chiefest among all the chief captains and the great commander of all the armies of the Nephites was appointed, and his name was Gidgiddoni. Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge.

Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

Mormon 3: 9–17, 4: 4-5

And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies. And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land.

And it came to pass that I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination. Behold, I had led them, notwithstanding their wickedness I had led them many times to battle, and had loved them, according to the love of God which was in me, with all my heart; and my soul had been poured out in prayer unto my God all the day long for them; nevertheless, it was without faith, because of the hardness of their hearts.

And thrice have I delivered them out of the hands of their enemies, and they have repented not of their sins. And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren, behold the voice of the Lord came unto me, saying: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay; and because this people repented not after I had delivered them, behold, they shall be cut off from the face of the earth.

And it came to pass that I utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of the Spirit which had testified of things to come. Therefore I write unto you, Gentiles, and also unto you, house of Israel, when the work shall commence, that ye shall be about to prepare to return to the land of your inheritance.

And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.
But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.

ST LUKE Chapter 6: 27-38

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Questions to consider:

1.When is war justified?
2.What is the higher law regarding war and peace?
3.What do the scriptures tell us regarding defensive war versus offensive war?

The international gospel of the Founding Fathers was forecast by Jefferson in 1793. It was voiced by Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796, when he declared we should have “as little political connection as possible with Europe,” because Europe has a “set of primary interests” with which we had “none or a very remote relation,” wherefore “must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concern;…why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” The Monroe Doctrine declaring against the future colonization of the American continent by Europeans, against the extension therein of their political system, against interposition by European powers to control the destinies of the Latin Americas, implemented the principles of the Address. And Jefferson, commenting in 1823 on the Monroe Doctrine, and the complete political separation of Europe and the Americas, solemnly affirmed: “Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs”

Nor may we overlook that great doctrine of neutrality set up under Washington himself and Jefferson and Hamilton, which was aimed at and brought about the localizing of international armed conflicts, and the preservation , under prescribed rules, of peacetime intercourse between belligerents and nonbelligerents. War was to curse as few people as possible. This has been jettisoned for the concept that every war should involve all nations, making all suffer the ravages of a global war.

Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we has peace. When we forsook it, two great wars engulfed us.

It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: “Everybody’s business is our business.” Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.

In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,— a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people, no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.

Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.

What has our apostasy from peace cost us?

In men, our two recent adventures have cost in casualties, dead, wounded, and missing, 1,402,600, with almost as many saddened and crippled homes.

In money it has cost, in World War I, some $60 odd billions; and World War II cost us some $400 odd billions, including increased civilian help, in total, almost a half a trillion, the great bulk of which we still owe.

In spiritual values it has brought great numbers of our youth and older men to the very depths of desponding atheism. Our whole social structure seems undermined. We are becoming a blaspheming, unchaste, non-Christian, God-less race. Spiritually we seem ripe for another war.

In values of government and law, these wars and the interminglings of men of different concepts of freedom and human rights, have brought into our own system, the despotic principles of European systems, against which the Fathers warned, though they came to us through doors the Fathers did not see. Many and influential persons amongst us, of Alien concepts and sometimes of alien birth, no longer admit that man possesses the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence and the fundamental precepts of the Constitution. Our courts no longer guarantee these rights and enforce these principles. We have and are aping and adopting the policies and the legal theories of Europe. Colonel House records that when President Wilson hesitated to launch us into the first World War, because he did not know what measures to take to wage the war, he, Colonel House, assured the President that it was simple, all he had to do, said Colonel House, was to do the things Europe had already done. And so we proceeded, and from then till now, we have constantly and more and more adopted European governmental concepts and laws, to the loss of liberty and of the happiness and security of our people.

All this takes us into a situation that places our destinies largely in the hands of those who appear to be urging us towards war, not peace.…

It is time we returned to the political faith and work of the Fathers. It is indispensable that we do so if we are to have peace. I believe in the old faith and the old works, under which we had so much of peace. I am a political isolationist in the full sense of the term and am not fearful in declaring it.

I am a political isolationist because:

I fully believe in the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen. The whole history of America before and since the Revolution proves the truthfulness of their assertions. All during our pre-Revolutionary history we were at war, we were robbed, plundered, and massacred because of European wars in the issues and causes of which we had no concern. History is repeating itself.

I believe American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes.

I believe that permanent peace will never come into the world from the muzzle of a gun. Guns and bayonets will, in the future as in the past, bring truces, long or short, but never peace that endures.

I believe President Wilson had the true principle when he spoke of the strength and power of the moral force of the world. Moral force in a nation fructifies industry, thrift, good will, neighborliness, and the friendly intercourse of nations, the peace that all men seek; whereas force is barren.

I believe America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century.

I believe that moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations.

I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.

I believe we should once more turn our brains and our resources to the problem, not of killing men, women, and children, combatant and noncombatant, but of bringing to them more of good living and high thinking.

I believe political isolation will bring to us the greatest happiness and prosperity, the greatest temporal achievement not only, but the highest intellectual and spiritual achievement also, the greatest power for good, the strongest force for peace, the greatest blessing to the world.

I am not shaken in my convictions nor frightened by the assertion of many good people and fostered by the communists and “new thoughters,” that the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, — greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passion to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever. While radar, the radio, the telephone, the airplane have facilitated our talking and visiting with our neighbors, that have not made new beings out of use nor out of them, nor changed either our characters or theirs. We are just as we were, with the possibility of a little more back-fence gossiping and quarreling, and a little more brawling among the children. But the households remain essentially as they were. We still have oceans between us; we live on different continents, under different conditions. We can and should mind our own business and let others do the same.

In my view, our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now — and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually — and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation and as a world, the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount. There is no other way.

Someone will, at this point, play the ace question, with that smug finality that always accompanies it, — What would you do?

I frankly answer, I do not know, for I do not know the facts. Furthermore a critic with no authority or power in a situation, and from whom is withheld a knowledge of facts, is under no obligation to propose an alternative. He may rest by pointing out defects in policy.

On the other hand, I say, give us the facts, all of them, hiding nothing, and we shall tell you what to do. As one American citizen, I dare government to give us the facts, all the facts, including what kind of war they think the next war will be, what kind they intend to wage, and how many lives it will cost, including the aged, the infirm, and women and children.

We, the common people, have not been told the facts for years, since long before the last war broke. We are not now being told the facts. We can only surmise. But give us the facts and we will answer. And in our multitude of counsel you will find wisdom.

I have heard that the sense most closely associated with memory is the sense of smell. If this is true, then perhaps it explains the many pleasing feelings that overtake me these mornings when I am able to step outdoors for a few moments and breathe in the warm and comfortable aromas that I have come to associate over the years with the soil and vegetation of this good earth.

Now and then, when the moment is right, some particular scent—perhaps only the green grass, or the smell of sage brought from a distance by a breeze—will take me back to the days of my youth in Arizona. It was an arid country, yet it was fruitful under the hands of determined laborers.

We worked with the land and the cattle in all kinds of weather, and when we traveled it was on horseback or in open wagons or carriages, mostly. I used to run like the wind with my brothers and sisters through the orchards, down the dusty lanes, past rows of corn, red tomatoes, onions, squash. Because of this, I suppose it is natural to think that in those days we were closer to elemental life.

Some time ago I chanced to walk outdoors when the dark and massive clouds of an early afternoon thunderstorm were gathering; and as the large raindrops began to drum the dusty soil with increasing rapidity, I recalled the occasional summer afternoons when I was a boy when the tremendous thunderheads would gather over the hills and bring welcome rain to the thirsty soil of the valley floor. We children would run for the shed, and while the lightning danced about we would sit and watch, transfixed, marveling at the ever-increasing power of the pounding rainfall. Afterward, the air would be clean and cool and filled with the sweet smells of the soil, the trees, and the plants of the garden.

There were evenings those many years ago, at about sunset, when I would walk in with the cows. Stopping by a tired old fence post, I would sometimes just stand silently in the mellow light and the fragrance of sunflowers and ask myself, “If you were going to create a world, what would it be like?” Now with a little thought the answer seems so natural: “Just like this one.”

So on this day while I stood watching the thunderstorm, I felt—and I feel now—that this is a marvelous earth on which we find ourselves: and when I thought of our preparations for the United States Bicentennial celebration I felt a deep gratitude to the Lord for the choice land and the people and institutions of America. There is much that is good in this land, and much to love.

Nevertheless, on this occasion of so many pleasant memories another impression assailed my thoughts. The dark and threatening clouds that hung so low over the valley seemed to force my mind back to a theme that the Brethren have concerned themselves with for many years now—indeed a theme that has often occupied the attention of the Lord’s chosen prophets since the world began. I am speaking of the general state of wickedness in which we seem to find the world in these perilous yet crucially momentous days; and thinking of this, I am reminded of the general principle that where much is given, much is expected. (See Luke 12:48.)

The Lord gave us a choice world and expects righteousness and obedience to his commandments in return. But when I review the performance of this people in comparison with what is expected, I am appalled and frightened. Iniquity seems to abound. The Destroyer seems to be taking full advantage of the time remaining to him in this, the great day of his power. Evil seems about to engulf us like a great wave, and we feel that truly we are living in conditions similar to those in the days of Noah before the Flood.

I have traveled much in various assignments over the years, and when I pass through the lovely countryside or fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, I compare these beauties with many of the dark and miserable practices of men, and I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. I recall the occasion when Enoch heard the earth mourn, saying, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?” (Moses 7:48.)

The Brethren constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord: against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration.

That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable, for these are a people who are in possession of many gifts of the Spirit, who have knowledge that puts the eternities into perspective, who have been shown the way to eternal life.

Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith. These have submitted themselves in one degree or another to the enticings of Satan and his servants and joined with those of “the world” in lives of ever-deepening idolatry.

I use the word idolatry intentionally. As I study ancient scripture, I am more and more convinced that there is significance in the fact that the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the first of the Ten Commandments.

Few men have ever knowingly and deliberately chosen to reject God and his blessings. Rather, we learn from the scriptures that because the exercise of faith has always appeared to be more difficult than relying on things more immediately at hand, carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things. Therefore, in all ages when men have fallen under the power of Satan and lost the faith, they have put in its place a hope in the “arm of flesh” and in “gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know” (Dan. 5:23)—that is, in idols. This I find to be a dominant theme in the Old Testament. Whatever thing a man sets his heart and his trust in most is his god; and if his god doesn’t also happen to be the true and living God of Israel, that man is laboring in idolatry.

It is my firm belief that when we read these scriptures and try to “liken them unto [our]selves,” as Nephi suggested (1 Ne. 19:24), we will see many parallels between the ancient worship of graven images and behavioral patterns in our very own experience.

The Lord has blessed us as a people with a prosperity unequaled in times past. The resources that have been placed in our power are good, and necessary to our work here on the earth. But I am afraid that many of us have been surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth and have begun to worship them as false gods, and they have power over us. Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand? Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God—to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work; to raise our children up as fruitful servants unto the Lord; to bless others in every way, that they may also be fruitful. Instead, we expend these blessings on our own desires, and as Moroni said, “Ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not.” (Morm. 8:39.)

As the Lord himself said in our day, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (D&C 1:16; italics added.)

One man I know of was called to a position of service in the Church, but he felt that he couldn’t accept because his investments required more attention and more of his time than he could spare for the Lord’s work. He left the service of the Lord in search of Mammon, and he is a millionaire today.

But I recently learned an interesting fact: If a man owns a million dollars worth of gold at today’s prices, he possesses approximately one 27-billionth of all the gold that is present in the earth’s thin crust alone. This is an amount so small in proportion as to be inconceivable to the mind of man. But there is more to this: The Lord who created and has power over all the earth created many other earths as well, even “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33); and when this man received the oath and covenant of the priesthood (D&C 84:33–44), he received a promise from the Lord of “all that my Father hath” (D&C 84:38). To set aside all these great promises in favor of a chest of gold and a sense of carnal security is a mistake in perspective of colossal proportions. To think that he has settled for so little is a saddening and pitiful prospect indeed; the souls of men are far more precious than this.

One young man, when called on a mission, replied that he didn’t have much talent for that kind of thing. What he was good at was keeping his powerful new automobile in top condition. He enjoyed the sense of power and acceleration, and when he was driving, the continual motion gave him the illusion that he was really getting somewhere.

All along, his father had been content with saying, “He likes to do things with his hands. That’s good enough for him.”

Good enough for a son of God? This young man didn’t realize that the power of his automobile is infinitesimally small in comparison with the power of the sea, or of the sun; and there are many suns, all controlled by law and by priesthood, ultimately—a priesthood power that he could have been developing in the service of the Lord. He settled for a pitiful god, a composite of steel and rubber and shiny chrome.

An older couple retired from the world of work and also, in effect, from the Church. They purchased a pickup truck and camper and, separating themselves from all obligations, set out to see the world and simply enjoy what little they had accumulated the rest of their days. They had no time for the temple, were too busy for genealogical research and for missionary service. He lost contact with his high priests quorum and was not home enough to work on his personal history. Their experience and leadership were sorely needed in their branch, but, unable to “endure to the end,” they were not available.

I am reminded of an article I read some years ago about a group of men who had gone to the jungles to capture monkeys. They tried a number of different things to catch the monkeys, including nets. But finding that the nets could injure such small creatures, they finally came upon an ingenious solution. They built a large number of small boxes, and in the top of each they bored a hole just large enough for a monkey to get his hand into. They then set these boxes out under the trees and in each one they put a nut that the monkeys were particularly fond of.

When the men left, the monkeys began to come down from the trees and examine the boxes. Finding that there were nuts to be had, they reached into the boxes to get them. But when a monkey would try to withdraw his hand with the nut, he could not get his hand out of the box because his little fist, with the nut inside, was now too large.

At about this time, the men would come out of the underbrush and converge on the monkeys. And here is the curious thing: When the monkeys saw the men coming, they would shriek and scramble about with the thought of escaping; but as easy as it would have been, they would not let go of the nut so that they could withdraw their hands from the boxes and thus escape. The men captured them easily.

And so it often seems to be with people, having such a firm grasp on things of the world—that which is telestial—that no amount of urging and no degree of emergency can persuade them to let go in favor of that which is celestial. Satan gets them in his grip easily. If we insist on spending all our time and resources building up for ourselves a worldly kingdom, that is exactly what we will inherit.

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: “And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch.” (Moses 7:13.)

What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the “arm of flesh,” for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, “I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.” (D&C 64:24.)

When Peter preached such a message as this to the people on the day of Pentecost, many of them “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37.)

And Peter answered: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and … receive the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38.)

As we near the year 2,000, our message is the same as that which Peter gave. And further, that which the Lord himself gave “unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear:

“Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh.” (D&C 1:11–12.)

We believe that the way for each person and each family to prepare as the Lord has directed is to begin to exercise greater faith, to repent, and to enter into the work of his kingdom on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may seem a little difficult at first, but when a person begins to catch a vision of the true work, when he begins to see something of eternity in its true perspective, the blessings begin to far outweigh the cost of leaving “the world” behind.

Herein lies the only true happiness, and therefore we invite and welcome all men, everywhere, to join in this work. For those who are determined to serve the Lord at all costs, this is the way to eternal life. All else is but a means to that end.

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

. . . Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue?”

President George Washington,
Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

In the “Virginia Bill of Rights,” drafted by George Mason and adopted by the Virginia Convention on June 12, 1776, there appears this statement in Article 15:
No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. (Documents of American History, [Henry S. Commager, Editor], 1: 104)

“The paramount need today,” recently wrote David Lawrence, “is for the United States to clear the air by emphasizing fundamental principles. Until there are acts that implement those principles–not just words–diplomacy will accomplish nothing and the world will remain continually on the brink of war.” (U.S. News and World Report, January 27, 1964)

It has been truly said that:
We cannot clean up the mess in Washington, balance the budget, reduce taxes, check creeping Socialism, tell what is muscle or fat in our sprawling rearmament programs, purge subversives from our State Department, unless we come to grips with our foreign policy, upon which all other policies depend. (Senator Robert A. Taft, quoted by Phyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not An Echo, p. 26)

Ever since World War I, when we sent American boys to Europe supposedly to “make the world safe for democracy,” our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peace, prosperity and one-world government. At times, these men appear to be more concerned with something called world opinion or with their image as world leaders than they are with securing the best possible advantage for us, that they are not “nationalistic” in their views, that they are willing to sacrifice narrow American interests for the greater good of the world community. Patriotism and America-first have become vulgar concepts within the chambers of our State Department. It is no wonder that the strength and prestige of the United States has slipped so low everywhere in the world.

In this connection, it is well to remember that on June 25, 1787, during the formulation of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention, Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, made the famous speech in which he asserted:
We mistake the object of our Government, if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active & energetic to rescue us from contempt & preserve our domestic happiness & security, it is all we can expect from them, – it is more than almost any other Government ensures to its citizens. (The Records of the Federal Convention [Max Farrand, Editor], 1: 402)

In his book, A Foreign Policy for Americans, the late Senator Robert A. Taft correctly reasoned that:
No one can think intelligently on the many complicated problems of American foreign policy unless he decides first what he considers the real purpose and object of that policy. . . There has been no consistent purpose in our foreign policy for a good many years past. . . Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the United States. (p. 11)

There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He’s our executive; he’s on our payroll, in necessary; he’s supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington:
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. — George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

The preservation of America’s political, economic and military independence–the three cornerstones of sovereignty–is the sum and total prerogative of our government in dealing with the affairs of the world. Beyond that point, any humanitarian or charitable activities are the responsibility of individual citizens voluntarily without coercion of others to participate.

The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role–the defense of individual citizens against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude at the hands of either domestic or foreign criminals. But to protect our people from bodily harm at the hands of foreign aggressors, we must maintain a military force which is not only capable of crushing an invasion, but of striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow as to make in unattractive for would-be conquerors to try their luck with us.

As President Washington explained in his Fifth Annual Address to both Houses of Congress:
There is a rank due to the United States among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure the peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. (December 3, 1793; Writings 12:352)

He had earlier, in his First Annual Address, strongly warned that:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined. (January 8, 1790; Writings 11:456)

To protect our people from international theft, we must enter into agreements with other nations to abide by certain rules regarding trade, exchange of currency, enforcement of contracts, patent rights, etc. To protect our people against involuntary servitude or the loss of personal freedom on the international level, we must be willing to use our military might to help even one of our citizens no matter where he might be kidnapped or enslaved.

For those of you who have never heard or do not remember it, the story of Ion Perdicaris instructs us what an American President can and should do to protect the lives of its citizens. It seems that in the early years of the century, a North African bandit named Raisuli kidnapped Perdicaris, a naturalized American of Greek extraction.

Teddy Roosevelt was our President at that time, and he knew just what to do. He did not “negotiate.” And he did not send any “urgent requests.” He simply ordered one of our gunboats to stand offshore, and sent the local sultan the following telegram: “Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead.” They say Raisuli didn’t waste any time getting a healthy Perdicaris down to the dock. (Review of the News, February 7, 1968, pp. 20-21)

Certainly we must avoid becoming entangled in a web of international treaties whose terms and clauses might reach inside our own borders and restrict our freedoms here at home.(2)

This is the defensive role of government expressed in international terms. Interestingly enough, these three aspects of national defense also translate directly into the three aspects of national sovereignty: military, economic and political.

Applying this philosophy to the sphere of foreign policy, one is able almost instantly to determine the correct answer to so many international questions that, otherwise, seem hopelessly complex. If the preservation and strengthening of our military, economic and political independence is the only legitimate objective of foreign policy decisions, then, at last, those decisions can be directed by a brilliant beacon of light that unerringly guides our ship of state past the treacherous reefs of international intrigue and into a calm open sea.

Should we disarm? And does it really make any difference whether we disarm unilaterally or collaterally? Either course of action would surrender our military independence. Should we pool our economic resources or our monetary system with those of other nations to create some kind of regional common market? It would constitute the surrender of our economic independence. Should we enter into treaties such as the U.N. Covenants which would obligate our citizens to conform their social behavior, their educational practices to rules and regulations set down by international agencies? Such treaty obligations amount to the voluntary and piece-meal surrender of our political independence. The answer to all such questions is a resounding “no,” for the simple reason that the only way America can survive in this basically hostile and topsy-turvy world is to remain militarily, economically and politically strong and independent.

We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating those soothing but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look to the world as it is, not as we would like it to become. Such an objective, and perhaps painful, survey leads to but one conclusion. We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world. President George Washington, in his immortal Farewell Address, explained our true policy in this regard:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world…Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. (September 17, 1796; Writings 13: 316-318; P.P.N.S., p. 547)

President Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, while discussing what he deemed to be “the essential principles of our government,”(3) explained that as far as our relations with foreign nations are concerned this means:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none. . . (March 4, 1801; Works 8:4)

The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers–even a small house–he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself. Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions.

Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.

Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)

“But that is nationalism,” chants the chorus. “And nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to war.”(4) How many times has this utter nonsense been repeated without challenge as though it were some kind of empirical and self-evident truth! What kind of logic assumes that loving one’s country means jealousy, suspicion and hatred of all others? Why can’t we be proud of America as an independent nation and also have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world? As a matter of fact, haven’t Americans done just that for the past 200 years? What people have poured out more treasure to other lands, opened their doors to more immigrants, and sent more missionaries, teachers and doctors than we? Are we now to believe that love of our own country will suddenly cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?

It was the late Herbert Hoover who pointed out the social poison in the current derision of American nationalism:
We must realize the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word “nationalist.” But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness–as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement. (Quoted by Eugene W. Castle, Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259)

In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his own community, he had better first love his own family before he tries to save the neighborhood. If he doesn’t love his own, why should we believe he would love others? Theodore Roosevelt firmly believed that “it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice can help any other country at all.” (P.P.N.S., p. 196)

Many well-intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereignty, to merge our nation militarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last a world government which, supposedly, would put an end to war. We are told that this is merely doing between nations what we did so successfully with our thirteen colonies. This plea for world federalism is based on the idea that the mere act of joining separate political units together into a larger federal entity will somehow prevent those units from waging war with each other. The success of our own federal system is most often cited as proof that this theory is valid. But such an evaluation is a shallow one.

First of all, the American Civil War, one of the most bloody in all history, illustrates that the mere federation of governments, even those culturally similar, as in America, does not automatically prevent war between them. Secondly, we find that true peace quite easily exists between nations which are not federated. As a matter of fact, members of the British Commonwealth of Nations seemed to get along far more peacefully after the political bonds between them had been relaxed. In other words, true peace has absolutely nothing to do with whether separate political units are joined together–except, perhaps, that such a union may create a common military defense sufficiently impressive to deter an aggressive attack. But that is peace between the union and outside powers; it has little effect on peace between the units, themselves, which is the substance of the argument for world government.

Peace is the natural result of relationships between groups and cultures which are mutually satisfactory to both sides. These relationships are found with equal ease within or across federal lines. As a matter of fact, they are the relationships that promote peaceful conditions within the community and think for a moment; if you were marooned on an island with two other people, what relationships between you would be mutually satisfactory enough to prevent you from resorting to violence in your relationship? Or, to put it the other way around, what would cause you to break the peace and raise your hand against your partners?

Obviously, if one or both of the partners attempted to seize your food and shelter, you would fight. Their reaction to similar efforts on your part would be the same. If they attempted to take away your freedom, to dictate how you would conduct your affairs, or tell you what moral and ethical standards you must follow, likewise, you would fight. And if they constantly ridiculed your attire, your manners and your speech, in time you might be sparked into a brawl. The best way to keep the peace on that island is for each one to mind his own business, to respect each other’s right to be different (even to act in a way that seems foolish or improper, if he wishes), and to have compassion for each other’s troubles and hardships–but not to force each other to do something!And, to make sure that the others hold to their end of the bargain, each should keep physically strong enough to make any violation of this code unprofitable.(5)

Now, suppose these three got together and decided to form a political union, to “federate” as it were. Would this really change anything? Suppose they declared themselves to be the United Persons, and wrote a charter, and held daily meetings and passed resolutions. What then? These superficial ceremonies might be fun for awhile, but the minute two of them out-voted the other, and started “legally” to take his food and shelter, limit his freedom or force him to accept an unwanted standard of moral conduct, they would be right back where they all began. Federation or no federation, they would fight.

Is it really different between nations? Not at all. The same simple code of conduct applies in all human relationships, large or small. Regardless of the size, be it international or three men on an island, the basic unit is still the human personality. Ignore this fact, and any plan is doomed to failure.(6)

It might be worthwhile at this point to mention that Washington’s policy ofneutrality and non-interferencewas adhered to by those who followed him. For instance, President John Adams, in his Inaugural Address, resolved “to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world.” He later said, in a special message to Congress:
It is my sincere desire, and in this I presume I concur with you and with our constituents, to preserve peace and friendship with all nations. . .

To which the Senate, presided over by Thomas Jefferson, replied:
Peace and harmony with all nations is our sincere wish; but such being the lot of humanity that nations will not always reciprocate peaceable dispositions, it is our firm belief that effectual measures of defense will tend to inspire that national self-respect and confidence at home which is the unfailing source of respectability abroad, to check aggression and prevent war. (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, The American Tradition, p. 210)

When the thirteen colonies formed our Federal Union, they had two very important factors in their favor, neither of which are present in the world at large today. First, the colonists themselves were all of a similar cultural background. They enjoyed similar legal systems, they spoke the same language, and they shared similar religious beliefs. They had much in common. The second advantage, and the most important of the two, was that they formed their union under a constitution which was designed to prevent any of them, or a majority of them, from forcefully intervening in the affairs of the others. The original federal government was authorized to provide mutual defense, run a post office, and that was about all. As previously mentioned, however, even though we had these powerful forces working in our favor, full scale war did break out at one tragic point in our history.

The peace that followed, of course, was no peace at all, but was only the smoldering resentment and hatred that follows in the wake of any armed conflict. Fortunately, the common ties between North and South, the cultural similarities and the common heritage, have proved through the intervening years to over-balance the differences. And with the gradual passing away of the generation that carried the battle scars, the Union has healed.

Among the nations of the world today, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural, and political environments. To add fuel to the fire, the concept woven into all of the present-day proposals for world government (The U.N. foremost among these) is one of unlimited governmental power to impose by force a monolithic set of values and conduct on all groups and individuals whether they like it or not. Far from insuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances of war.(7)

In this connection it is interesting to point out that the late J. Reuben Clark, who was recently described as “probably the greatest authority on [the Constitution] during the past fifty years” (American Opinion, April 1966, p. 113), in 1945–the year the United Nations charter was adopted–made this prediction in his devastating and prophetic “cursory analysis” of the United Nations Charter:
There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end. . . The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. . . It is true the Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. . . The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.

Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we will have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting. (Unpublished Manuscript; quoted in P.P.N.S., p. 458)

Everyone is for peace and against war–particularly the horrors of nuclear war. And what are the horrors of war? Why, death, destruction and human suffering, of course! But, wait a minute. Since the big “peace” began at the end of World War II, isn’t it a fact that, behind the iron and bamboo curtains, there has been more death, destruction and human suffering than in most of the big wars of history combined? Yes, it is a fact–a horrible fact–which Martin Dies, the former long-time Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, described in these words:
In Russia, a minimum of 25,000,000 people have been starved to death and murdered in 45 years. In Red China, the figure is probably at least 35,000,000 in a short 12 years. These ruthless, inhuman atrocities have been investigated, documented and reported in print, by numerous committees of the Congress. Yet only a relative handful of Americans know where to look for the facts, or even know the reports exist; and still fewer have read them. (The Martin Dies Story, p. 20)

A consideration of these facts means that we have to redefine our terms when we talk about “peace.” There are two kinds of peace. If we define peace as merely the absence of war, then we could be talking about the peace that reigns in a communist slave labor camp. The wretched souls in prison there are not at war, but do you think they would call it peace?

The only real peace–the one most of us think about when we use the term–is a peace with freedom. A Nation that is not willing, if necessary, to face the rigors of war to defend its real peace-in-freedom is doomed to lose both its freedom and its peace! These are the hard facts of life. We may not like them, but until we live in a far better world than exists today, we must face up to them squarely and courageously.(8)

In a discussion of war and its effects these wise words of James Madison should always be remembered:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .(April 20, 1795; Works 4:491-2; P.P.N.S., p. 468)

Shortly after this, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison issued another warning which should never be forgotten:
The management of foreign relations appears to be the most susceptible of abuse, of all the trusts committed to a Government, because they can be concealed or disclosed, or disclosed in such parts & at such times as will best suit particular views; and because the body of the people are less capable of judging & are more under the influence of prejudices, on that branch of their affairs, than of any other. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.(May 13, 1798; Works 2:140-1; P.P.N.S., p. 431)

Until all nations follow the concept of limited government, it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be realized on this planet. Unlimited, power-grasping governments will always resort to force if they think they can get away with it.(9) But there can be peace for America. As long as our leaders faithfully discharge their duty to preserve and strengthen the military, economic and political independence of our Republic, the world’s petty despots will leave us alone. What more could we ask of U.S. foreign policy?

From these primary policy pronouncements some general principles emerge. They can be reduced to a few heads and stated as imperatives in the following manner:
The United States should:

Establish and maintain a position of independence with regard to other countries
Avoid political connection, involvement or intervention in the affairs of other countries
Make no permanent or entangling alliances
Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting special privileges from any
Promote commerce with all free peoples and countries
Cooperate with other countries to develop civilized rules of intercourse
Act always in accordance with the “laws of Nations”
Remedy all just claims of injury to other nations and require just treatment from other nations, standing ready, if necessary to punish offenders
Maintain a defensive force of sufficient magnitude to deter aggressors.(10) (See The American Tradition, p. 212)

For the first hundred years and more of the existence of the Republic, Americans developed and maintained a tradition that was in keeping with the above principles. We can say with confidence that the United States established a tradition of foreign relations in keeping with the principles laid down by the founding fathers. In the words of Senator Taft:
I do not believe it a selfish goal for us to insist that the over-riding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and the peace of the people of the United States, so that they may achieve that intellectual and material improvement which is their genius and in which they can do an even greater service to mankind than we can by billions of material assistance–and more than we can ever do by war. (A Foreign Policy For Americans, p. 14)

It seems fitting in conclusion to refer you again to the inspired words of the wise father of our country. He said:
My ardent desire is, and my aim has been. . . to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves, and not for others. This, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home. (October 9, 1795; Writings 13:119)

Endnotes

1. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho.

2. “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, my fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government.–But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.” (President George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796; Writings 13:315)

3. “About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people–a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are not provided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801; also known as the Creed of our Political Faith; Works 8:4-5)

4. Credit is given to G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, for some of the thoughts expressed in this chapter.

5. “It takes a combination of three factors to protect our national interests under all conditions and to maintain peace on our terms. The three factors are: credible military superiority along the entire spectrum of modern warfare; courageous and decisive diplomacy; and the active support of the American people.” (General Thomas S. Power, Design for Survival, p. 6)

6. “Those who have written on civil government lay it down as a first principle, and all historians demonstrate the same, that whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it must presume that all men are bad by nature: that they will not fail to show that natural depravity of heart whenever they have a fair opportunity. . . constant experience shows us that every man vested with power is apt to abuse it. He pushes on till he comes to something that limits him.” (Machiavelli, 1469-1527; quoted by John Adams, Works 4:408)

7. “Power and law are not synonymous. In truth they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God’s Law from which all Equitable laws of man emerge and by which men must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair. Divorced from God’s eternal and immutable Law, established before the founding of the suns, man’s power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it. Men of good will, mindful therefore of the Law laid down by God, will oppose governments whose rule is by men, and if they wish to survive as a nation they will destroy the government which attempts to adjudicate by the whim of venal judges.” (Cicero, quoted in A Pillar of Iron, p. ix)

8. It is our duty. . . to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.” (Thomas Jefferson, to James Lewis, May 9, 1798; Works 4:241)

9. “There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.” (Demosthenes, 384-322 B.C.; Familiar Quotations, p. 277)

10. “Deterrence is more than bombs and missiles and tanks and armies. Deterrence is a sound economy and prosperous industry. Deterrence is scientific progress and good schools. Deterrence is effective civil defense and the maintenance of law and order. Deterrence is the practice of religion and respect for the rights and convictions of others. Deterrence is a high standard of morals and wholesome family life. Deterrence is honesty in public office and freedom of the press. Deterrence is all these things and many more, for only a nation that is healthy and strong in every respect has the power and will to deter the forces from within and without that threaten its survival.” (General Thomas S. Power, Design for Survival, p. 242)

One of the most important reasons the states united together was to promote their mutual defense. Spelling out the war powers was therefore a highly significant segment of the Constitution.

It will be noted that the entire depository of power in connection with the military was vested in the Congress, not the President. This meant that Congress had to declare war before the President could take action. An exception, of course, was allowed in the case of an unexpected invasion, authorizing the President to take emergency action as commander in chief of the armed services.

Each of the remaining enumerated powers has unique features which make this chapter an interesting and challenging part of America’s political profile.

Principle #95 (from Article I.8.11): The people of the states empower the Congress to declare war.

This provision gives Congress the exclusive right to declare war.

In the Constitutional Convention some thought the President should have the power to declare war, while others favored the Senate. It was finally decided that the profoundly serious business of declaring and conducting war should be the responsibility of the whole Congress. This power has been used in the following instances:

1. In 1812 Congress passed an act declaring war on Great Britain because of hostile acts committed by that nation against the United States.

2. In 1846 a resolution of Congress declared that a state of war existed with Mexico because of hostile acts of that country.

3. In 1898, Congress declared war on Spain over Cuba.

4. In 1917, a resolution of war was passed by Congress as a result of German attacks on the high seas, including the sinking of the Lusitania, in which many lives were lost.

5. On December 8, 1941, Congress adopted a resolution (with only one dissenting vote in the House) that the United States was in a “state of war” with Japan. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war, and Congress passed a joint resolution accepting the state of war “which has been thrust upon the United States.”

It should be noted that there was no declaration of war in the Korean conflict nor in the Vietnam War. These were undertaken by the President as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces because of U.S. commitments to the regional organization (SEATO) under the United Nations. Failure of the Congress to declare war seriously complicated the administration of these wars.

Questions which came up during the debates on this provision addressed concerns such as the following:

Should the President, as commander in chief, have authority to declare war?

Only Congress Can Declare War

C. Pinckney: “Observed that the President’s powers did not permit him to declare war.”

Can the President repel attacks even though there has been no official declaration of war?

President Must Repel Sudden Attacks Even Though No War Is Declared

Madison and Gerry: “Moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war, leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks.”

Mason: “Was against giving the power of war to the executive because not safe to be trusted with it…. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make.’”

What is implied by the “power to declare war”?

An Exclusive Congressional Power

Jefferson: “The question of declaring war is the function equally of both houses [of Congress].”

“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side by preventing the [Congress] from deliberating on the question.”

“If Congress are to act on the question of war, they have a right to information [from the executive].”

“We had reposed great confidence in that provision of the Constitution which requires two-thirds of the [Congress] to declare war. Yet it can be entirely eluded by a majority’s taking such measures as will bring on war.”

“The power of declaring war being with the [Congress], the executive should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war.”

What should be the American policy toward war?

America’s Opposition to War

Jefferson: “No country, perhaps, was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office.”

War Unwanted but Unfeared

Jefferson: “We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities. Unmeddling with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance and our dispositions would have left us free in the example and indulgence of peace with all the world…. We confide in our strength without boasting of it; we respect that of others without fearing it.”

One War Is Enough

Jefferson: “I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another.”

War to Be Avoided If Possible

Franklin: “I would try anything, and bear anything that can be borne with safety to our just liberties, rather than engage in a war with such near relations [as the British], unless compelled to it by dire necessity in our own defense.”

War Caused by Wicked Men

Franklin: “I believe in my conscience that mankind are wicked enough to continue slaughtering one another as long as they can find money to pay the butchers. But of all the wars in my time, this on the part of England appears to me the wickedest, having no cause but malice against liberty, and the jealousy of commerce. And I think the crime seems likely to meet with its proper punishment; a total loss of her own liberty, and the destruction of her own commerce.”

Futility of Most War

Franklin: “At length we are in peace, God be praised, and long, very long, may it continue. All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. When will mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their differences by arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the cast of a die, it would be better than by fighting and destroying each other.”

War, a Terrible Waste

Franklin: “In my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace. What vast additions to the conveniences and comforts of living might mankind have acquired if the money spent in wars had been employed in works of public utility! What an extension of agriculture, even to the tops of our mountains; what rivers rendered navigable, or joined by canals; what bridges, aqueducts, new roads, and other public works, edifices, and improvements, rendering a … complete paradise, might have been obtained by spending those millions in doing good which in the last war have been spent in doing mischief; in bringing misery into thousands of families, and destroying the lives of so many thousands of working people, who might have performed the useful labor!”

Evils of War

Franklin: “Abstracted from the inhumanity of it, I think it wrong in point of human prudence; for whatever advantage one nation would obtain from another, whether it be part of their territory, the liberty of commerce with them, free passage on their rivers, etc., etc., it would be much cheaper to purchase such advantage with ready money than to pay the expense of acquiring it by war. An army is a devouring monster, and when you have raised it you have, in order to subsist it, not only the fair charges of pay, clothing, provisions, arms, and ammunition, with numberless other contingent and just charges to answer and satisfy, but you have all the additional knavish charges of the numerous tribe of contractors to defray, with those of every other dealer who furnishes the articles wanted for your army, and takes advantage of that want to demand exorbitant prices. It seems to me that if statesmen had a little more arithmetic, or were more accustomed to calculation, wars would be much less frequent.”

War Impractical

Jefferson: “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is [in] their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town or a little territory, the right to cut wood here or to catch fish there, expended in improving what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier. This I hope will be our wisdom.”

War Should Be a Response to Insult

Jefferson: “I think it to our interest to punish the first insult, because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”

“It is an eternal truth that acquiescence under insult is not the way to escape war.”

Use Peaceful Pressures If Possible

Jefferson: “I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect.”

“If nations go to war for every degree of injury, there would never be peace on earth.”

Principle #96 (from Article I.8.11): The people of the states empower the Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal.

This provision gave the Congress the exclusive right to grant letters of marque and reprisal (authority given to an individual to wage war against the enemy).

During the Revolutionary War, when the country had no navy, it was considered expedient to give “privateers” a letter of marque and reprisal so they could fit out their privately owned ships and capture British vessels without being treated as common pirates in case they were caught. (A pirate could be strung up or executed on the spot without trial or ceremony!)

The word marque means to “seize,” and reprisal implies the authority to “destroy.” Since a letter authorizing a privateer to engage in such activities could provoke war or expand the dimensions of a war, such a letter should be issued only by that branch of government which has the responsibility to declare war. In the United States, that plenary power belongs to the federal government.

Since the Declaration of Paris in 1856, letters of marque and reprisal have been considered prohibited by international law. Nevertheless, in very recent years American fishing boats requested permission to arm their boats in order to drive off Soviet fishing vessels which were deliberately destroying underwater nets and other expensive fishing gear. The government did not issue letters of marque and reprisal, but since the Soviet fleet was fishing in American waters, the Coast Guard went out and forced the Russian boats into Boston Harbor, where they were each subjected to very heavy fines.

Principle #97 (from Article I.8.11): The people of the states empower the Congress to make rules concerning that which may be captured on land or on water.

This provision gave Congress the exclusive right to regulate the capture of prisoners or the taking of land from the enemy.

Land captured by the armed forces does not automatically become part of the United States. Captured land ceases to be part of the foreign country to which it belonged, but its people cannot be counted as full citizens of the United States until the Congress has adopted the territory into equal status with the rest of the country. Puerto Rico is a case in point.

Principle #98 (from Article I.8.12): The people of the states empower the Congress to raise money in the support of its armies, but appropriations for that purpose shall not extend beyond two years.

This provision gives the Congress the right to raise money and support for a national military force.

In the Constitutional Convention there was strong opposition to a standing army. The entire army was demobilized just as soon as the Revolutionary War was finished. The Founders did not want the President to have the power to raise an army as the British kings had repeatedly done. Furthermore, they did not want the Congress to vest the President with permanent funds to support the military. Their object was to prevent both the President and the Congress from setting up a structure which might become a military dictatorship.

The authority of Congress to raise up an army implied the authority to tax the people (not the states as under the Articles of Confederation). Consequently, when war was declared in 1917, the Congress passed in rapid succession a series of acts laying upon all the people many kinds of emergency taxes. It also provided for the issuing of liberty bonds, and set the wheels in motion for the conscription of men, the building of ships, the making of munitions, and all the other legal requirements for the effective waging of the war.

The injunction to “raise and support armies” has always been interpreted to mean defensive armies. As the Supreme Court said in 1849:

“The genius and character of our institutions are peaceful, and the power to declare war was not conferred upon Congress for the purpose of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, its own rights and the rights of its citizens.”

It was also intended that these would be largely civilian armies who would be mustered out of service after each emergency. One author says:

“The army of Europe which our Fathers feared was developed through centuries of plunder by adventurous or predatory rulers, one of the inducements to hireling service in the rank and file being a share of the pillage. But the armies which have been raised in the United States have been of entirely different origin and training. They have come from homes, from generations of homekeeping and right-respecting people, and they have been anxious to return home. Within a few months after the Grand Review of the Union armies in Washington after the Civil War, over a million veterans, fully equipped, had dissolved, as it were, and disappeared in the civilian life whence they came. And after World War I, 4,800,000 men, of whom 2,084,000 had gone to France and 1,300,000 had some active service at the front, hurried gladly to their homes and left off even the military titles which they had won.”

The West’s diplomatic mistake after World War II of building the Soviet technological machine (“in hopes she would mellow”) has now allowed Russia to become so strong and aggressive that it has forced nations of the West to build military defenses to contain her. Not only has the Soviet Union not mellowed, but through conquest she has become the greatest colonial power in the history of the world. This has necessitated gigantic expenditures for defense right at a time when the Supreme Court dictum in the Butler case has opened the floodgates of the treasury for mammoth social programs and services. Those involved in the social programs complain that they could receive more if the military were not demanding so much for defense. It turns out, however, that as of 1982, for example, the military was getting only twenty-seven cents out of every dollar spent by Congress, whereas forty-two cents out of every dollar were going in direct payments to individuals under various social programs, and twelve cents were going to local governments for public works and social services. This makes a total of fifty-four cents. As shocking as military expenditures have grown through the years, the outlays for social services have grown more than twice as much. The Founders declared that having an adequate defense is a top priority when a nation is at risk.

During the debates numerous questions arose concerning the government’s “war powers.” Here are some of the questions the Founders addressed:

Why should war be the responsibility of the people’s immediate representatives?

Congress Is the Logical Place to Assign General War Powers

McKean: “Is it not necessary that the authority superintending the general concerns of the United States should have the power of raising and supporting armies? Are we, sir, to stand defenseless amidst conflicting nations? Wars are inevitable, but war cannot be declared without the consent of the immediate representatives of the people. They [declaration of war] must also originate [with] the representatives of the people. They must also originate the law which appropriates the money for the support of the army: yet they can make no appropriation for a longer term than two years.”

Why must appropriations be limited to two years?

The House Changes Every Two Years

Dawes: “When we consider that this branch is to be elected every two years, there is great propriety in its being restrained from making any grants in support of the army for a longer space than that of their existence. If the election of this popular branch were for seven years, as in England, the men who would make the first grant, might also be the second and third, for the continuance of the army; and such an acquaintance might exist between the representatives in Congress and the leaders of the army as might be unfavorable to liberty. But the wisdom of the late Convention has avoided this difficulty. The army must expire of itself in two years after it shall be raised, unless renewed by representatives, who, at that time, will have just come fresh from the body of the people. It will share the same fate as that of a temporary law, which dies at the time [page 446] mentioned in the act itself, unless revived by some future legislature.”

Military Appropriations Permitted Every Two Years But Not Required

Sherman: “Remarked that the appropriations were permitted only, not required to be for two years. As the legislature is to be biennially elected, it would be inconvenient to require appropriations to be for one year, as there might be no session within the time necessary to renew them.”

Two Years Is Sufficient But One Year Would Be Too Short

Iredell: “Though Congress are to have the power of raising and supporting armies, yet they cannot appropriate money for that purpose for a longer time than two years…. But at the end of the second year from the first choice, the whole House of Representatives must be rechosen, and also one-third of the Senate. The people, being inflamed with the abuse of power of the old members, would turn them out with indignation…. In two years, a system of tyranny certainly could not succeed in the face of the whole people; and the appropriation could not be with any safety for less than that period. If it depended on an annual vote, the consequence might be, that, at a critical period, when military operations were necessary, the troops would not know whether they were entitled to pay or not, and could not safely act till they knew that the annual vote had passed.”

Can the government raise up an army only after hostilities break out?

Must Have a Creditable Standing Army Even in Peacetime

Wilson: “Ought Congress to be deprived of power to prepare for the defence and safety of our country? Ought they to be restricted from arming, until they divulge the motive which induced them to arm? I believe the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution. I confess it is a power in the exercise of which all wise and moderate governments will be as prudent and forbearing as possible. When we consider the situation of the United States, we must be satisfied that it will be necessary to keep up some troops for the protection of the western frontiers, and to secure our interest in the internal navigation of that country. It will be not only necessary, but it will be economical on the great scale. Our enemies, finding us invulnerable, will not attack us; and we shall thus prevent the occasion for larger standing armies.”

We Would Be Courting War Not to Have Some Military in Peacetime

Gore: “Is America to wait until she is attacked, before she attempts a preparation at defense? This would certainly be unwise; it would be courting our enemies to make war upon us.”

Lack of a Peacetime Army Would Invite a Sneak Attack

Phillips: “Mention is made that Congress ought to be restricted of the power to keep an army except in time of war. I apprehend that great mischief would ensue from such a restriction. Let us take means to prevent war, by granting to Congress the power of raising an army. If a declaration of war is made against this country, and the enemy’s army is coming against us, before Congress could collect the means to withstand this enemy, they would penetrate into the bowels of our country, and every thing dear to us would be gone in a moment.”

Circumstances Warrant a Contingent of Peacetime Military

Hamilton: “Restraints upon the discretion of the legislature in respect to military establishments in time of peace would be improper to be imposed….

“On one side of us, and stretching far into our rear, are growing settlements subject to the dominion of Britain. On the other side, and extending to meet the British settlements, are colonies and establishments subject to the dominion of Spain. This situation and the vicinity of the West India Islands, belonging to these two powers, create between them, in respect to their American possessions and in relation to us, a common interest. The savage tribes on our Western Frontier ought to be regarded as our natural enemies, their natural allies, because they have most to fear from us, and most to hope from them. The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors….

“Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western Frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. The first is impracticable; and if practicable, would be pernicious. The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens. The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace…. Here is a simple view of the subject that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature….

“If we mean to be a commercial people, or even to be secure on our Atlantic side, we must endeavor, as soon as possible, to have a navy. To this purpose there must be dockyards and arsenals; and for the defense of these, fortifications, and probably garrisons.”

Wouldn’t the state militia be sufficient without a regular federal military?

Not Sufficient to Rely Merely on State Militia

Corbin: “If some of the community are exclusively inured to its defense, and the rest attend to agriculture, the consequence will be, that the acts of war and defense, and of cultivating the soil, will be understood. Agriculture will flourish, and military discipline will be perfect. If, on the contrary, our defense be solely intrusted to militia, ignorance of arms and negligence of farming will ensue…. If the inhabitants be called out on sudden emergencies of war, their crops, the means of their subsistence, may be destroyed by it.”

Amateur Militia Inadequate

Hamilton: “If … it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the raising of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen — that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense before it was actually invaded…. We must receive the blow before we could even prepare to return it. All that kind of policy by which nations anticipate distant danger and meet the gathering storm must be abstained from, as contrary to the genuine maxims of a free government….

“The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice.”

A Standing Army Is a Dangerous but Necessary Provision

Madison: “The liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force … is a dangerous … necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal….

“The Union itself … destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat…. A dangerous establishment can never be necessary or plausible, so long as they continue a united people. But let it never for a moment be forgotten that they are indebted for this advantage to the Union alone. The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things….

“Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added.”

Could the President raise an army on his own?

Power Lodged in the Legislature, Not the Executive

Hamilton: “The whole power of raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected…. There was to be found in respect to this object an important qualification even of the legislative discretion in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years — a precaution which upon a nearer view of it will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.”

Principle #99 (from Article I.8.13): The people of the states empower the Congress to provide and maintain a navy.

This provision not only gave the Congress the right to set up a navy, but implied a mandate that it should be “provided.”

During the Revolutionary War, Washington lost New York because he had no navy. In fact, until the French arrived with its naval forces, the Continental Army of the United States was at the mercy of the naval blockade which the British maintained along the entire length of the Atlantic seaboard. Franklin helped John Paul Jones launch a tiny flotilla from France (where Franklin was American minister), and by sailing along the northeast coast of England, Captain Jones had the triumph of his life. He lost his own ship but conquered and boarded the Serapis with his own sinking vessel lashed to it.

John Paul Jones gave the U.S. Navy a great tradition, but the role of the Navy in the Revolutionary War was a minor one. The writers of the Constitution were determined that in future wars the U.S. Navy would be one of the foremost bastions of defense.

Principle #100 (from Article I.8.14): The people of the states empower the Congress to make rules and regulations for the governing of the land and naval forces.

This provision gave the Congress the right to dictate the specific rules and regulations under which the land and naval forces of the United States would operate.

This is a very important provision. It has always been fundamental to the American philosophy that the military is subordinate to the civil authorities. The Constitution made the President the commander in chief, but it gave the Congress the power to lay down the regulations and restrictions under which he would be required to operate.

Since the next two clauses have to do with raising up a militia by each of the states, it was important to establish that the federal government is to lay down the rules and regulations by which all military personnel will be governed. This is the only way uniformity of discipline could be maintained when the militias from the various states are brought together as part of the national military forces.

Principle #101 (from Article I.8.15): The people of the states empower the Congress to call forth the state militia when needed to: (1) execute federal laws, (2) suppress insurrections in the states, or (3) repel invasions from abroad.

This provision gave the Congress the right to order up the state militias singly or en masse to accomplish any of the three purposes specified in this provision.

It will be noted that the calling forth of the various state militias is not within the power of the President but must be done by the Congress. Even the Congress is restricted to three situations:

1. To execute the laws of the union — the requirements of the Constitution, the acts of Congress, and the treaties.

2. To suppress insurrections — which are open and active opposition to the execution of the law.

3. To repel invasions by an enemy intent on military conquest or the overthrow of the government.

Here again, both the President (who is not granted authority to call up the militia) and the Congress (which is limited to the circumstances when the militia may be called) are prevented from achieving an armed dictatorship.

Principle #102 (from Article I.8.16): The people of the states empower the Congress to provide for the organizing, arming, and training (disciplining) of the state militia and shall have authority to govern (direct and control) any of the state militia which are called into the service of the United States.

This provision gives the Congress the right to equip, arm, train, and control the state militia whenever any of them are called into the service of the United States.

The militia of a state is actually the official army of the state. It consists of all able-bodied male citizens who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five and are not already members of the armed forces of the United States. Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the Congress organized the militia of each state into special reserve units of the Army, Navy, and eventually the Coast [page 451] Guard, Marine Corps, and Air Force. These constitute the National Guard or the organized militia of the state. All other men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five inclusive are members of the unorganized militia. They are subject to call by both the governor and the President of the United States if circumstances warrant it.

Here are the answers to some of the questions which were raised during the debate:

In the final analysis, what constitutes the militia of a state?

The State Militia Constitute the Whole People

Mason: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

Corbin: “Who are the militia? Are we not militia?”

Randolph: “They are the bulwarks of our liberties.

Why should the federal government train and equip state militias?

Congress Must Have Access to Militias Uniformly Trained and Equipped

Wilson: “It is said that Congress should not possess the power of calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; nor the President have the command of them when called out for such purposes.

“I believe any gentlemen, who possess military experience, will inform you that men without a uniformity of arms, accoutrements, and discipline, are no more than a mob in a camp; that, in the field, instead of assisting, they interfere with one another. If a soldier drops his musket, and his companion, unfurnished with one, takes it up, it is of no service, because his cartridges do not fit it. By means of this system, a uniformity of arms and discipline will prevail throughout the United States….

“The militia formed under this system, and trained by several states, will be such a bulwark of internal strength, as to prevent the attacks of foreign enemies.”

Responsibility for Strong State Militia

Is Concurrent Between State and Federal Governments

Nicholas: “The power of arming them is concurrent between the general and state governments; for the power of arming them rested in the state governments before; and although the power be given to the general government, yet it is not given exclusively.”

What if the federal government fails to do so?

The States Are Able to Arm and Train Their Militias

If Congress Neglects to Do So

Randolph: “Should Congress neglect to arm or discipline the militia, the states are fully possessed of the power of doing it; for they are restrained from it by no part of the Constitution.”

What is the primary function of the state militias?

State Militias Necessary to Guarantee Law and Order

Madison: “If resistance should be made to the execution of the laws … it ought to be [page 452] overcome. This could be done only in two ways — either by regular force or by the people. By one or the other it must unquestionably be done. If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed, to suppress and repel them, rather than a standing army. The best way to do these things was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary.”

Is it an abuse of power for the federal government to utilize the state militias?

The States Lose Nothing by Making Their Militia Available to Congress

Madison: “I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government the power of arming the militia, takes away from the state governments. The power is concurrent, and not exclusive….

“The states are to have the authority of training the militia according to the congressional discipline; and of governing them at all times when not in the service of the Union. Congress is to govern such part of them as may be employed in the actual service of the United States; and such part only can be subject to martial law.”

Militia Under State Control Until Called Up

Madison: “The state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they are not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, etc., and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary.”

State Militias Can Be Called Up In Only Three Situations

Nicholas: “Congress is to … provide for calling them forth, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. These powers only amount to this — that they can only call them forth in these three cases, and that they can only govern such part of them as may be in the actual service of the United States. This causes a sufficient security that they will not be under martial law but when in actual service…. The President is to command. But the regulation of the army and navy is given to Congress. Our representatives will be a powerful check here…. We ought to part with the power to use the militia to somebody. To whom? Ought we not to part with it for the general defense? If you give it not to Congress, it may be denied by the states. If you withhold it, you render a standing army absolutely necessary….

“There is a great difference between having the power in three cases, and in all cases. They cannot call them forth for any other purpose than to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions….

“The civil officer is to execute the laws on all occasions; and, if he be resisted, this auxiliary power is given to Congress of calling forth the militia to execute them, when it should be found absolutely necessary…. The President is not to have this power. God forbid we should ever see a public man in this country who should have this power. Congress only are to have the power of calling forth the militia.”

The Militias Constitute an Auxiliary Source of Support

Hamilton: “The militia … ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary.”

How can the whole stale be trained?

State Militias Should Be Structured Around a

Select, Well-Trained National Guard

Hamilton: “Uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert….

“Uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority….

“If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a Free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security…. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force…. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper….

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution…. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss…. Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year….

“The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist….

“Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same Feelings, sentiments, habits, and [page 454] interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

“Whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and distressing expedition for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project to crush them in their imagined entrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?

“In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of the neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition…. This mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association.”

Principle #103 (from Article I.8.16): The people reserve to the states the power to appoint the officers of their state militia and carry out the training and discipline in each of the states as prescribed by Congress.

This provision gives the states the right to appoint their own officers in the state militia and provide the discipline and training of the militia as prescribed by Congress.

There was great concern among the states lest the federal military authorities use their power to make encroachments on the states and their militia. The Founders were sensitive to this and therefore provided in the Constitution that the states would have exclusive authority to do two things:

1. Appoint their own officers in charge of the militia.

2. Have charge of the training program prescribed by Congress.

It was understood, of course, that if the President called up the state militias in a national crisis, they would serve under superior officers representing the United States military services. However, their own officers would continue to function at their established level of authority under the federal officers appointed by the President as commander in chief.

Principle #104 (from Article I.8.17): The people of the states empower the Congress to have exclusive jurisdiction and lawmaking power over a designated district (not to exceed ten miles square) which shall be the seat of government for the United States.

This provision gives the Congress the right to set up a ten-square-mile restricted area for the seat of government, to be exclusively under the control of Congress.

This clause may have originated from Congress’s unhappy experience of being virtually evicted from Philadelphia in 1783 when members of the Continental Army mobbed them, forcing the Congress to flee to Princeton, Annapolis, Trenton, and finally New York, because local authorities did not adequately protect them. Furthermore, it was felt that the capital should not be in the same city as the capital of a state, or in a large commercial center likely to be heavily populated.

The District of Columbia was selected during Washington’s administration as the nation’s capital. Two bills were introduced which divided the Congress. One bill would have allowed the national government to assume the debts of the various states incurred during the Revolutionary War. States such as Virginia, which had paid off their state debts to a large extent, opposed the federal assumption of delinquent state debts. Why, Virginia asked, should she pay her own debts plus a portion of the debts of others?

At the same time, many of these delinquent states wanted the national capital to be in the north (Philadelphia or New York). Virginia bargained to support the assumption bill (assuming the debts of the states) if the new national capital were placed on the Potomac River. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, undertook to get enough votes from the South to support the assumption bill, while Hamilton, as Secretary of Treasury, rallied votes to put the national capital on the Potomac.

In 1788-89 Maryland ceded to the nation sixty square miles east of the Potomac, and Virginia ceded thirty square miles on the west. In 1846 Congress decided to give the territory on the west back to Virginia. The seat of government was Philadelphia from 1790 to 1800, when it was moved to Washington, D.C.

Here are the questions which the Founders answered during the debates:

What are some of the reasons why the seat of government should be established in some permanent location?

Congress Should Have a Permanent, Secure Location

King: “Said, in reply to the inquiry respecting a federal town, that there was now no place for Congress to reside in, and that it was necessary that they should have a permanent residence, where to establish proper archives, in which they may deposit treaties, state papers, deeds of cession, etc.”

What special advantage would this be to Congress?

Congress Must Not Be Subject to Outrage of Local Citizens

Davis: “Said it was necessary that Congress should have a permanent residence…. He asked, ‘Would Massachusetts, or any other state, wish to give to New York, or the state in which Congress shall sit, the power to influence the proceedings of that body, which was to act for the benefit of the whole, by leaving them liable to the outrage of the citizens of such states?’” 49

A Federal Town Would Protect Congress from Insult

Strong: “Said, every gentleman must think that the erection of a federal town was necessary, wherein Congress might remain protected from insult. A few years ago … Congress had to remove, because they were not protected by the authority of the state in which they were then sitting.”

Cannot this be provided by the individual states?

Individual States Cannot Provide Such Protection

Madison: “How could the general government be guarded from the undue influence of particular states, or from insults, without such exclusive power? If it were at the pleasure of a particular state to control the session and deliberations of Congress, would they be secure from insults, or the influence of such state?”

Individual States Failed to Protect Congress in the Past

Iredell: “What would be the consequence if the seat of the government of the United States, with all the archives of America, was in the power of any one particular state? Would not this be most unsafe and humiliating? Do we not all remember that, in the year 1783, a band of soldiers went and insulted Congress? The sovereignty of the United States was treated with indignity. They applied for protection to the state they resided in, but could obtain none. It is hoped such a disgraceful scene will never happen again; but that, for the future, the national government will be able to protect itself.”

National Legislature Should Not Be Vulnerable

to Pressures of a Host State

Madison: “Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy…. The inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.”

George Washington himself selected the site for Washington, D.C.

John Adams was the first President to set up residence there.

Editorial Note:

Is Washington, D.C., Losing Status As the National Capital?

Between 1775 and 1789 the Congress of the United States tried to find a haven of security in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Philadelphia again, Lancaster, York, Philadelphia again, Princeton, Annapolis, and finally New York. After it was decided that a city should be built on the banks of the Potomac away from any metropolitan center, George Washington himself picked out the site. Congress met in Washington, D.C., for the first time on November 21, 1800 — birthday of the signing of the Mayflower Compact. John Adams was the first President to set up residence in the new capital.

For most of the nation’s history, Congress governed the District of Columbia. However, a strong campaign to “democratize” the nation’s capital finally resulted in a municipal government being set up during the 1960s which elected its own officers independent of Congress and began making its own laws. Before long the city had developed one of the highest crime rates in the nation. One violent riot paralyzed the city’s downtown section for several days.

It was also in 1961 that the Twenty-third Amendment was ratified, which altered the Constitution by allowing the District of Columbia to have three electoral votes for the office of President and Vice President. In 1971, a delegate from the District of Columbia was seated in the House of Representatives. Shortly afterwards, Congress passed a constitutional amendment providing for one representative and two Senators for the District of Columbia, just as though it were another state. This proposed amendment has not been ratified by more than a handful of states, but its promoters are determined to get it ratified if at all possible.

Certainly the residents of the District of Columbia are entitled to exercise their franchise, but this could have been readily accomplished by allowing them to vote with the citizens of Maryland, to which the District of Columbia once belonged.

The residents of the District of Columbia have voted as a bloc each election, and always for candidates and issues looking toward a strong centralization of government.

There is deep concern in many quarters of the nation that Congress has abdicated its responsibility under the Constitution to keep the site of the nation’s capital secure and under the administrative control of the people’s representatives. The original intent was to have the city belong to the nation, not the residents of the District of Columbia.

Principle #105 (from Article I.8.17): The people of the states empower Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, providing it shall be with the consent of the legislature of that state. Such lands shall be used for the “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

This provision gives the Congress the right to exercise complete jurisdiction over lands or facilities which it has purchased with the consent of the state legislature for the purposes specified.

It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boundaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified in this section.

But what about new states coming into the Union where most of the territory consists of federal public lands? The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that all new states would come into the Union on a basis of complete equality or equal footing with the original thirteen states. Therefore it was assumed that as soon as a new territory was granted statehood, the people of that state would acquire title to every acre of land other than a very small percentage granted to the federal government for the “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

But Congress did not allow this to happen. When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1903, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as these lands could be sold to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states:

1. The federal government would retain all ungranted public lands.

2. The government guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.

3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.

As a result of this policy, all of the states east of the Mississippi, and those included in the Louisiana Purchase, eventually acquired all but a very small percentage of the land lying within their state boundaries.

However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constitution by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The general policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constitution. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of over 35 percent of the American landmass. At the present time, vast areas within the boundaries of these states are permanently designated as part of the federal domain for national forests, national parks, national monuments, coal and oil reserves, lands leased for profit to ranchers or farmers, and huge tracts of land with valuable resources completely locked up as “wilderness areas.”

Here is the amount of land in each of the western states still held by the federal government:

Arizona 45% New Mexico 35%

California 45% Oregon 52%

Colorado 36% Utah 66%

Idaho 64% Washington 30%

Montana 30% Wyoming 50%

Nevada 87%

The most flagrant example of all, however, is found in the conditions under which Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959. The people were only allowed to occupy approximately 4 percent of their state.

Of course, the government should have exclusive jurisdiction over those lands acquired for the purposes listed in the Constitution. As Madison stated:

“The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.”

It is obvious that the federal government is currently occupying millions of acres within certain states without the concurrence of those states.

Principle #106 (from Article I.8.18): The people of the states empower the Congress to pass any laws which shall be “necessary and proper” to carry out the enumerated powers designated above, or to carry out any other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or offices thereof.

This provision, known as the “elastic clause” or the “necessary and proper clause,” gives the Congress the right to pass any other laws needed to implement the provisions of this Constitution.

The Founders were a little nervous about the “necessary and proper” clause. Nevertheless, they made the following responses to various questions in hopes that there would be no question concerning their intent.

Does this clause add to the powers of Congress?

It Does Not Delegate Additional Powers

Nicholas: “The Constitution had enumerated all the powers which the general government should have, but did not say how they were to be exercised. It therefore, in this clause, tells how they shall be exercised. Does this give any new power? I say not. This clause only enables them to carry into execution the powers given to them, but gives them no additional power.”

This Clause Merely Facilitates Implementation

Wilson: “It is urged, as a general objection to this system, that ‘the powers of Congress are unlimited and undefined, and that they will be the judges, in all cases, of what is necessary and proper for them to do.’ To bring this subject to your view, I need do no more than point to the words in the Constitution, beginning at the 8th section, article I. ‘The Congress (it says) shall have power,’ etc. I need not read over the words, but I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the powers are not as accurately and minutely defined, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language…. The concluding clause, with which so much fault has been found, gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and defined by the following, ‘for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.’ It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution.”

What limits the powers of Congress so this clause will not be misinterpreted?

Authority of Congress Limited to the Enumerated Powers

Madison: “[This clause] only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause.”

Enumerating Powers Prohibits Congress from Assuming Others

MacLaine: “The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated. We say we have given them those powers, but we do not say we have given them more. We retain all those rights which we have not given away to the general government…. If they can assume powers not enumerated, there was no occasion for enumerating any powers … if we had all power before, and give away but a part, we still retain the rest. It is as plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them. There is an express clause which, however, disingenuously it has been perverted from its true meaning, clearly demonstrates that they are confined to those powers which are given them. This clause enables them to … make laws to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution; consequently, they can make no laws to execute any other power. This clause gives no new power, but declares that those already given are to be executed by proper laws.”

This Clause Must Be Used Only to Execute One of the Enumerated Powers

Pendleton: “I understand that clause as not going a single step beyond the delegated powers. What can it act upon? From power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the delegated powers, but can by no means depart from them, or arrogate any new powers, but can by no means depart from them, or arrogate any new powers; for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give effect to the delegated powers.”

Why is this clause even necessary?

This Clause Necessary to Make Enumerated Powers Effectual

Wilson: “Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation. I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments…. But it is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision; the inaccuracy of language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such a desire. Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than what was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted.”

It Is a Question of Means

Wilson: “It is meant that they shall have the power of carrying into effect the laws which they shall make under the powers vested in them by this Constitution.”

Powers to Act Must Be Commensurate with Responsibility Assigned

Hamilton: “Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend…. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success…. It is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority in respect to all those objects which are intrusted to its management…. The powers are not too extensive for the objects of federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our national interests.”

Congress Must Have This Authority

Hamilton: “What is a power but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution? What is a legislative power but a power of making laws? What are the means to execute a legislative power but laws? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes but a legislative power, or a power of making laws to lay and collect taxes? What the proper means of executing such a power but necessary and proper laws? …

“It conducts us to this palpable truth that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power…. The national legislature to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws necessary and proper to carry it into effect…. The [page 462] same process will lead to the same result in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is expressly to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all necessary and proper laws. If there is anything exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated….

“But it may be again asked, ‘Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union?’ The national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.”

Without This Clause the Constitution Is a Dead Letter

Madison: “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter….

“Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates….

“No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included….

“If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true means, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of them were to be violated…. In the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. These [candidates for office] will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives.”