Stuart, George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait), 1797
Dr. Robert F. Williams on the foundations of civilian control of the military ...
Thinking of civil-military relationships after the war, he urged his “virtuous fellow Citizens in the field” that they “should carry with them into civil Society the most conciliating dispositions; and that they should prove themselves not less virtuous and usefull as Citizens than they have been persevering and victorious as Soldiers.” The army began demobilizing, and British forces departed New York City at noon on 25 November. Washington was careful to let civilian authorities reclaim the city, not his army, although he rode in with the New York militia regiments alongside Governor Clinton.After securing New York City, Washington focused on returning to civil life. On 19 December 1783, he arrived in Annapolis, where the Continental Congress was operating, and on 23 December 1783—eight years, six months, and five days after Congress granted him command of the army in Philadelphia—he surrendered his commission in front of Congress in Annapolis. In prepared remarks, Washington closed the loop on the civil-military relationship granted in his initial commission of June 1775. “The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place,” he remarked, “I have now the honor of offering my sincere Congratulations to Congress & of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the Service of my Country.” He then returned to Mount Vernon just in time for Christmas.At that moment, he rejected becoming an American Caesar and instead chose to embody Cincinnatus. Educated like most of his generation on popularizations of ancient history, Washington had patterned his behavior on his understanding of Roman heroes. Joseph Addison’s 1713 play Cato: A Tragedy shaped Washington’s conception of himself as he took steps to model his behavior from the Roman leader who exemplified public virtue and liberty. Fabian served as his example for victory and Cincinnatus for his postwar life. Cincinnatus is famous for having picked up the sword when called to save his country in 458 BCE and laying it down again to return to the plough and the life of a yeoman farmer. He embodied the citizen-soldier ideal that influenced Enlightenment thinking on the matter.Washington’s experience provides ample material for students of civil-military relations. His experience, on the one hand, suggests that civilians and citizen-soldiers are effective, that expertise in arms was unnecessary in a republic, and that the need for a professional officer corps was moot. Despite Washington’s argument for the contrary, his experience fueled advocates for a small military establishment ...The “myth of Cincinnatus,” that valiant citizens will defend the country when called has informed how Americans have mobilized and prepared for war since the revolution. Washington understood that citizen-soldier militias were limited, which informed his desire to develop a well-paid, professional standing army. This tension, however, lay at the base of contemporary notions of civilian control of the military and was something with which Washington struggled throughout the conflict.
Mackubin Thomas Owens at Hillsdale on civilian-military relations ...
All service members learn early in their training that they have an affirmative obligation to refuse unlawful orders. But service members do not get to refuse orders because they disagree with the administration’s policies. And this video, at the very least, carelessly blurs the line between these things in a way to undermine trust between civilian policymakers and the military and between seniors and subordinates within the military.The video was clearly political in nature and is likely to foster confusion within the military ranks. The lawmakers failed to identify any specifics regarding unlawful orders. Nor did they offer examples of the kinds of orders soldiers should refuse to obey. Without context, the phrase “refuse illegal orders” blurs the line between legitimate legal instruction and political signaling. For a system that depends on discipline, clarity, and stability, ambiguity is a real problem.The civil–military implications are serious. Civilian control of the military rests on a clear hierarchy. Congress passes laws, the executive directs operations, and the military follows lawful commands. By addressing the troops directly about which orders to follow, the participants in the video disrupt that structure. Military leaders, not legislators, are responsible for issuing guidance to troops on how to evaluate or report questionable orders.
Samuel Adams from The Rights of the Colonists: The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, November 20, 1772
Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
.jpg)
