Essay 94: “Why Democratic Nations Have A Natural Desire For Peace And Why Democratic Armies Naturally Seek War” & “Which Is The Most Warlike And Revolutionary Class In Democratic Armies” (Vol. 2 Pt. 3 Chs. 22-23)

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 617 (start at chapter 22 heading) – 625 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In Chapters 22 and 23 of Part 2 of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville addressed the proper role of military affairs in a democracy. In his time as today, the limits of military power in politics are an important concern. De Tocqueville was born during the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte, a General who had overthrown the French First Republic and made himself Emperor. When De Tocqueville was still a child, he saw Napoleon’s downfall and the restoration of a constitutional monarchy in France. His experience helped shape his views on how a democracy can be undermined by the ambitions of men in uniform.

In Chapter 22, De Tocqueville noted that democracies are generally interested in living at peace with their neighbors. He wrote that “amongst civilized nations, the warlike passions will become more rare and less intense in proportion as social conditions shall be more equal.” Ideas such as this would later evolve into concepts like the democratic peace theory, i.e., since democracies seldom go to war with each other, a more democratic world will necessarily be more stable and peaceful.
However, since “war is nevertheless an occurrence to which all nations are subject,” even peaceful democratic nations “must hold themselves in readiness to repel aggression” with some form of standing military force. This force can pose problems for democratic governments.

De Tocqueville writes that in some cases ambition among officers may create a desire to go to war to seek promotion through acts of valor. And while such wars may have advantages, they can also be dangerous. Wars can endanger freedom in democracies by increasing the power of government, and protracted wars in particular are a threat to maintaining liberty. “There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult,” De Tocqueville writes, “to begin a war, and to end it.”

In Chapter 23, De Tocqueville notes that these tendencies can be compounded by the character of democratic armies, which are fundamentally different from those in aristocracies. In aristocratic societies, with their firm class divisions, officers are typically drawn from the nobility, who have important interests in maintaining the status quo. In democracies, officers often come from the middle or lower classes, who may have more ambition to improve their station in life. This ambition makes them more likely to support revolutionary changes that could improve their opportunities and status. As noted above, this may mean support for war as a vehicle for achieving fame, honor, and promotion, things which can be elusive in peacetime.

The remedy for these challenges, De Tocqueville says, “is not to be found in the army itself, but in the country.” That is, the citizen-soldiers who make up the largest part of the military are also those who are most habituated to freedom, and who want to maintain it. “Upon them the habits of the nation have the firmest hold,” De Tocqueville writes. Through them “it may be possible to infuse into a democratic army the love of freedom and the respect of rights” which reflect the country as a whole.
The United States of the 1830s was less threatened than some European states by these power dynamics. De Tocqueville notes that America had the benefit of being removed from European affairs, bounded by vast oceans and having (with some exceptions) generally peaceful relations with its neighbors. This meant that the United States did not require a vast standing army to secure its borders. Only a small regular force was needed, and in time of emergency the county could quickly mobilize the type of citizen militias that were most sympathetic to maintaining freedom.

Like De Tocqueville, the Founding Fathers were also concerned about the potential threat from a large standing military. In the Constitution they provided a variety of checks and balances on military power to keep control firmly in civilian hands. This included making the President the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, giving Congress control over military appropriations, and also reserving to Congress the power to declare war.
There was also the example of George Washington, who represented the ideal of the American citizen-soldier. He had left his farm at Mt. Vernon to take command of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, after which he returned to civilian life, and later to the presidency. Washington set an example of service and conduct for an American officer, who was expected to be professional, capable, and apolitical. This ethos became a guiding spirit in the American military that has persisted to the current day.

De Tocqueville’s analysis of civil-military relations in a democracy continues to offer valuable perspectives on the interplay between politics, military service, and social mobility. While the United States has been able to maintain its democratic character even with the vast growth of its military and responsibilities for global leadership, the corrosive power dynamics that De Tocqueville wrote about remain a challenge to free countries. Constant vigilance is required to ensure that the forces needed to defend freedom do not become the means to undermine and destroy it.

Dr. Robbins is a former special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in 2007 was awarded the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

He is also the former award-winning Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at The Washington Times. His work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other publications. He appears regularly on national and international television and radio.

Dr. Robbins holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at the National Defense University and Marine Corps University, among other schools. His research interests include terrorism and national security strategy, political theory and military history.

Dr. Robbins is the author of five books, including The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero, This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive, and the critically acclaimed Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

PRINT ARTICLE