Alexandria Gazette

COMMUNICATIONS.

LETTER FROM WASHINGTON.

WASHINGTON, June 8th, 1842.

Dear Sir: I perceive by your remarks, editorial, that you are an advocate for a reduction of the Navy and Army. Well, in that, we almost all agree; but considerable difference prevails as to the time, manner and degree of reduction, though I do not believe that there is much real difference of opinion between you and myself on the subject. Many of us think, that during our pending negotiations, sound policy and national dignity require that we should not with indecent haste throw down our defences, and thereby hold out to an adversary with whom we have great questions to settle, that we distrust our strength to bear for a few short weeks longer, the burden of our small Naval and Military establishments; nor are we content in the items of an appropriation bill, in a crude, undigested form to repeal, alter, and amend the laws fixing those establishments; nor should we in any form of law be desirous of returning to the small limits adopted for the Army in 1821, when our population was about half what it is at present, and our military posts even less in proportion, and with an extent of frontier very far short of that which now constitutes our boundary. We are by no means disposed to indulge Mr. Upshur in his magnificent plan of bringing our Navy shortly up to the magnitude of one half of that of Great Britain; but neither are we willing to stint, or starve, or discourage that glorious and gallant guardian and protector of the nation's honor, and her wealth, upon the great high way of the world. A check to the further increase of the naval establishment at present, and a moderate reduction of the rank and file of the Army, to be made in due time and under a well matured law, graduating the proportions of the different kinds of force, restricting expenditures into which extravagance has crept, and correcting ascertained abuses, are the objects desired. It is true that the Army and Navy will cost much money; but are we ready to admit that we cannot bear the charge of national safety, and the protection of national honor? But here we are met with the cry of the danger of standing armies and the sufficiency of the militia for all those purposes. All that is fine material for self-glorification on the 4th of July. But ask all your military men, from Washington down, and they will tell you, by their recorded opinions, that however naturally brave your militia may be, that they are not soldiers till they are experienced and seasoned in the service, whilst they cost twice as much to bring them into the field and keep them there as regular troops. But those institutions of national defence, which have been built up at such cost and which have now attained such strength and fair proportions, are now assailed by the ruthless hand of radicalism, not the less virulent and unrelenting that there are found in its ranks those who have heretofore been acting as conservatives. Even John Q. Adams so strong in defence of the Navy, is now found in the front rank in the attack upon the Army. Is it that the cry of "standing army" which was used with such effect against his father, during his Presidency, has become so horrific to his imagination, or is it only the wantonness of conscious strength which impels to the capricious exercise of power on whatever crosses its path, whether to raise up and support, or pull down and destroy? Let us remember that however for the time we are depressed by circumstances, that our vigorous growth, unless we are strangled by demagogues, will soon expand beyond our present dimensions, and overcoming all difficulty, demand still more extensive national Institutions, which must continue to grow with our growth and strengthen with our strength I trust that the Senate will manifest more of calm deliberation and sound discretion than was exercised in the House upon these subjects.
Yours truly.