>If you're proposing higher pay for soldiers, then you go from an army of slaves to an army of mercenaries.

Is that such a bad thing? I'd rather have an army of mercenaries any day over an army of slaves. The mercenaries are serving voluntarily at least, and they're likely to be far more effective in their duties as soldiers. Sure, there's some ethical concerns with it, but far less than with slavery IMO.

IIRC, this question came up with Westmoreland in the Vietnam War. The US was considering transitioning to a volunteer army (which did happen after the war), and a reporter asked Westmoreland what he thought of the idea. He was adamantly opposed to an army of mercenaries, and the reporter shot back by asking if he preferred an army of slaves. Westmoreland replied that he didn't want such insulting language used of "our patriotic draftees" -- meaning that he had internalized an if-by-whiskey argument. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey)