Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Original Intent: The Context of “No Standing Armies”
Post contents to be reposted.
- Intent (09/09/2007)
- Article I, Section 3 (03/18/2007)
- Article I, Section 2 (03/05/2007)
- Progress (02/28/2007)
- Preamble (02/27/2007)
Posted 01/02/2008 6:00 AM CDT • Print Vers.
Comments
-
it’s an interesting metaphor for maturity. And as interesting to note that some never acheive the level of maturity that allows them to understand that disarmament is slavery.
og | 1/2/2008 08:24 AM CDT -
You’d make a fabulous teacher.
pdwalker | 1/2/2008 09:06 AM CDT -
I was lazy, Mythus. I copied that list from the linked site. It isn’t exhaustive or correct… but there to give the sense of the number to illustrate that single point.
Feel free to list others, if you think necessary.
Mrs. du Toit | 1/2/2008 10:27 AM CDT -
To paraphrase Sir Winston, If you are not a liberal when your young you have no heart, if your are not a conservative when you are old you have no brain. It’s something like that.
Jefferson, and the rest, started with ideals. They learned the hard way that the world is not ideal. So, they started being more realistic.
Cobar | 1/2/2008 01:43 PM CDT -
I find Jefferson to be one of the most frustrating Founding Fathers to study. As President, he was at his best when he flouted his own principles (the Louisiana Purchas). When he stuck to his principles he almost lost the country. If Jefferson had authorised the expense of a small but competent navy, perhaps a dozen frigates and a half dozen ships of the line, the British would never have been able to blockade our ports and burn Washington during the War of 1812.
I have to laugh at the Libertarians who obsessively quote Jefferson not realising his philosophical and political schizophrenia. The ideals they admire in him were a resounding failure when put to practical use, while the successes he enjoyed happened when he ignored his ideals.
Papapete | 1/2/2008 08:27 PM CDT -
Don’t forget the Denver riots of 1887. They essentially destroyed the city, and got a policeman relative of mine clubbed to death.
An interesting metaphor on assimilation. My grandfather’s uncle Jack, an Irish immigrant who’d been wounded in the Civil War, was killed trying to control rampaging mobs of Germans, Swedes, and Hungarians. A generation earlier, the rioters would probably have been Irishmen, a generation later, Italians.
Today, they’re all Middle Americans. Perhaps the sillies in any society have to be convinced with the threat of a bullet in order to get a job and a life, to form a family and work their way up that three generation ladder to respectability.
If so, perhaps we should have been using belt fed weapons and grazing fire during the L.A. riots, instead of pulling out the Police and National Guard and letting the maniacs have their way.
A marvelous lesson to the young ghetto dwellers. And you wonder why the rap generation is as inately sociopathic as it is? They know that, push comes to shove, the man will run away.Ed Foster | 1/2/2008 09:35 PM CDT -
I think you have misread the last quote. I think Jefferson’s point was that only a nation with a well-armed and well-trained militia could dispense with a standing army.
It’s worth noting that the United States did not maintain very large land forces in peacetime until the 1950s - and a good argument could be made that we were at war then as well. The Navy was quite another matter, as it is impossible to build ships and train seamen quickly. But an army could be built up pretty well as quickly as it could be armed.
The Civil War is a very good example. IIRC, the United States Army had a strength of 14,000 men in January of 1861. A year later, there were nearly a million Americans under arms.
The whole issue of tactical use of militia forces would warrant a book, but the short form is that raw militia would fight, but lacked confidence and was brittle. Commanders who did well with them, such as General Greene at the Battle of Cowpens and General Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans, either set them tasks that did not require great coolness or provided a stiffener. Greene told his militia that they could run after three volleys, while Jackson provided bales of cotton as a shield.
Where militias were really useful was as feeders for a better-trained force. The mobilizations for the Civil War and World War I highlighted the need for every man with even rudimentary training to serve as a cadre for the large field armies being developed. Men who had been involved in pre-war training programs were worth their weight in gold.
Raw militia might start out brittle, but they learned VERY fast. Washington needed less than two months to turn defeated militia troops into Continental Line units that inflicted a serious defeat on the Hessians at Trenton.
Mike of the Duelling Pistols | 1/3/2008 10:53 AM CDT -
Of course, Mike, the other reason the Founders had less of a problem with a Navy is that ships have limited usefulness away from water, and therefore are less likely to be used for a coup.
SDN | 1/3/2008 11:48 AM CDT -
True enough. I’d also point out that while a Navy is cash-intensive, it is not manpower-intensive. An admiral doesn’t have the manpower to stage much of a coup.
Mike of the Duelling Pistols | 1/3/2008 09:32 PM CDT -
How about my favorite, the Pig War?
(1859-1871?)
http://www.nps.gov/archive/sajh/Pig_War_new.htm
Of course, you may not want to count that one since the only actual casualty was a pig. But, you left yourself wide open when you said, “Feel free to list others”.
Old EZ | 1/8/2008 10:40 PM CDT
