The Framers of America’s Constitution had an almost hysterical fear of standing armies, and of governments backed by them. A standing army of professionals, they were sure, would eventually do one of two things: agitate for foreign military adventures to keep itself employed, or turn against its civilian masters to create a military dictatorship. To these two political threats they added a third, moral danger: that citizens used to relying on professionals for the defense of their liberties would come to take their freedom lightly. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “Our War of the Revolution was, in good measure, fought as a protest against standing armies… [Fears of despotism] were uppermost in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. Distrust of a standing army was expressed by many. Recognition of the danger from Indians and foreign nations caused them to authorize a national armed force begrudgingly.”
After the Revolution, past military officers who served at least three years organized themselves into an esteemed heretical club entitled the Society of Cincinnati. This sentimental role of the citizen-soldier is found in the parallel to the Roman Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who left his plough in the field to answer his country’s call. Cincinnatus was given emergency dictatorial control of Rome to beat back invading forces. When the battles were won, he turned power over to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields. The Society’s motto reflects a citizen’s unselfish service to one’s government, Omnia reliquit servare rempublicam, “He relinquished everything to save the Republic.”
The Founding Fathers’ solution was the militia, an armed body that included all citizens qualified to vote. The Militia Act of May 8, 1792 was put into law. The statute books continue to reflect this distinction in vestigial form: Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code declares that all military-age males, and some females, are members of “the unorganized militia of the United States.”
Common thought among western democracies, outside a disturbing extremist population of the United States, have not heeded Machiavelli’s recommendation that their government is a threat to their well being, therefore demanding that their citizenry be armed even to the point of advanced military weaponry. Presently, most democracies have accepted the perspective of those who believe that mature nations have advanced beyond the “Wild West” mentality. That its citizens do not have to fear its government and therefore must be committed to militias that are needed to thwart a standing army and strong arm of their government. Anti-firearms rhetoric has created a climate of opinion that accepts the statistical conclusion that firearms breed violence and that civilized nations are disarmed nations. These nations turn to scientific statistics that overwhelmingly affirm that the main threat from armed violence has its domestic roots. That the population is far safer and with less violence committed against its citizenry when not armed. They recognize a state run military armed with advanced weapons systems that are electronic, computerized, specialized, and complex.
This practice of technical logic combined with common sense proves that a large population of foot soldiers with small arms training rushing from their home to defend their nation is obsolete. Not to say state militias are totally outdated. Organized, well trained, and whose numbers are sensibly restricted, they fill a need for national disasters and in support of the government military during crisis. But without a need for a massive, conclusive militia of citizen foot soldier, there is no need for small arms and marksmanship training in mass. In turn, the Second Amendment that clearly protects the right of its citizenry to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militias is outdated and made moot by the fact that state militias as the main go to for defense is antiquated and obsolete. Though there have been cases before the Supreme Court to press that the Second Amendment goes beyond its wording in association to state militias in support of individual rights to bear arms, the court has yet to make a firm stand on the issue. Therefore much of the United States citizenry remains an armed nation in support of antiquated fears of ‘big government’ and its use of standing armies.
Ignoring the historical basis for our founding fathers’ need for militias and an eighteenth century fear of standing armies has tragic results for a nation that strives to keep their people safe from harm. Far more American citizens have died from domestic gun related violence in the past fifty years alone than military deaths of ALL Americans Wars going back to pre Revolution. A staggering and shameful number that goes beyond comprehension. And thousands of those deaths at the hands of easily accessible guns were young children. Is this truly what the founding fathers had in mind for America’s future? We must ask…would they approve?
Opinions expressed are not inclusive of all who contribute to Revolutionary War Journal nor all editors. Readers who wish to submit articles of interest are encouraged to contact editors. Thank you.
