Why did the founders provide for a decentralized military system?

[gorfle]

Poll question: Why did the founders provide for a decentralized military system?

When our country was founded, the country had a decentralized military system made up of the militias of the states. The central federal government was not intended to have a standing army, or at least it would only have a small one.

Why do you think they did this?

[Ian David]

1. The invention of The Telegraph made a strong, federal army possible for the first time.

The invention of the railroad and the "Manifest Destiny" push westward would have required a federal army, even if we never had a Civil War.

[TheWraith]

22. It was much more than just technical restrictions.

There was, as gorfle said, the issue of not centralizing too much power under the federal government, but there was also the cost issue. A large standing army would need to be paid for, which they couldn't afford, whereas a volunteer army made up of ordinary citizens--such as we fought the revolution with--could go from wartime back to their peacetime lives, and not cost the government anything when they weren't needed. It also allowed for a lot more manpower to be at the call of the government if necessary.

[Oregone]

2. Maybe the founding fathers werent all-seeing omniscient beings drafting an eternal static government

Nah, couldn't be

[Ian David]

3. George Washington was living backward through time, getting younger as the years passed.

Oh, wait.

I was thinking of Merlin.

Never mind.

[gorfle]

8. The poll didn't ask about that.

Maybe the founding fathers werent all-seeing omniscient beings drafting an eternal static government Nah, couldn't be

The poll question didn't ask anything about the omniscience of the founders. The question was concerning their motives for a decentralized military system.

Why do you think the founders opted for a decentralized military system not under the control of the central government?

[Oregone]

9. Why do you think the founders didn't clarify the right to send text messages on Blackberrys?

Why ask why?

[gorfle]

10. Let's not change the subject.

Why do you think the founders didn't clarify the right to send text messages on Blackberrys?

Why ask why?

Let's not change the subject. I started this thread to talk about the motivations behind the second amendment, not the first.

As to why we ask about their motivations, it is important to understand the intent behind our Constitution so that we can understand how it should be applied today.

[Oregone]

12. Why do we care about the intent?

Seriously? Why? Are these infallible omniscient men, whose genetic goods have all been spent? Why try and figure out something you have to guess at anyway to apply it objectively to the legislative process? Seems silly.

Some people, I guess, can't think their way out of a paper bag without step by step instructions

The founding fathers weren't the end all, be all of government

[gorfle]

13. How can you correctly interpret the law if you don't understand its intent?

Seriously? Why? Are these infallible omniscient men, whose genetic goods have all been spent? Why try and figure out something you have to guess at anyway to apply it objectively to the legislative process? Seems silly.

Some people, I guess, can't think their way out of a paper bag without step by step instructions

The founding fathers weren't the end all, be all of government

The reason why intent is important is if you and I disagree on the meaning of the law we must first understand what the law was intended to do before we can discuss how to apply or change it.

No one, least of all the founding fathers, have claimed that they were the end all, be all of government.

But before we can debate how or if to change the second amendment, we have to understand what it was intended to do, so that we can decide whether or not it still serves or needs to serve that purpose.

[Oregone]

14. Why is the law universally correct to start with, such that its interpretation has any merit?

Why does the intent of some men who died 200 years ago really relevant to how a government should act in this modern day?

How is it that countries who were not blessed with men of this caliber of genetic goo still able to function and serve their people properly?

Why ask why?


"But before we can debate how or if to change the second amendment, we have to understand what it was intended to do, so that we can decide whether or not it still serves or needs to serve that purpose"

Sorry. I simply don't buy this at all. You can consider how gun ownership rights (and degrees of such) impact the saftey of a populance and national security, without so much as a thought about dead men's intentions. More often than not, dead men's intentions--dead men who never imagined an AR series rifle, for example--will cloud a debate about rights and saftey, rather than contribute to it

[gorfle]

15. Maybe it isn't, but you have to have a starting point to debate change.

Why is the law universally correct to start with, such that its interpretation has any merit?

Maybe it is not. But before you can discuss how to apply or change the law we must first agree on what the law is supposed to do.

You must have a starting point for debate.

Why does the intent of some men who died 200 years ago really relevant to how a government should act in this modern day?

Let me give you an example. Our founders thought that the people should have the right of freedom of expression, especially to criticize the government. They thus enumerated this right in the first amendment. Anyone who would change that law would want to understand first what that law does and why it was created. It does not mean that we will always need freedom of expression. But if anyone wanted to eliminate freedom of expression, it would be important to understand why it was codified into law in the first place.

How is it that countries who were not blessed with men of this caliber of genetic goo still able to function and serve their people properly?

Perhaps they were blessedwith men of that caliber of genetic goo?

Why ask why?

We ask why because reasoning people do not accept things on faith.

Sorry. I simply don't buy this at all. You can consider how gun ownership rights (and degrees of such) impact the saftey of a populance and national security, without so much as a thought about dead men's intentions. More often than not, dead men's intentions--dead men who never imagined an AR series rifle, for example--will cloud a debate about rights and saftey, rather than contribute to it

But you cannot debate firearm policy and change firearm law without acknowledging what the law was intended to do in the first place, and only then can you debate about whether the situation still applies today.

The founders may have never envisioned an AR series rifle, but they most certainly envisioned the citizenry being able to serve as soldiers and being able to oppose soldiers with weapons of similar capability that a soldier would carry.

[aklaft]

17. it matters

It matters because the constitution is the contract under which the country was founded.If it is nullified by ignoring the original intent, there is no country.

[provis99]

4. the founders' ideas are getting badly outdated.

But don't tell that to the pro-militia gun crowd on DU.

[Pavulon]

7. So change the constitution. NDB, they did it to ban booze

was a great success.

[gorfle]

11. In what way?

the founders' ideas are getting badly outdated.

In what way do you see them as being outdated?

[spin]

16. Yeah, ideas like freedom of speech, freedom of religion...

the right to assemble peacefully, freedom of the press as well as the RKBA are really old ideas today. All countries have our rights and freedoms. We should move on to something new.

I notice recently that our government has been working hard to do away with that pesky Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I suppose that you would consider the USA PATRIOT Act aka Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56) a welcome modernization of those and worn out ideas in the Bill of Rights.

[SteveM]

21. Yeah, you read the First and they talk about the "press." Let's dump 1A, right?

But don't tell that to the pro-authoritarian gun-controllers on DU.

Got that straight, now?

[zipplewrath]

5. You're close

They were worried about imperialism. They didn't want the federal government going off on some sort of war of expansion. Didn't work though. Washington raised the first army. They've had one ever since. Lewis and Clark was a military expedition.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

6. I'm not sure that there's any need for us to speculate . . .

. . . given that there were contemporaneous records kept of the debates on this and other issues involved in the Framing:

* * * *

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12

Records of the Federal Convention

<2:329; Madison, 18 Aug.>

Mr. Ghorum moved to add "and support" after "raise". Agreed to nem. con. and then the clause agreed to nem. con- as amended.

Mr Gerry took notice that there was no check here agst. standing armies in time of peace. The existing Congs. is so constructed that it cannot of itself maintain an army. This wd. not be the case under the new system. The people were jealous on this head, and great opposition to the plan would spring from such an omission. He suspected that preparations of force were now making agst. it. (he seemed to allude to the activity of the Govr. of N. York at this crisis in disciplining the militia of that State.) He thought an army dangerous in time of peace & could never consent to a power to keep up an indefinite number. He proposed that there shall not be kept up in time of peace more than thousand troops. His idea was that the blank should be filled with two or three thousand.

<2:509; Madison, 5 Sept.>

To the (2) clause Mr. Gerry objected that it admitted of appropriations to an army. for two years instead of one, for which he could not conceive a reason--that it implied there was to be a standing army which he inveighed against as dangerous to liberty, as unnecessary even for so great an extent of Country as this. and if necessary, some restriction of the number & duration ought to be provided: Nor was this a proper time for such an innovation. The people would not bear it.

Mr Sherman remarked that the appropriations were permitted only, not required to be for two years. As the Legislature is to be biennally elected, it would be inconvenient to require appropriations to be for one year, as there might be no Session within the time necessary to renew them. He should himself he said like a reasonable restriction on the number and continuance of an army in time of peace.

The clause (2). was agreed to nem: con:

<2:616; Madison, 14 Sept.>

Col: Mason, being sensible that an absolute prohibition of standing armies in time of peace might be unsafe, and wishing at the same time to insert something pointing out and, guarding against the danger of them, moved to preface the clause (Art I sect. 8) "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia &c" with the words "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace" Mr. Randolph 2ded. the motion

Mr Madison was in favor of it. It did not restrain Congress from establishing a military force in time of peace if found necessary; and as armies in time of peace are allowed on all hands to be an evil, it is well to discountenance them by the Constitution, as far as will consist with the essential power of the Govt. on that head.

Mr Govr. Morris opposed the motion as setting a dishonorable mark of distinction on the military class of Citizens

Mr Pinkney & Mr. Bedford concurred in the opposition.

On the question

N. H--no--Mas--no--Ct no. N--J--no. Pa. no. Del. no. Maryd no Va ay-- N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. ay.



* * * *

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14

Records of the Federal Convention

<2:330; Madison, 18 Aug.>

"To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land & naval forces,"--added from the existing Articles of Confederation.

Mr. L. Martin and Mr. Gerry now regularly moved "provided that in time of peace the army shall not consist of more than thousand men."

Genl. Pinkney asked whether no troops were ever to be raised untill an attack should be made on us?

Mr. Gerry. if there be no restriction, a few States may establish a military Govt.

Mr. Williamson, reminded him of Mr. Mason's motion for limiting the appropriation of revenue as the best guard in this case.

Mr. Langdon saw no room for Mr. Gerry's distrust of the Representatives of the people.

Mr. Dayton. preparations for war are generally made in peace; and a standing force of some sort may, for ought we know, become unavoidable. He should object to no restrictions consistent with these ideas.

The motion of Mr. Martin & Mr. Gerry was disagreed to nem. con.

[slackmaster]

18. The federal government didn't have a budget to support a standing army

The Continental Navy was all it could afford before they started taxing liquor.

[Callisto32]

19. I would think a big part was the avoidance of taxes.

Armies are hella expensive, and the English one of the time was being used to oppress the very people paying for it. Considering "high" taxes were a major impetus for the revolutionaries, it only makes sense that they would try to avoid a major reason to have high taxes.

Same thing goes for the clause requiring that the military be reauthorized every two years. If you wanted a perpetual, standing army like we have now, why even bother. The intent was obviously NOT what we have now where they are voted up mechanically every two years. Raised at time of need, kept for two years, disbanded. Repeat as necessary.

[gorfle]

20. If you read contemporary writings, you will see...

I would think a big part was the avoidance of taxes.

The founders describe standing armies as "dangerous to liberty".

Cost probably a consideration, but not the main consideration.

[Callisto32]

23. Of course they are dangerous to liberty.

But that point has been made here so many times that I tried not to beat a dead horse.

Though, I guess in a way I was still saying that since higher taxes, by the very nature of taxes, will mean lower liberty because you have less to spend as you see fit.