What was the founding father's intent for militias?

[gorfle]

Why do you think the founding fathers originally set up our armed forces to be controlled and run at the state level, instead of the federal level?

[notadmblnd]

1. because it was a tool for keeping the federal government in check?

[havocmom]

Partly because they just fought a horrible war against a despotic state?

Of they wanted to make sure DEMs in the future would keep losing elections by parsing words and trying to prevent people from being prepared to deal with a despotic state?

[Demeter]

2. To Avoid a Standing Army

and to prevent the rise of the warrior caste, of which John McCain is the current poster child, and Eisenhower and Patton and McArthur are previous poster children.

[Virginia Dare]

3. I think the Founding Fathers envisioned a National Guard...

instead of a federally controlled and funded military system.

[davepc]

9. Actually the specifically didn't want the national guard system that the Prussians and others used

at the time.

The founders wanted to copy what the Swiss had back then and still have today.

A body of armed men good for the DEFENCE of the state, not a force used to occupy and conquer.

The Civil War and World War I in short order saw that ideal fall by the wayside.

Northern State militias were inadequate to take the battle to the Confederacy, so the origins of the Reserve and National Guard system we have today took hold to supplant the state militias. World War I saw those changes codified in law. The "National Guard" as we know it is only 100 years old.

[kansas city]

10. I don't think so.

First of all the age to be in the Militia was 16 to 65. The Age to be in the National Guard is 17 with a waiver to mandatory retirement at age 60.

The Militia was designed to protect the community and for all able bodied males of age to carry a musket to be mustered to do so.

The National Guard is the Part Time Regular Army. They get the same weapons and training and uniforms as the "Regular" Army and have been subject to deployment overseas just like the rest of the Army.

Militia are not intended to leave the immediate community as that would leave it defenseless.

[gorfle]

12. Why?

Why do you think they envisioned such a system?

[ac2007]

4. Because they saw what a standing army was capable of

The Founding Fathers lived under a system of tyranny that was enforced by the presence of the King's standing army. Got some unruly colonists angry at the Crown? March in 500 Redcoats and force them to be quartered in the very houses of said colonists. The chilling effects that the presence of the standing army had on the colonies and its role in enforcing the King's desires and edicts had no small part to play in the Revolution. The placement of the 3rd Amendment is not accidental. Read the Declaration of Independence. The Founders had a serious beef with the role of Britain's standing army in their oppression. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Amendments were all written with that oppression in mind and were intended that such oppression not occur again at the hands of a new standing army of the Republic.

Giving that one of the roles the British army engaged in was to disarm the local militias, it isn't hard to figure out why the Founders wanted them protected. It was the attempted disarmament of local militias at Lexington and Concord that were the opening shots of the Revolution.

Why the Founding Fathers did what they did is amply shown by history itself.

[jmg257]

5. Because, no matter why, there would be mistrust of the new central govt.

They asked ALOT of the states in giving up the powers they did over their Militias; it could not be reasonably expected that the states would give up ALL power over them (although there were debates about this). Not everyone in the Confederation was for a strong(er) central govt, and especially one that controlled ALL the preferred military power.

They also hoped that tension would exist between the States and the Feds, and so serve as an additional check on too much power be concentrated, and ensure the Militias would remain the most effective - the recourse being a standing army.

The MAIN reason was to prevent a tyrannical govt from getting exclusive control of a large military force. Even IF a standing army was come to exist, the people - the Militias, would still be superior to them in arms.

Quote: " if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens" Hamilton Fed #29

[benEzra]

6. As a check and balance to the power of the new Federal government.

Please note that the militia is not the armed forces of the United States; Congress's power to "Raise and Support Armies" is enumerated in the body of the Constitution and has nothing to do with the militia.

The militia is the people, not a paid fighting force at any level; that's why the 2ndA recognizes the right to keep (own) and bear arms as the right of the people, not the states.

[LiberalFighter]

7. From the Articles of Confederation the forerunner to the Constitution

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

[jmg257]

8. Note: there is NO "federal" involvment/role of the Militia. QUITE different from the Constitution..

though the Articles DID mandate that each state keep up an effective Militia. Many of those Militias already existed, 1st in the colonies, common wealths, and then the States.

[kansas city]

11. Why the Militia?

Like everyone is saying so far, the Militia is for defense from enemies foreign or domestic. Foreign being an invasion from a foreign power and domestic being any domestic threat be it home grown or a threat by tyrannical Local or Federal Government that managed to gain power.

There was a huge Militia movement during the 90s that was shut down by the Oklahoma Bombing. After the Bombing and the Government blamed it on the militia movement, people distanced themselves from the militia and it all but vanished over night.