Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
The vast majority of Founding Fathers, and a majority of the most influential Founding Fathers, supported the militia as the primary means of national defense. This majority allowed for the creation of a standing army for emergency situations, but did not intend for it to replace the militia as the primary means of defense. They believed the United States should remain neutral in foreign wars and should use the militia and army for defensive purposes only. They would not support current U.S. foreign policy.
|
As someone studying history, I have to agree with this. Note that during the war of 1812, EVERY MAJOR BATTLE was fought by militia. The Battle of New Orleans in particular, where we had pirates, frontiersmen, farmers, city gentlemen, FRENCHMEN, and countless other groups of people all turn out to defend the city.
This war took place with the ideals of the founding fathers fresh in everyone's heads, and still with national pride resultant of the Revolution strong in everyone's minds. If the government were to supply for any major standing force, it would only be the navy, as was outlined in the Naval Act of 1794, and this was only because of the high cost required to build ships of war.
Even in the Civil War, the wide majority of the soldiers on the Union side were volunteer militia.
Our founding fathers saw the standing army as the tool of tyranny. If an army was constantly maintained and controled by the government, it posed a threat to liberty, and also would lead to the nation getting involved in foreign conflict in which we had no place. They thusly relied on militia forces to defend the nation because the militia would only assemble when their homes or liberty were threatened.
The founding fathers would be appalled by the Iraq conflict because it is not America's place to police the world. We should take care of our own people and let the rest of the world do the same. If the people of another country are oppressed, they should rise up and revolt like we did.