Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antipitas
I'll give you a partial slide about the Guard being the lineal descendent.
|
Ok, we have some common ground then.
Now as to the use of the militia. Actually, there were several points of contention between the states and the Fed about the use ofthe Militia and those contentions carried on into the 1990s with Perpich vs. DoD 110 S.Ct. 2418 1990. Some southern states withheld large portions of their militias during the Revolutionary War to protect against feared slave uprisings. During the Constitutional Convention there was concern that the unprecedented power given Congress to organize, train, discipline, arm and call forth the militia worried many anti-federalists. The provision to allow the states to appoint their officers was a compromise as was the 2A which ensured the states could arm the militias if the Fed would not. However, the Federalist won the day on Federal control. Nowhere in the COUTUS does it say the militia may not be used overseas. States may have opposed such but I think there was no support in the courts for such opposition. You may know better on that one.
Quote:
As of the late 1870's all men in the United States between the ages of 18 and 45 were obliged to serve in the militia and to arm and equip themselves for that purpose...Only a few took that seriously...Within a dozen years after the Civil War, however, increasing numbers of men began to take an interest in the militia. They formed units, drilled, and bought uniforms and arms. They were the nucleus of the National Guard. Very early they turned to political activity.
The National Guard Association was formed to seek a new militia law from Congress...The object was to have the Guard recognized in federal law as the "organized militia." This would distinguish Guard members from the vast majority of men between 18 and 45 years who were legally classified as militia but who did not actually serve.
The Guard, which was the militia in fact, would be acknowledged as such in law. Not until 1903 was the Guard able to achieve this its major political goal. ln the meantime, it thrived with the help from the states.
Observers in the 1880's and subsequent students have identified the labor riots of 1877 as the cause of the Guard's sudden growth. Unquestionably, industrial violence provided much of the impetus. Fear of violence by "anarchists, internationalist, and nihilists" led state and local governments to strengthen the militia forces. Development of the Guard began and proceeded fastest in the populous, industrial states of the North- Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois. In addition to the appropriations from state and local governments, the Guard received substantial private funds from wealthy businessmen- Martha Derthick, The National Guard in Politics, pp. 15-17.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antipitas
The States lost their militias to the ever expanding power of the feds. Any control that the States may have today over their own militia, is at the whim of the federal government.
|
Where we differ is I say that control was lost when the COTUS was ratified and not in 1903. It was always the intent of the Federalists (who were the majority) that the militia ultimately fall under the control of the Fed. The problem with the Spanish American War (as had been a problem before) was that the militias were untrained and unprepared for combat. Teddy Roosevelt who particpated in that war saw the problems with the system and replaced the archaic militia with the modern national guard and the states went along with it willingly for the most part.
So I think the militia died out in part because;
a. The American people don't like compulsory military training and would rather pay others to do it b. Modern Warfare does not lend itself to a militia system for a world power c. Separate state militias would be nigh impossible to effectively train and equip without strong Federal contol d. Nuclear weapons make it foreign invasion (from non-space aliens) impossible.