"National Walk-Out Day"

[Dill]

(03-20-2018, 09:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think the founders did envision the possibility of a standing army, and they placed checks on it by putting the President in charge, but requiring Congress to pay for it every two years.

As I mentioned above, there was a debate about this. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no president. And most state representatives apparently wanted no standing army, especially after they believed the Continental Army threatened to march on Congress in '83. Also, there was a terrific money problem. The US was in debt. Keeping armies was expensive. Taxes were hard to raise. States did not want a Federal army which could turn against a state, etc. State militia could handle small threats like native Americans. No worries about an invasion from Europe.

A few people, like Hamilton, "envisioned" a standing army, and Washington definitely wanted one (and a military academy too) but were voted down (at least twice) in '83.  What changed this, in part, was difficulty finishing off the separation of territory and forts from Great Britain. I can't remember the particulars now, but some British in North American forts disputed the US interpretation of how/whether those forts were to be turned over to the U.S.  And the U.S virtually had no army to back up their interpretation. So a small standing army of some 500 soldiers and some artillerists was provided for in '84.  Still under the AC and no president yet. In '87, Madison and Adams were still railing against the idea of a standing army as the first step on a slippery slope to "enslavement" when they opened the process to frame a Constitution with an Executive power.

PS what is your source for placing the president in charge as a "check"?  Article II of the Constitution makes him commander in chief, but so far as I know, that was a worry, not a check. Necessary but concerning.

PPS Washington had all kinds of problems keeping the Continental Army together precisely because it was not a standing Army and had such begrudged backing from Congress.  That horrible 8-year experience informed his push for a standing army. Part of the argument for that, too, was that the US was now responsible for "territorial" acquisitions which belonged to the government and no state in particular, and so no state could be responsible for defending them--especially in the South and along the Northwest territories.