Militia and the Second Amendment
There is a lot of propaganda about the concept of Militia. But there are three definitions we should focus on when talking about guns and the second amendment. These are:
- "Militia of the whole" refers to the drafting of the entire male population of an area into service.
- This was a concept that repeatedly failed to be practical. But it was ideologically preferable to the alternatives among (democratic) republicans over the alternatives.
- "Select Militia" Due to cost authorities were forced to select out smaller subsets of the citizenry. These select militia, preferably between 18-30, were younger, more trainable, and the government could afford. They also frightened Republicans
- "Standing Army" was what the founders were most afraid of. These were soldiers drafted into service, peace and war, and who served as a job. The government is at risk from a standing army because it has a separate identity, is often loyal to the State or who pays it. And is dangerous.
- The founders were scared of standing armies because of the risk of them gobbling up resources, engaging in corruption and tyranny and installing dictatorship or royalty.
They were also scared of private armies, though if the army was raised, authorized by the government it could be tolerable.
As I read the current propaganda about this subject I'm finding both standing armies and "select militia" criticized heavily by pundits who work for the NRA. The NRA formally understands that the second Amendment was written in the context of the militia portions of the Constitution, but they claim that it nevertheless grants an individual unregulated right to own firearms based on it. They use cherry picked "historiography" and a kind of faulty originalism to make this point.
Incoherent and contradictory debates are nothing new. When the Founders debated the constitution; Federalist versus Anti-Federalists, they were rightfully afraid of standing armies, of war between the states and of insurrection. The founders often used select militia and standing army interchangeably, and incoherently. For example:
 |
| Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=oXVOAQAAMAAJ&dq=Select%20Militia&pg=PA318#v=onepage&q=Select%20Militia&f=false |
Militia of the whole proved unworkable, especially as the country became more and more settled. The idea of taking farmers, bakers and tradesmen away from their daily chores and making them drill, carry arms, stand at order, and not poke each other or harm one another, never made much sense except in theory, or during emergencies. But for militia to be effective it has to drill, practice, have discipline and order. And training the entire male population to stand in orders and present arms is both an expensive and gargantuan task. In effect, the country has always relied on select militia or standing armies, with all the results the founders feared. Even in the South, where Mason, Madison, Jefferson and others gave high rhetoric to liberty and freedom, their militias excluded free black people, slaves, women, abolitionists and other people thought to be disorderly or rebellious. The South had, what were basically select militia and standing armies, whose main job was to catch escaped slaves, put down rebellious slaves and be ready for slave revolts. The high ideals of a Roman Republican army where everyone served and then returned to the plow afterwards, never quite matched a militia composed of all the men able to muster. That doesn't mean the concept was completely faulty, just that "militia of the whole" doesn't work. You can't arm everyone with weapons and expect anything but chaos and disorder, unless you can discipline and train everyone.
The country gave up on "militia of the whole" and eventually went to the National Guard. I read several articles that say they also gave up on the principles behind the militia, but I don't believe that is the case. I'm with Hamilton on that one.
Selective Service and the National Guard
Indeed Hamilton advocated for select militia in Federalist 29:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but 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. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
A select militia, composed of volunteers, serving for a period of time, and then returning home when their service was complete, was the principle of "Cincinnatus", on which founders like George Washington founded their efforts to create a National - "Continental" force. It also was the principle behind the draft "Selective service", our volunteer Army, and why US Officers only serve as long as they are advancing in rank. Standing Armies get sclerotic, dabble in politics or can come into the hands of demagogues. So can militia and any other organization. The training must always include civic education in the Federal, Commonwealth, Democratic and Republican principles that guide this country.
National Guard and ER Services As inheritors of Militia Concept
In a sense our public schools, public universities, Academies as well as the Army, Navy and Marines, are all intended to embody this schema of a military of citizen professionals who serve for love of country and don't expect their offices to be inherited or permanent.
The national guard embodies the militia part of this selective service schema. Spinoffs from the militia concepts ought to include non-military services like health care, teaching, and other roles necessary to a federation of Free Republics.
This is part of a series.
No comments:
Post a Comment