The Creation of the U.S. Army: A Socialist Agenda or Necessity?

For centuries, the role of militias has been a fundamental aspect of American defense. However, the formation of the U.S. Army as a permanent standing force represents a significant shift in military structure. This article explores the reasons behind this transition, delving into the political and social context of its creation.

From Militias to the U.S. Army

In early American history, militias primarily served as local, volunteer forces. These militias were intended to be available during times of crisis or to support a larger standing army during wars. However, the effectiveness and the lack of consistent training and discipline among these militias led to concerns about their reliability in times of national need.

The need for a more stable and efficient military capability became increasingly apparent, especially during the economic turmoil of the Great Depression and the subsequent global conflicts. The U.S. Army's creation was not solely a reaction to these events, but rather part of a broader political agenda.

A Socialist Agenda

During the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the U.S. underwent significant economic and social changes through programs collectively known as the 'New Deal.' FDR and his administration were influenced by socialist ideas, aimed at stemming the economic tide of the Depression and preventing future economic crises.

The creation of a standing army was seen as a means to provide employment and support for lower-class men, while also ensuring a ready force capable of defending the nation. This had the added benefit of making individuals more dependent on the government, undergirding the New Deal's broader goals.

Public Perception and Government Strategy

The government's strategy in creating the U.S. Army involved several psychological and logistical tactics. First, a perceived necessity was created, often by highlighting potential threats both foreign and domestic. The narrative was then built up that these threats were too great for individuals to handle alone.

Once this was established, the government advocated for militia training and eventually a standing army to ‘defend’ the nation. This was frequently followed by the introduction of taxes to fund these new military forces.

The mechanism for raising money was a key element, leading to the passage of the 16th Amendment, which allowed for an income tax, justifying the substantial expenses of maintaining and expanding the military.

It is important to note that this process was not unique to the military. Similar strategies were applied to other government services, such as those provided by the police, firefighters, and teachers, cementing the government's role in American life.

Historical Context and Case Study

One historical event that underscores the tension between militias and a standing army is the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. Research from the diary of a sergeant in the Maryland Continental Line provides a fascinating insight into the behavior of the local militia.

According to the sergeant's diary, the North Carolina militia was notorious for arriving at the camp the night before battle, consuming all the food, drinking the liquor, and then mysteriously disappearing before dawn. This behavior not only hindered logistical preparations but also reflected a lack of discipline and commitment among these irregular forces.

A similar incident occurred during the American Revolutionary War, when the North Carolina militia met British forces led by Cornwallis at Clench’s Bridge. According to Tarlton, Cornwallis’s cavalry commander, the battle ended in a mere skirmish. The militia fired a few shots and then fled, leaving one man wounded who was taken off the field. The British continued their march to Enfield and then to Halifax, where a different concern arose—two British soldiers were accused of rape. Cornwallis summarily executed them and hanged them in the town square as a deterrent.

The contrast between these two events serves as a reminder of the limitations and inconsistent performance of local militias. While the militia had allure as a patriotic force, their lack of discipline and training made them unreliable in critical moments of conflict.

Conclusion

The creation of the U.S. Army was a multifaceted process deeply rooted in political, economic, and social contexts. While the establishment of a standing army was driven by the need for a more efficient and consistent defense force, it also served as a tool for social and economic engineering under the guise of 'national security.' Understanding this historical context not only provides insight into the evolution of American military and political structures but also sheds light on the broader mechanisms used by governments to influence public opinion and justify their role in national life.

If you found this discussion compelling, you might want to explore further how similar strategies are used in modern times, how it affects contemporary military policies, and the broader implications for American society.