One of the primary reasons the founders wanted a strong militia system with a well-armed general public was to minimize or even eliminate the need for a large, permanent standing army, even in times of peace. Most people in the founding generation were extremely wary of standing armies. They were often referred to as “the bane of liberty.” They knew this from experience. From the standing armies that led to the massacre in Boston, to the gun control scheme that kicked off the war for independence – they lived it firsthand. As colonial resistance to taxes and other policies grew in 1774, the British responded by attempting to disarm the colonists. Noah Webster understood this danger well, saying, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” George Mason also minced no words. “I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army.” St George Tucker warned what would happen if there was a standing army and the people were disarmed: “This may be considered the true palladium of liberty. … The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” This is why so many in the founding generation favored a strong militia system. Patrick Henry summed it up during the Virginia ratifying convention. “The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.” Why did the founders trust the militia and not a standing army? Because as George Mason said, the militia consists of “the whole people, except a few public officers.” In other words, the people ultimately maintain control over the militia. In fact, they are the militia. But the government controls a standing army. It effectively serves as an extension of the government. Henry Knox served as the first secretary of war in the U.S., and he recognized this distinction. In a letter to George Washington sharing his plan for organizing the militia dated 18 Jan. 1790, he emphasized that the militia should provide the primary defense and a standing army was distinct from the people at large. “An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the Capital security of a free republic; and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the community.” He went on to say that “whatever may be the efficacy of a standing army in war, it cannot in peace be considered as friendly to the rights of human nature.” [Emphasis added] |