=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chapter 2 - Fear of Standing Armies: Colonial and Revolutionary Eras Fear of military oppression motivated many of the Europeans who migrated to the New World prior to 1775. This was particularly true of the largest group who made the dangerous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, those from the British Isles. The English settlers remembered the disruptions associated with the revolutionary disturbances that had taken place in England between 1640 and 1689. Others--from Scotland, Wales and Ireland--retained powerful memories of their unsuccessful struggles to maintain independence. The experience of constant warfare and its hardships was no less important among immigrants from the European continent, especially Germans from central Europe. They opposed all forms of unfettered military activity. Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth. American colonists expressed anti-military sentiments despite the fact that they often faced military dangers. There were conflicts with the Spanish and the French, and the colonists had to protect frontier areas from displaced Indian tribes. To meet most of these challenges, the colonists relied on a militia composed of male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, who were called into temporary military service during emergencies. Militiamen provided their own equipment, including rifles and horses. They were occasionally mustered for limited training. However, during the four wars with France that took place between 1689 and 1763, the colonial legislatures turned to a volunteer force instead of the militia. Even then, England contributed the most important military and naval forces to these wars, especially during the last one, the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763), which ended French control of Canada and greatly weakened the hostile Indian tribes. The successful defense of the American settlements during the colonial era strengthened local confidence that a militia or volunteers sufficed and that a standing army was not necessary to ensure security. Colonial legislatures, which possessed the power of the purse, proved effective in preserving control over military matters and resisting the English Crown. These bodies became the principal exponents of American ideas about the dangers of permanent military organizations, and they were the main advocates of civilian constraints on the military. After the French and Indian War, the British government imposed additional taxes and regulations on the American settlers. To encourage obedience to these measures, England sent some units of its regular army to America and garrisoned them in important locations, notably Boston, Massachusetts. The presence of these forces in that city helps to explain why it became an active center of resistance to English authority. One leader of the opposition to these English laws was Samuel Adams of Boston, who expressed the prevailing consensus: "A Standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People." On another occasion he wrote: "It is a very improbable assertion that any people can long maintain freedom, with a strong military power in the very heart of their country." The remedy for oppression he thought obvious: Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within the land, which by the way but rarely happens, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful & jealous eye over it; for the maxims and rules of the army, are essentially different from the genius of a free people, and the laws of a free government. Violence broke out in 1770--the outcome of a dispute between private citizens and English soldiers--an incident that became known as the "Boston Massacre"--in which British soldiers fired at demonstrators, killing five. By 1775 the Americans found themselves in open revolt against English authority backed up by military might. It was reminiscent of the military tyranny they had come to the New World to escape. When the United States declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration of Independence singled out among colonial grievances a catalog of English military measures: * The King [of England] has kept among us, in times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. * He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. The King was also arraigned for quartering troops in the homes of the populace and for exempting them from trial in local jurisdictions when they committed crimes. Finally, he was charged with "transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, devastation and tyranny." ("Mercenaries" referred to German-speaking troops known as Hessians who were brought to America to reinforce the English troops assigned to quell the Revolution.) The various state governments formed during the Revolution uniformly expressed views on the proper relationship between civil and military authority similar to those listed in the Declaration of Independence. For example, the Constitution of Pennsylvania explicitly endorsed traditional colonial views: "The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state," an allusion to the militia. "As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." The Pennsylvania document also echoed the Declaration of Independence in proclaiming that "the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." The experience of the colonial era and the Revolutionary War confirmed the American conviction that civilian control of the military was an indispensable attribute of liberty and therefore of democracy. It also reaffirmed the American belief that a militia system was an effective means of dealing with threats to security, whether from within or from foreign countries. Citizen-soldiers, called to arms in emergencies, could provide needed military personnel without threatening the well-being of the state or civilian values.