Militias Versus A Standing Army

Militias versus a Standing Army Name: Institution: Date: Introduction The constitution of the United States is one of the oldest in the world. It is, however, important to note that when it was being adopted, many Americans were largely divided over its worth and excellence. After delegates of the Federal Convention of 1787 accomplished and fulfilled their responsibilities and cast their votes to approve the newly developed constitution, some members declined to vote and only thirty-nine out of the fifty-five delegates who gave their signature. One major issue which raised concerns among the people revolved around the formation of militias and a standing army. This paper will critically examine whey militia were advocated and explain why the authors disapproved those arguments. First, the militia was advocated and recommended because they were thought as being more uninformed and organized just like the military. For this reason, some of the individuals thought that arming and organizing them would help them in governing part of them because they had equal intelligence with the personnel employed in the service. It is also important to note that militias were considered as an effective means of ensuring peace in the state governments and the states would be responsible for their militia. This was viewed as a convenient way of reducing or distributing the powers held by the federal government, and it was an efficient and better way of ensuring internal peace since the militia did not require skill and or science of war to acquire the organization which is attributed to the military. The use militia was therefore seen as a suitable means of promoting public defence.[Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. 2001. "The Federalist." Edited by George W. and James McClellan Carey. 1-553.] Furthermore, militias would also aid in reducing the need for more military camps. The training and regulation of the militias would help in delivering and accomplishing desirable conformity, raise the degree of proficiency and also reduce variation from military functions. If properly controlled and managed, the militia was regarded as the most natural form of defence that should be exhibited in a free country. Furthermore, the establishment of militias would help the state governments together with the people to form alliances which can repel any danger from the federal government as well as from other nations. People believed that the regular army which was formed and funded by the federal government was not big and strong enough to defend the country from external threats and promote peace in the country. Individuals who had participated in the resistance against the British army were confident that a well-trained and organized militia would overcome any “proportion of regular troops”.[Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. 2001. "The Federalist." Edited by George W. and James McClellan Carey. 1-553.] [Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. 2001. "The Federalist." Edited by George W. and James McClellan Carey. 1-553.] Besides, the force was viewed as the sole instrument of authority, and this made individuals such as Alexander Hamilton support the establishment of militias in the various states as a means of distributing power and influence between the federal and the state governments. Hamilton stipulated that the militias would be deployed for aid by the federal government in instances when the standing army posed a significant threat to the independence and freedom of the civilians. With the establishment of proper innovations in the militias, then there would be deviance between the military and the well-trained civilians since they would have equal levels of expertise. Although the authors explained how to help in protecting the citizens and distributing power and authority betwee...