Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

19th-Century Americans Didn't "Support the Troops"


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://mises.org/wire/19th-century-americans-didnt-support-troops

Quote

Were an American from the mid-nineteenth century to time-travel to modern America, he'd be truly amazed to find that Americans are often expected to thank soldiers "for your service" and to act as if the military was doing the taxpayer a favor.

The lionizing of government employees in uniform has become standard fare in the post-9-11 world, with special discounts for members of the military, early boarding on airplanes, and free meals at restaurants.

It's quite a contrast from the attitude of Americans during the first century of the republic, however.

Of this, the examples are numerous.

For example, in his memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant recounts how he trotted out into the streets of Cincinnati after first receiving his uniform as an officer. According to Grant:

I donned [the uniform] and set off for Cincinnati on horseback. While I was ... imagining that everyone was looking at me ... a little urchin, bareheaded, barefooted with a dirty and ragged pants ... turned to me and said "Soldier! will you work? No sir-ee: I'll sell my shirt first."1

This attitude, Richard Bruce Winders explains in his history of James A. Polk, "illustrates the image of soldiers, common in the 1840s, as slackers on the public dole."2 Indeed, even as late at 1891, a speech published in the Christian journal The Churman recounted Grant's anecdote and concluded "the national contempt" for the army was based on the fact "it is 'such a lazy life.'"3

Nor did such attitudes begin in the 1840s. In his biography of George Washington, Mason Locke Weems notes the lack of concern over American casualties suffered under Anthony Wayne in a battle with the Shawnee in 1794:

However, after the first shock, the loss of these poor souls was not much lamented. Tall young fellows, who could easily get their half dollar a day at the healthful and glorious labor of the plough, to go and enlist and rust among the lice and itch of a camp, for four dollars a month, were certainly not worth their country's crying about. [Emphasis in the original.]4

The Militia vs. The Federal Military

This general contempt for soldiering wasn't applied to all soldiers. In nineteenth century America, it was considered honorable to be a militia man — a part-time soldier tasked with protecting one's community from raiding Indians and gangs and thugs. It was something else, entirely, however, to be a professional, full-time soldier. Those people, it was commonly felt, were indeed what we today would call "welfare queens" living off the hard work of American taxpayers. In other words, for Americans of the time, it was laudable to take up arms in defense of one's community. But one was also expected to get a real job.

[RELATED: "Why We Can't Ignore the 'Militia' Clause of the Second Amendment" by Ryan McMaken.]

Put another way, the militias were one thing. The "standing army" was something else entirely.

This isn't surprising given the general disdain for standing armies in early America. The fear and contempt for standing armies was the primary motivation for the Second Amendment — an amendment designed to encourage and protect local militias and the ownership of firearms outside of federal control. According to historian Marcus Cunliffe, this attitude goes back to the days of American resentment over British regulars being quartered and fed using the using the housing and food of American civilians. In many cases, Americans begrudgingly tolerated the imposition, but after the Revolution, this attitude toward professional soldiers was simply transferred from British troops to American federal troops.5

Indeed, even members of the military were aware of their semi-pariah status.In a speech to military cadets, officer Benjamin Butler concluded in 1849 that, "large standing armies" are "productive of needless expenditure; injurious to the habits and morals of the people." Even within military families full off federal officers, one brother might advise another in 1845 that "I by no means desire that my sons should ever wear a sword. I would certainly prefer that they should become honest, industrious mechanics."6

This would echo a common sentiment of the period that even for those who did spend some time as a professional soldier, it was best to use "every kind of negative and positive inducement" to encourage a soldier "to turn himself back into a civilian before it was too late."7

In practice, of course, few Americans ever had to deal in person with any of these federal officers they so disdained. As Cunliffe notes,

Americans in many areas had no idea what a regular officer looked like. Regular soldiers existed for them only as caricatures — the enlisted men as drunkards and "mercenaries," the officers as haughty "aristocrats."8

Decades later, the rarity of federal officers remained a point of pride for critics of the standing army up until the First World War. In a 1914 semi-humorous editorial in Collier's magazine titled "Why We Cannot Have a Standing Army," George Fitch is grateful the United States is not like the Old World where "working people of Europe must" support millions of soldiers "in idleness." In America, Fitch happily reminds his readers , "millions of people live and die without seeing a member of the regular Army."

When forced to deal with a standing army, however, Fitch suggests the soldiers be equipped with a rickshaw and "plac[ed] at the service of the public" so that the taxpayers might go "joyriding" and thus more easily endure the burden imposed by the "armed hordes."9

Such rhetoric in the mid-nineteenth century would have extremely commonplace. But in the decades following the Civil War, the sheer number of military veterans — combined with the fact their state militia units had been mostly federalized in the conflict — meant soldiers more commonly came to be regarded as objects of reverence rather than suspicion. It was just one of the ways the United States became "federalized" after the Civil War. Military service became less about service to one's particular community, and more about national service. This change was helped along by federal legislation which blurred — and eventually all but abolished — the line between state militias and the federal military. Today, the militias have been transformed into the National Guard and made de facto permanent instruments of federal military policy. The distinction between the "citizen soldier" and the professional hireling been almost totally erased, and there is no longer any cultural mandate to suspect federal troops of wasting the taxpayers' hard-earned cash. Indeed, the taxpayers are often now expected to thank the soldiers for doing a service the taxpayer already pays handsomely for. 

Our nineteenth century time traveler would find this state of affairs to be very odd indeed.

Yes, very odd.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

A 19th century time traveler would undoubtedly find many other things in the modern U.S. to be odd -- the majority of the population living in urban settings; large numbers of women working outside the home; most families having less than three children; beer usually served cold, etc.

"Odd" in this context just means different, not a value judgment. (Except for the beer thing - warm beer sucks.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the comments to this opinion piece states:

Quote

I'm quite shocked that this article hasn't garnered the contempt of the millions in the American big government "conservative" statist crowd. As a veteran of the first (Bush 1) Gulf war, I fully agree that US military personnel are indeed quite the loafers, as I've seen it first hand. I see them as nothing more than "work for welfare" and I frankly have difficulty fathoming the source of the "thank you for your service" nonsense that goes on today. Why should veterans and active duty service members be thanked for the service that the citizens were forced (at gunpoint or upon threat of imprisonment if need be) to pay for? I find "thank you for your service" to be trite, stale, and meaningless, and when people say it to me, I tell them that 1) I should be thanking you as you paid my way and 2) my mission was to blow up the world, hardly something to thank me for.

The only saving grace is that I'm not a recipient of lifetime retirement benefits....so one less permanent dole recipient for a bankrupt America.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I would love to see this guy and you try to hang with my son for one day.....and weekends....and nights.....guarantee he's not on HS football blog in the middle of his work day.

But yet his father is, frequently. Can you hang with your son for one day....and weekends...and nights, TrojanDad?

28 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

 But what kills me is why do you give a flip da$N why others choose to say thanks?  People can make up their own freakin' mind.  Geesh let it go!

So you disagree with these statements from the opinion piece?:

Quote

 Today, the militias have been transformed into the National Guard and made de facto permanent instruments of federal military policy. The distinction between the "citizen soldier" and the professional hireling been almost totally erased, and there is no longer any cultural mandate to suspect federal troops of wasting the taxpayers' hard-earned cash. Indeed, the taxpayers are often now expected to thank the soldiers for doing a service the taxpayer already pays handsomely for. 

Why or why not?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrojanDad said:

and the same for the idiot making the quotes.

You really sure about that? It sounds like your son is some kind of world class athlete.  Is he?

 

3 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I'm not interested in debating against people that are ignorant on the topic and have an agenda.

Agenda?  Exactly what agenda are you talking about TD?    

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

World class athlete?  Not sure about that....but there is a ton of ground in the middle between a world class athlete and a loafer, don't you think?

I'm not sure the caliber of athlete it takes to perform a 12 mile timed march on hilly or mountainous terrain with a 70lb ruck on your back, climb the side of a mountain in sub-freezing temps, snowshoe hike for miles before the start of the mission, or jump from a helicopter into 38F temp water, swim for over a 1/4 mile in full gear, then get out and start the mission.  I will tell you this....not many people in our society can accomplish those tasks.

So you are saying your son performs at least one of those physicals feats on a regular, says weekly or monthly, basis in his current position?

13 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Agenda....c'mon Muda....we all know your agenda when it comes to the military.  

That it unfortunately has become more of a tool of the military-industrial complex, protecting their corporate interests around the globe,  than a primarily defensive force?  Yeah, if that opinion is also an 'agenda'  then I guess you are correct.   

Reminds me of this little 'meme' I came across recently:

war-who-is-it-good-for-boeing-raytheon-support-our-smaller.png

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So you are saying your son performs at least one of those physicals feats on a regular, says weekly or monthly, basis in his current position?

That it unfortunately has become more of a tool of the military-industrial complex, protecting their corporate interests around the globe,  than a primarily defensive force?  Yeah, if that opinion is also an 'agenda'  then I guess you are correct.   

Reminds me of this little 'meme' I came across recently:

war-who-is-it-good-for-boeing-raytheon-support-our-smaller.png

If you had been born 15 years earlier, would you be living in Canada now?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

quite often...one can't do those tasks without steady practice....to include being in amazing shape and repetition. (mastery of the skill)

Impressive.  What exactly is his current job/rank/position in the U.S. military?  I also assume he is posted at a military facility where geography like mountains, snowfields, and 38F water are just down the road?

 

15 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Do you spend time on your computer daily as an IT professional?

7 days a week?  No, in fact this weekend I hope not to touch a computer at all.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I was using those as examples of what they face.

I won't discuss my son's personals in the Army.  I can't.  He is an officer and he has earned elite tabs.  He spent 3 years plus in exactly the terrain I just mentioned above.  He is in tough terrain right now.  His past has also included mountains, shoeshoes, skiis, and Artic training.  Oh yeah....and swamps....Also includes going out of airplanes and helicopters.  Trust me when I say, you and I couldn't hang an hour when he and the other "loafers" are in the field

Sounds like an Adonis among us regular males.  

20 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Also, don't be coy.  I am talking a normal work week....many of his work weeks do go into and sometimes through the weekends.  And his hours aren't always 7am - 5pm.  

Not having a clue about someone or the world they live, doesn't stop you from continuing to comment, does it?

Sometimes my 'work week' extends into Saturday/Sunday, depends on the project. And I get paid by the project, so my hours aren't always 7am-5pm either.   Sounds like somebody else needs to get a clue about someone or the world they live in..........................

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrojanDad said:

Perhaps it does to guys that sits behind a desk.  Regular males.....hmmm...

Look, you have disdain for the military.  I get it.  If you want to take any article that supports your personal belief that is grossly inaccurate and extreme and post it, knock yourself out.  I'm just calling your out for repeated attacks based on personal motive.  Don't thank military personnel.  That is your right in this country.  But if you think for one second you influence others to believe the way you do, you are sorely misguided.

You are just a hard working son-of-a gun.....hope you can avoid injuries such as carpal tunnel.  Wish that was all service members needed to work about.  I wonder if their compensation is similar to yours as well.....

Also, no one has labeled you as a "loafer"......

 

By all means TD, tells us about the huge daily physical demands of your current career.  I hope you can avoid injuries like hemorrhoids.

And I have explained thoroughly my issues with the current administration of the U.S. Military and what it is used for worldwide.  If you don't believe any of that has one bit of truth to it then frankly you are blinded by nationalism and the booyah! hyper macho culture still present in today's U.S. Military.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

BS flag thrown. Your initial post was was in regards to not saying thanks to soldiers in a previous century and making a personal note about members of the military being loafers. This was not about govt. Its not the first time you’ve made your opinion clear about not thanking troops. 

Don’t change the topic. Be a man and stand tall when it comes to what you’ve posted. At the end of the day, I don’t give a rat’s red butt what you think. You invest NOTHING other than expelling hot air....and lots of it. 

Again, don’t thanks the troops.  But after repeated posts on this, why do you feel your thoughts need to be validated?  Feel the way you want to feel man....but stop preaching. It’s old and boring. 

And I call bullshit on your bullshit TD.   The exact reason why an individual may not want to "thank the troops" is due to the way the federal government is being controlled by the military-industrial complex.  You continue to keep your rat's red butt up in the air and your head in the sand.

And I've changed no topic,  and continue to "stand tall" when it comes to what I've posted.  Just because you immediately become personally butt hurt when anybody dares to criticize any aspect of the U.S. Military is your personality flaw, not mine.  And your voluminous amount of hot air is the exact same temperature as mine,  friend.

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 10:42 PM, TrojanDad said:

I guess what a “regular male” (giving yourself way too much credit) doesn’t comprehend is that the brave men and women that raise their right hand and take an oath to defend their fellow countrymen aren’t politicians. They don’t decide when and where. They answer the call of their country. I get that that concept is totally foreign to you. 

Frankly I don't understand how a principled individual can join the U.S. military,  be shipped out to the Middle East to basically guard oil and poppy fields and the behest of the M-I-C, and not become completely disillusioned.    Rah-rah patriotism,   "call of your country" rhetoric can only take you so far,  just ask our Vietnam war veterans.

On 11/15/2019 at 10:42 PM, TrojanDad said:

I took exception to you posting some idiot’s comments referring to our military as loafers. That was it...expanding it to all aspects of the military is you moving the goalposts again. 

Then why don't you contact that 'idiot', who surely seems to have more boots-on-the-ground military experience than you do, and tell him his comments hurt your widdle feelings?  

On 11/15/2019 at 10:42 PM, TrojanDad said:

Just continue your excessive whining....we don’t depend on you anyway.  We will leave that up to the real “regular males and females”.

Who exactly is "we", TD?  Sounds to me like it is just you once again living vicariously though your children.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL...yea...that's what all the military does...guard poppy fields.  Your insight and knowledge is tremendous.  😆

The military is a large organization...just like in industry, there are plenty of overhead, support types for the ones that actually do the fighting.  I will tell you this idiot didn't serve in a forward combat unit and use the word "loafers" with an ounce of credibility.  But I get he wrote or stated what you wish to align with.  I will take the word of my son and the sons and daughters of family and friends that currently serve when it comes to insight.  You go ahead and use the article's quote for gospel.

"We" refers to our country...I am grouping myself as a member of this country.....go back and try reading again.  I am glad our country doesn't depend of the courage and fortitude of people like you.  Is that clear?  Living vicariously through my children?  If that means being proud and knowing my son has more qualities as a man than you can ever hope to possess in a thousand lifetimes.....well, then according to your definition..guilty as charged.

I think your are a sad, disgruntled little man that just loves to sit in a warm room behind a computer and yell the same stuff over and over and over and over and over....on a high school football forum.....so knock yourself out.....I'm done.  

Where did I ever say guarding poppy field is all the U.S. military does, TD?    Do you believe guarding such fields is a legitimate use of the U.S. military?  Why or why not?

Interesting that you only believe the words and insights of the "sons and daughters of family and friends that currently serve" and automatically dismiss the words and insights of other servicemen and veterans.  And you chastise me for only writing/stating what you "wish to align with".   Isn't there a world for that? Oh yeah, it's called hypocrite............

You said it yourself TD, the U.S. military is a large organisation.  Yet you seem to believe that "sons and daughters of family and friends that currently serve" represent that entirety of the U.S. military, therefore any other conflicting viewpoint must be a lie and have zero credibility.  What an incredible, myopic view.

And I know I have won the argument when you descend into insult after insult.  Just like an adolescent.  Please tell us all about the "warm computer room" you sit in to hurl invective and insults at others.   BTW, I spend this past weekend outdoors, sleeping on the ground under a tarp in below freezing conditions.  Why?  Because I enjoy being outdoors and the challenge such conditions present.   Did you even leave your warm computer room, TD?

  

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I hate falling for your bait.....but you are just so darn irritating.

You have quoted the poppy field thing over and over and over like a broken record.  Its like a dog chasing a parked car.  To answer your question, it depends on strategy.  If it is to keep money source out of the hands of the enemy, then it makes sense.  No different that keeping the enemy away from oil fields or any other potential source of revenue to fund their war effort.

I take issue with your excessive posts of how bad the military is....in this case, finding a source to call them loafers.  Its junior high man.  Anything you can find negative and its on this forum.  Shock me and say something positive once in a while about the young men and women that invest so much in protection of our country, and then you'll get my attention.  But until then, its the same old agenda.  Again, don't say thank you to a soldier if that makes you feel better.  But why the excessive posts stating your positive over and over.  Just simply walk by a soldier, ignore them, sneer at them, or whatever.  But why do you need others to validate your disdain for the military and the people in it?  I am sure many feel the way you do.  We get how you feel.....we really do.

You need to look in the mirror when it comes to tone. insults, condescending words, etc.  I admit...I find your constant attacks at the military in such poor taste....and as such, its hard for me to find respect.  But hey, you slept outdoors in the cold....if only those "loafers" in the military ever had to deal with such tough conditions.

 

I support a U.S. Military as defined by the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.    I don't support a U.S. military that IMHO has strayed way, way beyond the bounds imposed by that great document.  Do you?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...