US: mandatory militia membership?

[Minchandre]

It's very odd to me that the US, unusually for Western nations, seems never to have had peacetime conscription. While I realize the background for this (notably, unlike most of Europe, it's never had a real enemy on its borders), it still seems like something interesting to consider, especially as the early US placed a lot of important on state militias.

I'm having difficulty figuring out whether/which state militias were de jure mandatory and which were simply de facto "volunteered for" by a large portion of the population, and when this stopped (was it the formalization of the National Guard? Was it after the Civil War?), what what sort of PoD would be deemed necessary to get at least some states to keep mandatory "conscription" to a militia even to the modern day (I'm picturing something more like Norway or Sweden than Israel or Korea, with a 6-12 month period of mostly training followed by regular refreshers, rather than an actual "standing army" sort of arrangement).

 

[CaliBoy1990]

It's very odd to me that the US, unusually for Western nations, seems never to have had peacetime conscription. While I realize the background for this (notably, unlike most of Europe, it's never had a real enemy on its borders), it still seems like something interesting to consider, especially as the early US placed a lot of important on state militias.

I'm having difficulty figuring out whether/which state militias were de jure mandatory and which were simply de facto "volunteered for" by a large portion of the population, and when this stopped (was it the formalization of the National Guard? Was it after the Civil War?), what what sort of PoD would be deemed necessary to get at least some states to keep mandatory "conscription" to a militia even to the modern day (I'm picturing something more like Norway or Sweden than Israel or Korea, with a 6-12 month period of mostly training followed by regular refreshers, rather than an actual "standing army" sort of arrangement).

You'd be hard-pressed to actually get this to work, TBH: the U.S. wasn't Israel, surrounded by arch-enemies on every side. In fact, here's the thing: peacetime universal conscription has actually been the exception in Western nations: only Israel, Switzerland, and a few others have ever done it. In order for this to change, there would need to be a fairly long reaching change in the situation post-Revolution-maybe the British convince some of the Native American tribes to continue fighting the Yankees even after the war's officially ended.....which may be difficult to pull off to a sufficient enough extent; however, though, if enough of the Natives *are* roused up, particularly in the South where they'd be most numerous at this point(AFAIK), the Americans could very well have a real problem on their hands-thus necessitating mandatory conscription for a time, at least until the Natives back off.

 

[galveston bay]

if you look closely at many state constitutions and the laws they enable, mandatory militia membership existed for a very long time. The Draft (conscription also known as selective service) is based on the premise (in the United States anyway) that all able bodied men are subject to call up for the defense of the community (enlarged to include their State and the Republic).

So to be more precise... are you discussing mandatory enrollment in an organized militia (with local companies and expanded into regiments etc) Or simply talking about universal military service in the unorganized militia

Because the second already exists in law and tradition (blame the Germans and then the English for that one)

Also the US had a peacetime draft from 1945 until the 1970s (keep in mind technically Vietnam and Korea were not wars) with the size of the draft callup varying from year to year. Elvis Presley and Jimmy Hendricks were called up in peacetime to name a couple of famous examples

 

[Alstein]

It's very odd to me that the US, unusually for Western nations, seems never to have had peacetime conscription. While I realize the background for this (notably, unlike most of Europe, it's never had a real enemy on its borders), it still seems like something interesting to consider, especially as the early US placed a lot of important on state militias.

I'm having difficulty figuring out whether/which state militias were de jure mandatory and which were simply de facto "volunteered for" by a large portion of the population, and when this stopped (was it the formalization of the National Guard? Was it after the Civil War?), what what sort of PoD would be deemed necessary to get at least some states to keep mandatory "conscription" to a militia even to the modern day (I'm picturing something more like Norway or Sweden than Israel or Korea, with a 6-12 month period of mostly training followed by regular refreshers, rather than an actual "standing army" sort of arrangement).

There was "peacetime" conscription in the 50s and 60s. It's how Elvis ended up in the military.

 

[TFSmith121]

Historically, militia membership has included all

It's very odd to me that the US, unusually for Western nations, seems never to have had peacetime conscription. While I realize the background for this (notably, unlike most of Europe, it's never had a real enemy on its borders), it still seems like something interesting to consider, especially as the early US placed a lot of important on state militias.

I'm having difficulty figuring out whether/which state militias were de jure mandatory and which were simply de facto "volunteered for" by a large portion of the population, and when this stopped (was it the formalization of the National Guard? Was it after the Civil War?), what what sort of PoD would be deemed necessary to get at least some states to keep mandatory "conscription" to a militia even to the modern day (I'm picturing something more like Norway or Sweden than Israel or Korea, with a 6-12 month period of mostly training followed by regular refreshers, rather than an actual "standing army" sort of arrangement).

Historically, militia membership at the state/territory level theoretically has included all able-bodied males (de jure); in reality (de facto), however, militia mobilization in war or peacetime (almost entirely) amounted to volunteers who were willing to step forward.

Note that militia organizations were (generally) limited to service within the boundaries of the state or territory where they were raised, as (for example) one of the elements of the federal structure of the United States; it is worth noting that a US state, historically and today, has far more autonomy than a province or department in most European nations, and, in fact, if a given state's legislators chose to do so today, could in fact raise armed forces to the extent they can be funded.

This goes back to the terms of the Militia Act of 1792, which, obviously, led to real operational issues when militia forces were mobilized; as examples, the the President could issue a call for troops, with the War Department setting a quota for each state, but each governor organized the units to answer the President's call, usually by requesting militia units to volunteer. Militiamen, however, were under no legal obligation to volunteer for federal service; some usually refused, often from concern over economic hardships for their families. Others who did volunteer were physically unfit for active service in the field.

In the terms of the 1903 Militia act, ALL able-bodied men between 18 and 45 were regarded as being part of the "Reserve Militia" (on a state by state basis, of course), but the various state National Guards, defined as state units receiving federal support, were designated as the "Organized Militia."

See:

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm

As others have said, the US had had peacetime conscription (1945-1975, essentially); the US was also willing to institute wartime conscription much earlier than the other Anglosphere nation states (1862, in fact, as activated militia for short service and 1863 for long service conscripts). Britain didn't impose conscription until 1916, and Ireland and the other dominions were (generally) excluded.

Best,

 

[sloreck]

As TFSmith explained, early on all adult free males were in the militia (although there were legal exemptions). Serving outside the state, and certainly outside the USA was only a voluntary which caused all manner of troubles. Universal Military Training (UMT) has been posited from time to time (both after WWI & WWII in particular). While there has been universal (male) registration for the draft when it existed, there has never been universal military service or even mandatory national service of any kind.

Getting UMT possible after WWII perhaps with "red threat", but otherwise not without some bad and close enemy. Experience showed that folks in the militia without 1-2 yrs of training/experience and refresher time would take a long time to be ready.

 

[jahenders]

As some have noted, focusing (and spending) on militias depends on threat and a weaker central army. You could have an extension/expansion of militias with expanded threats. For instance, if Mexico was more aggressive/capable in the late 1800s, you'd have active militias near the border. You'd also have active militias in states with "Indian" troubles if the US Army was less capable, less forward-deployed.

It's very odd to me that the US, unusually for Western nations, seems never to have had peacetime conscription. While I realize the background for this (notably, unlike most of Europe, it's never had a real enemy on its borders), it still seems like something interesting to consider, especially as the early US placed a lot of important on state militias.

I'm having difficulty figuring out whether/which state militias were de jure mandatory and which were simply de facto "volunteered for" by a large portion of the population, and when this stopped (was it the formalization of the National Guard? Was it after the Civil War?), what what sort of PoD would be deemed necessary to get at least some states to keep mandatory "conscription" to a militia even to the modern day (I'm picturing something more like Norway or Sweden than Israel or Korea, with a 6-12 month period of mostly training followed by regular refreshers, rather than an actual "standing army" sort of arrangement).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Would it be possible for people to decide that universal militia service is good for reasons other than strictly military -- because it will inculcate virtue in the citizenry, or make it easier for the people to defend themselves against an overbearing central government, or something like that?

 

[edgeworthy]

Historically, militia membership at the state/territory level theoretically has included all able-bodied males (de jure); in reality (de facto), however, militia mobilization in war or peacetime (almost entirely) amounted to volunteers who were willing to step forward.

Note that militia organizations were (generally) limited to service within the boundaries of the state or territory where they were raised, as (for example) one of the elements of the federal structure of the United States; it is worth noting that a US state, historically and today, has far more autonomy than a province or department in most European nations, and, in fact, if a given state's legislators chose to do so today, could in fact raise armed forces to the extent they can be funded.

This goes back to the terms of the Militia Act of 1792, which, obviously, led to real operational issues when militia forces were mobilized; as examples, the the President could issue a call for troops, with the War Department setting a quota for each state, but each governor organized the units to answer the President's call, usually by requesting militia units to volunteer. Militiamen, however, were under no legal obligation to volunteer for federal service; some usually refused, often from concern over economic hardships for their families. Others who did volunteer were physically unfit for active service in the field.

In the terms of the 1903 Militia act, ALL able-bodied men between 18 and 45 were regarded as being part of the "Reserve Militia" (on a state by state basis, of course), but the various state National Guards, defined as state units receiving federal support, were designated as the "Organized Militia."

See:

http://www.history.army.mil/documents/1901/Root-NG.htm

As others have said, the US had had peacetime conscription (1945-1975, essentially); the US was also willing to institute wartime conscription much earlier than the other Anglosphere nation states (1862, in fact, as activated militia for short service and 1863 for long service conscripts). Britain didn't impose conscription until 1916, and Ireland and the other dominions were (generally) excluded.

Best,

During the French and Napoleonic Wars the British Militia Acts did impose conscription.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

.... You'd also have active militias in states with "Indian" troubles if the US Army was less capable, less forward-deployed.

Been a while since I looked at this question, but recall most of the musket carriers in the frontier wars were milita. It was only i the final decades of the frontier the federal regulars came to dominate.

 

[TFSmith121]

And it lasted for all of a year or less, IIRC

During the French and Napoleonic Wars the British Militia Acts did impose conscription.

And it lasted for all of a year or less, IIRC; it was also for "home" service, as the fencibles, etc were for the defense of Britain in the event of a French invasion - same basic role as the American state militias.

The 1863 conscription act in the US required long service, and in the "national" forces, basically going anywhere they were ordered.

Very different.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yes and no

Been a while since I looked at this question, but recall most of the musket carriers in the frontier wars were milita. It was only i the final decades of the frontier the federal regulars came to dominate.

Yes and no; the "Legion of the United States" were regulars, and they were organized for the Old Northwest theater in 1792, and the Legion troops provided the cadre for the regular establishment that followed them.

The regulars were the nucleus of most of the forces organized for the various "frontier" campaigns, from 1800 to the end of the century. The only real exception was during the Civil War, but even then, the troops who fought the Dakota War etc were (generally) volunteers organized for federal service (albeit by the state governors); they were not militia.

Best,

 

[vl100butch]

Although the matter I'm bringing up is post 1900, there is precedent in earlier law as TFSmith brought up.

Title 10, USC defines the Federal Militia...

Different states also have militia laws which are more broad than Federal law and in some cases include women...

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

There was "peacetime" conscription in the 50s and 60s. It's how Elvis ended up in the military.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the history of US conscription between WW2 and Vietnam.

Was Elvis situation quite common for many young men to be drafted into service during the period of the late 1940's to the early 1960's?

 

[sloreck]

Beginning in about 1948 conscription was re-instituted in the USA. There was universal registration, but not everyone was called - there was a system of deferments which could be permanent for physical disabilities, or temporary for college/professional school, those in certain jobs, etc. Men were generally eligible from 18 to 25. Within the men who were eligible (not deferred) the local draft board (there were many many of these) would get a quota to fulfill and decide who to draft. Even during the Korean War never approached 100% of fit eligibles, although between 1948 and Vietnam a high percentage of men did serve.

Between the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and the unfairness of the system, selection went to a lottery based on random drawing of birth dates beginning in fall 1969, which was the system until the draft ended in 1973. At present all males are supposed to register at 18 (there are legal penalties for not registering) but there is no draft - with the new unlimited use of women in the military it is likely this will be changed to include women.