With a pod(s) between 1776 and 1787 how can we set it up so the founding fathers support the idea of citizenship only being earned through military service and although you could live in the us without serving, you only have rights if you serve?
WI: American Constitution Requires Military Service If You Want Citizenship
- Thread starter GuildedAgeNostalgia
- Start date
So maybe a continued threat of Britain maybe actual military support of Britain for tribal federations against weatward expansion. Maybe also Spain and France becoming hostile powers fearing the coming economic and military potential of the Thirteen Colonies with a Republican government.
So it could draw many recruits but there probably are also a lot of munities and desertions. What stops these people from just disappearin into the hinterland and taking a new name ?
Last edited:
Since there wasn't a regular professional army at the time, and many of the Founding Fathers were suspicious of creating one, states had militias that at least theoretically consisted of every military-aged male citizen. In general, the anti-Federalists supported relying on the militia to avoid a standing army which could be used to enforce despotism, while the Federalists wanted a more professionalized standing army. If the early American government decided to set standardized requirements for militia training, this could gradually develop into a policy that required militia-aged citizens to participate in training, perhaps with a mandatory period of active duty service for young men.
This would mean women could not obtain citizenship for most of the nation's history, nor any other group who can't or won't enlist (slaves, children not old enough to enlist, the Amish, nearsighted people, etc.)
Last edited:
I mean outside nearsighted people all of the people here were not enfranchised OTL anyway or likely wouldn't get TOO much out of voting anyway(Amish) at least in the short term.
Yes but now anyone not an active duty soldier or an honorably-discharged veteran (the majority of the population) isn't just disenfranchised, they can be summarily deported, have no Constitutional rights, and don't even count as 3/5 of a person in the Census. America would be a horrible caste system under such a scheme.
Last edited:
A more likely scenario is a type of literal second-class citizenship where women are considered citizens in terms of legal and property rights, but not entitled to vote or otherwise participate in government. The main practical difference would be that when the women's suffrage movement started up, opponents would argue that women shouldn't get to vote because they don't serve in the militia. The same principle might apply to conscientious objectors and people who aren't physically fit enough to serve in the militia, who would lose their voting rights by virtue of not serving.
citizenship =/ enfranchisement, doubly so in the period under discussion.
This is probably taken from Heinlein Starship Troopers rather than anything US Founding Fathers ever considered.
Doubly so, considering the general opposition towards a standing army.
There was some discussion of an exemption from militia service for people with a religious objection to violence (what we would call conscientious objectors), but as far as I'm aware there was not consideration of mandating service in a standing army. The advocates of a standing army wanted it to be a professional, well-trained military force, so they wouldn't have wanted it to include conscripts that didn't want to be there.
Most of the rights outlined in the constitution apply to all persons regardless of whether they are citizens. For example, the 14th states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." For this reasons "persons" have most constitutional rights other than those specifically limited to citizens (e.g. voting). For the same reasons apportionment has always been based on population (not citizens or voters or any other measure).
If America did that, it wouldn't be America, it would be Sparta. Such a State in the "Modern World" Post 1500AD would lose it's Liberal Values, and fall into Fascism. If rights, and political power were derived by service to the State, rather then being unalienable rights inherent to being human beings, then the People would exist to serve the State, rather then the State, and Army existing to serve the People. The Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States", not we the Army of the United States.
That would mean only men could become citizens for most of US history.
As far as I know, most rights apply to all people not just to citizens in the US.
The requirement that US presidents have to be citizens from birth also creates a problem.
The idea of citizenship being earned is not a bad one but not practical. Doing it through military service only is a bad one.
Given how racist and sectarian American has been for much of it history citizenship would in practice only be possible for white Anglo Saxon protestants.
Everyone else would become a permanent underclass in America only tolerated as long in the country as they could work and provide for themselves.
As far as I know, most rights apply to all people not just to citizens in the US.
The requirement that US presidents have to be citizens from birth also creates a problem.
The idea of citizenship being earned is not a bad one but not practical. Doing it through military service only is a bad one.
Given how racist and sectarian American has been for much of it history citizenship would in practice only be possible for white Anglo Saxon protestants.
Everyone else would become a permanent underclass in America only tolerated as long in the country as they could work and provide for themselves.
Last edited:
Austria, Israel and South Korea have mandatory military service without losing their liberal values (well Austria fell to fascism but not because of military service).
The only consequence I can think of is that a lot less people are going to migrate to America. I've read in a thread that the user Carl Schwamberger's ancestor went to America to avoid military service.
How plausible this is depends on whether your thinking of a Heinlein-like scenario where an elite military caste controls everything, which the founders would have been appalled by, or an extension of the colonial-era expectation that every male member of the community drill with the militia once a month or so. IOTL, you had to own property to vote until the Jacksonian era, so its not too much of a stretch for states to replace the property requirement with a policy that anyone who's performed their militia service gets to vote.
Whether this is plausible, undermines liberal values etc. really depends on exactly what you mean by citizenship requires military service. As many people noted, most of the founding farmers had a deep distrust of standing armies but strongly supported the militia (which was often thought to consist of every male of fighting age). In the same way, the armies of the French Revolution consisted of citizens raised through the "Levee en Masse") which were exceptionally effective (although Napoleon using these armies to overthrow the Republic does suggest the Founding Fathers concerns were valid). However, with the exception of the Napoleonic wars in France (and to some extent the American Civil War) the army did not require vast numbers of soldiers in the 18th and 19th century. Therefore, the idea that all citizens are subject to conscription if and when the state comes calling is not particularly different from how things are now and would not represent a significant departure.
On the other hand if you mean that one must have actually served in the regular army to be a citizen and everyone else occupies some lesser status then America becomes dramatically different. Prior to the 20th century it is impossible to imagine the United States needing a regular army consisting of all men of fighting age unless it becomes dramatically more imperialistic than it was (e.g. Emperor George Washington I invokes a levee en masse and conquers the entire Spanish Empire and Canada). Alternatively, the regular army remains small, meaning that you have a tiny elite of equals (Homoioi) ruling a vast underclass of Perikoi and/or Helots. In either case, history would be dramatically different.
On the other hand if you mean that one must have actually served in the regular army to be a citizen and everyone else occupies some lesser status then America becomes dramatically different. Prior to the 20th century it is impossible to imagine the United States needing a regular army consisting of all men of fighting age unless it becomes dramatically more imperialistic than it was (e.g. Emperor George Washington I invokes a levee en masse and conquers the entire Spanish Empire and Canada). Alternatively, the regular army remains small, meaning that you have a tiny elite of equals (Homoioi) ruling a vast underclass of Perikoi and/or Helots. In either case, history would be dramatically different.
Mandatory military service isn't the same thing as citizenship for service. Most of America's elected officials never served in the military. Many of her best presidents never served in the military. How do you maintain civilian control of the armed forces in a military State? Military values are important for the wellbeing of the country, but they are not the only ones. By it's nature military life is primarily about conformity, and submitting to authority. What has made America great wasn't conformity, and obedience, but individuality, and freedom. Few people came to America to become a soldier, they could do that in their homeland, they came for opportunity, and freedom.
The later. And it could include state militia service as well as others have suggested