[IrishBrigade]

‘A standing federal army was viewed by the Founders as a serious threat to Liberty.’

which totally explains why it took all of ten years from the ratification of the Bill of Rights to the founding of the Military Academy at West Point, designed obviously to train officers to take charge of an armed force over and above state militia...

[gundog]

It would make sense to have trained officers available. There was also a provision for a system of conscription in place. Neither constitutes a standing army. As a standing army may have been seen by many as an eventuality, the Second Amendment was insisted upon as a condition before ratification of the Constitution.

[hanamizu]

“...it took all of ten years from the ratification of the Bill of Rights to the founding of the Military Academy at West Point, designed obviously to train officers to take charge of an armed force ...”

---

I think it was the idea of a large standing army that the Founders feared, not any national army at all. I believe this comes from British tradition. Before Cromwell, England didn’t have much of an army per se at all. Any army big enough to suppress the population was viewed with great suspicion.

The Constitution specifically says that funding for the Army has to be from year to year, as opposed to the Navy—navies not being thought of as a threat to liberty.

The idea of a small, professional army worked well for us for a long time.