Considering a Cadre Augmented Army - RAND Corporation

-277- A Historical Analysis of Cadre
2. CADRE VERSUS MILITIA
Cadre units were first proposed in the United States due to a perceived lack of
readiness of the militia. In the nineteenth century, the militia was the primary war fighting
force of the United States. 10 Based on the country’s negative experiences with the militia
during this time, two prominent military professionals, John C. Calhoun and Emory Upton,
proposed that the militia be replaced with a cadre force. 11 These individuals believed that it
was more cost-effective to pay some full-time officers who could hone their skills during
peacetime rather than pay for a part-time militia, which would have only limited training
opportunities. This contradicted the beliefs of many early U.S. leaders who were suspicious
of a professional military and thought it was better to rely on the militia because this would
reduce the chance of the army becoming “an instrument of despotism” as they experienced
in England. 12 Despite this support, early wartime experiences with the militia led many to
question its readiness.
____________
10 The Regular Army (equivalent to today’s AC) was technically the nation’s primary fighting force but was too
small to meet the demands of anything but small skirmishes with Indians. For wars, the militia was the primary
source of manpower.
11 In the nineteenth century, a cadre unit was defined as a unit that was assigned only officers during peacetime.
Theses officers would be retained on active duty (full-time). Nineteenth century army units had very few noncommissioned
officers (NCOs) so there was little discussion of cadre units retaining any enlisted personnel
during peacetime. A militia unit was defined as a unit that was assigned a full complement of officers and
enlisted personnel in peacetime. Both the officers and enlisted personnel in a militia unit were retained in
drilling status (part-time) during peacetime.
12 Stewart (2005a), p. 108. In 1784, the Continental Congress emphasized this point: “standing armies in time
of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free
people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.” [Kreidberg and Henry
(1955), p. 3]. This distrust of standing armies was not unique to the United States, it existed in England as far
back as 1620. [Shwoerer (1974)]