Considering a Cadre Augmented Army - RAND Corporation

-280- A Historical Analysis of Cadre
cadre forces would later find evidence, overlooked by early cadre proponents, 23 that even
though Washington was frustrated with the militia, when he proposed a peacetime army
structure he “favored a well-organized militia, not a standing army of any size.” 24
Washington’s support for a peacetime militia was the impetus for the first legislation
regarding the militia in the United States. 25
2.1.2—The Militia Act of 1792
In May of 1792, Congress passed the first major legislation regarding the militia in
the United States. This act asserted the U.S. government’s reliance on the militia as the
nation’s primary war fighting force. For the first time in the history of the United States, the
act set standards for the organization of the militia and called for the enrollment of every
able-bodied white male citizen between eighteen and forty-five 26 while requiring each man to
provide his own arms. 27 Many military professionals and historians felt this act failed to
address many of the problems with the militia. 28 First, the Militia Act limited mobilization of
the militia to three months. The Act stated: “no officer, non-commissioned officer or private
____________
23 An outspoken cadre critic, John McAuley Palmer, wrote America in Arms in 1941 in which he argues that it
was a national tragedy that Emory Upton overlooked evidence of Washington’s writings on the proper
peacetime organization for the army. Palmer wrote that: “General Upton based his conclusions upon
Washington’s published writings as contained in the Sparks collection. Though he made two quotations from
Volume VIII of Sparks, he overlooked the footnote in that volume where the editor refers to his omission of
the treatise on military policy that Washington wrote at Newburgh in 1783. This was a great misfortune for
General Upton and tragic for his country.” [Palmer (1941), p. 103]
24 Ambrose (1964), p. 125.
25 Washington made his recommendations in “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment,” which called for a small
regular army detailed to Indian defense behind which “would stand a militia system enrolling all male citizens
between eighteen and fifty and holding them liable for service to the nation in emergencies.” [Weigley (1984),
p. 80]
26 This was the first time the U.S. government asserted that all citizens had an obligation to serve in the
military.
27 Weigley (1984), p. 93
28 Emory Upton is the most famous critic of the Militia Act but this law also receives criticism in: Kreidberg
and Henry (1955), p. 31; and Millis (1956), p. 52. John McAuley Palmer says of the Act: “Its passage actually
made our military system worse than it was before the bill was introduced.” [Palmer (1941), p. 50]