Militarization and Militarism

Colonial Era and the Early Republic

In the earliest stage of settlement of colonies like the Plymouth and Virginia companies, military considerations, both defensive and offensive, loomed large and colonial leadership expected militia service and military discipline. Substantial numbers of the adult male population served during the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. But colonial dislike of standing armies was deep-seated and enduring; respect for the military prowess of [Page 511]ordinary citizen–soldiers and a belief that they were vital to the defense of civil and political liberties would persist until well into the early 20th century. Colonial militia and wartime volunteer companies in New England expected to have a voice in selecting their leaders. By the late 17th century, nowhere in the colonies did such forces tolerate the sort of discipline and drill found in the regiments of British regu-lars. Militarization of colonial society was of relatively brief duration, and little respect was found for militarism in colo-nial America.

Nor do we detect much evidence of it in the early republic. After the American Revolution, a number of offi-cers created the Society of the Cincinnati, an officers-only veterans' organization that was hereditary—that is, the sons of these officers, and their sons and grandsons, were to con-stitute its ranks. The society lobbied for a strong central gov-ernment with a standing army; and some of its leaders hoped that their war commander, George Washington, would accept the title of king in such a government. Here was an organization with both aristocratic and militaristic overtones and aims. But it was feared and despised by most Americans, who preferred a republican form of government and regarded state militia (or volunteers) as preferable to a fed-eral standing army. Mason “Parson” Weems offered this assessment of the losses of federal regulars in the battle of Fallen Timbers (1794) in his Life of Washington: