Why did the founding father's not rely on voluntary charity to fund national defense?

[chillspike]

Why did they instead choose forced taxation or socialism to fund national defense?

Why is that?

This is just a rhetorical question aimed at any tea party lurkers. ;)

I know most of my fellow dems know the answer.

However, does anyone know if the founding father's experimented with other ways to fund national defense before they settled on taxation?

[Creative]

1. Well, one things for certain, they didn't fund it with a tax on income.

For the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1913.

[Yupster]

12. The overwhelming income the government got in the early days

was from tariffs collected at the ports.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. which I would love to bring back as a source of revenue

It is essentially a consumption tax on imports.

I'm all for it and I think we could get some stupid tea baggers to wax nostalgic about tariffs and put pressure on the free market conservatives to support import taxes or lose tea party support.

[Yupster]

20. It did cause regional problems though

Most of the imports, manufactured goods from Europe came into southern ports in trade for southern cotton. The large public service projects were in the north, the Erie Canal for instance or the railroads.

The southerners thought they were being ripped off and paying for the high prices of tariffs so they could protect northern industries from European competition and fund northern transportation systems.

[bluerum]

2. I believe that the first standing army was voluntary. And you had bring your own guns.

[slackmaster]

3. "Fund"?

:rofl:

The earliest US army was voluntary and had no funding. The total military budget wasn't measured in millions until about the Civil War.

Tariffs were the primary source of income for the federal government until just before World War I.

[chillspike]

10. Fair enough

[pacalo]

4. I do wish they would have had the foresight to stipulate that military spending may not

preclude government funding of programs necessary to the well-being of American citizens in need of assistance.

[Yupster]

14. They wouldn't have even understood what you meant

The idea of unemployment, welfare, housing subsidies was something that the church or other charity would be responsible for. The idea of government involvement in things like that would just get you a perplexed look.

[pacalo]

16. And today the churches wouldn't be able to handle a fraction of social needs.

[Yupster]

21. That is true

We are a long way from a woman having to darn three pairs of socks before she got to stay over at the YWCA, or a man had to split some firewood before he got to stay at the YMCA. The person would have a mentor assigned to him/her from the local church who was responsible for getting the person a job and seeing to it that he stayed on a moral line by not drinking and attending prayer circles and church services. It was like having the church lady as your case worker. The men did get to swim naked if the YMCA had a pool though.

And back then medical care was a whole lot simpler and cheaper. The doc could set a bone or pull a tooth, but people just lived with diseases until they didn't. It's amazing how many people back then lived with chronic diseases and worked hard every day until they died a premature death. In the south it was often malaria. In the north it was what they called consumption.

People just coughed their lungs out and kept working as long as they could. Medical bills were cheap though.

[pacalo]

22. George Washington, bless his heart, only had one tooth left when he was elected.

He had a dentist who was known to be skillful make him a set of dentures for his Inauguration Day. Contrary to the common belief that Washington had wooden teeth, the dentist carved the dentures out of rhinoceros ivory.

As you pointed out so eloquently, life was really difficult in those times.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

5. The FFs didn't even want there to be a standing army.

They intended for defense to be provided as needed by a citizens militia.

[Occam Bandage]

6. A lot of them wanted to, actually.

The notion of a standing army was anathema to many of the more-populist FFs; they equated standing armies with oppression, and believed that volunteer, self-supporting militias were the most secure bulwark against both foreign attack and domestic tyranny.

This viewpoint was considered nonsense by anyone who actually took the field in the Revolutionary War. Militias were, with few exceptions, utterly useless in actual combat. They lacked nerve, morale, training, and dedication. As such, the United States under the Constitution got a standing army, but with the 2nd and 3rd amendments given out as compromises to the pro-militia faction.

[happyslug]

9. Militia Utterly useless? That was NOT the case with the New England Militia

One of the problem with understanding the Militia in the Revolution is that the quality of the Militia varied from Colony to Colony, the the Best in New England and the worse in the American South.

The New England Militia was as good as any standing Army of its time period. It was well lead, well equipped, well supplied, well trained and its personal were dedicated to the War. This had been true of the New England Militia from it formation in the 1630s till the end of the War of 1812 (At the end of the War of 1812, the New England Militia went into a rapid decline for most people no longer thought it was necessary given that the nearest hostile Indians were in Illinois). This is shown in the Battle of lexington and Concord, The British Retreat to Boston, Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston. All done by militia that had the support of almost all of New England. Later on the Militia re-appeared at the Battle of Saratoga.

On the other hand the Southern Militia was almost useless. Broken weapons were common, no ammunition, poor training (Southern Militia's main function was to perform the Sheriff's patrol so most Slaves could not meet and revolt). This is were the story of how poor the America Militia came from. It was the South (The frontier in the South was another Story, for example at the Battle of King's Mountain, the British force was defeated by Western Settlement's Militia).

The key was the support during Peace time AND support on the march. In New England, such support was provided by the Colonies not the militia men themselves (The Militia were expected to supply a basic load, but replacement rounds and food was to be provided by the Colonial governments). That was NOT true of the South, those Colonies put more pressure on the Militia to supply their food and Ammunition (and being a poorer are of the COuntry, less militia men owned firearms, thus at the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, General Jackson formed such weaponless men into a plug the gap unit, to rush in anywhere the British broke through and drive the british back with clubs. the British never broke through so never called into actual service).

[Drale]

7. There was no national defense

it was thought that if America was attacked (the only reason we would need an army) that the militia would step up. At one time the US army numbered 80 men strong, until the war of 1812. The first draft was not instated until the Civil War.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. I believe that's why we have a 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

It was meant as a way for states to protect themselves since we didn't have a national military, I believe.

[slackmaster]

11. That is correct, and the state militia system still exists at least on paper

For example:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[JI7]

13. that thing with that guy's house being burned down

to avoid that

[xxqqqzme]

15. The revoluntionary 'army' was

privately funded. One of the reasons many founding fathers floundered after independence.

[RegieRocker]

17. Because they knew that people with a lot of money

would hoard it!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

18. They borrowed from France and fed inflation