Hugh Damright
New member
I can, and I think that was the general idea ... a standing army is a select force which can turn or be turned against the people and so it is a threat to their ability to freely govern themselves ... but a militia composed of the body of people is inseparable from the people and in any conflict between the people and their government the militia would inevitably be the people's militia. It is only the government's militia as long as it is the people's government.I can't imagine a militia directed by government would then oppose that government if it presumes to subjugate the citizens and oppress or enslave them. Can you?
"To prevent the executive power from being able to oppress, says baron Montesquieu, it is requisite that the armies with which it is entrusted should consist of the people, and have the same spirit with the people; as was the case at Rome, till Marius new-modelled the legions by enlisting the rabble of Italy, and laid the foundation of all the military tyranny that ensued. Nothing then, according to these principles, ought to be more guarded against in a free state, than making the military power, when such a one is necessary to be kept on foot, a body too distinct from the people." (--Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765))
Why guard against making a military power distinct from the people unless to ensure that it ultimately sides with the people?