Why wasn’t there a standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation?
When George Washington retired after the war, they did not have anyone to lead it.
They chose to have a navy instead.
The federal government could not raise money to pay for it because they could not collect taxes.
They left it to the states to have a militia.
All of the above statements contribute to an understanding of why there was no standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation. The lack of a leader, the preference for a navy, the inability to raise funds through taxes, and the reliance on state militias all played a role in the absence of a standing army during that time period.
There are several reasons why there was no standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation:
1. Leadership: After the Revolutionary War, George Washington retired as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. The lack of a prominent leader like Washington made it difficult to establish a centralized standing army.
2. Navy Prioritization: Instead of focusing on a standing army, the Articles of Confederation prioritized the creation of a navy. The United States believed that a strong navy was essential for protecting its interests and engaging in maritime trade.
3. Financial Constraints: The federal government established by the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to directly collect taxes. This created significant financial constraints, making it difficult to raise funds to maintain a standing army.
4. State Militias: The Articles of Confederation left the responsibility of maintaining military forces primarily to the individual states. Each state was expected to maintain its own militia for defense purposes. This approach was seen as a way to preserve states' rights and prevent a strong centralized military presence.
Overall, the absence of a standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation was due to a combination of leadership challenges, prioritization of naval forces, financial limitations, and a belief in state-controlled militias.
The reason why there wasn't a standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation can be attributed to a few key factors. Firstly, after the Revolutionary War, George Washington retired from military service, and without a recognized leader, the creation of a standing army as a central authority became problematic.
Additionally, the Articles of Confederation, which served as the first governing document of the United States from 1781 to 1789, did not grant the federal government the power to raise revenue through taxation. This lack of financial capability made it difficult for the federal government to fund and maintain a standing army. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation depended on voluntary contributions from the states to fund its operations, and as a result, it did not have the necessary resources or stability to support a professional army.
Instead, the federal government focused on establishing a navy as a means of protecting American interests and engaging in international trade. The states were left responsible for maintaining their own militia forces to ensure internal security. This decentralized approach emphasized the power and autonomy of the individual states, as they were entrusted with the primary responsibility of raising and organizing military forces.
Overall, the absence of a standing U.S. Army under the Articles of Confederation was a consequence of factors such as the lack of a strong central authority, financial constraints, and the preference for state-controlled militias. These issues ultimately led to the creation of a more centralized military structure with the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789.