David:
Sorry you won't be able to make this year's Churchill conference but papers
from the conference will be appearing in FH in due course.
A few observations:
*
In the United States, until after the Second World War, one of our
ingrained characteristics was a strong dislike of standing (read "national"
or "central government-controlled") armies. Our professional armies were
always quite small and our armies only swelled during wartime. You will
read many times the low ranking in numbers of the U.S. Army in 1940 compared
to those of much smaller countries.
*
Large permanent armies have come to be accepted since the Second
World War, but only for use outside the U.S. or based in the U.S. to defend
the U.S. from foreign enemies.
*
The preferred method of using military force in the case of domestic
unrest is through the national guard (i.e., the "militia"), normally under
the control of the individual state governors. State national guard units
are subject to call-up by the President (as has been the case during the
Iraq war) but ordinarily remain under state control.
*
A study of how the Union armies were formed from the states during
the Civil War/War between the States would be instructive.
*
It has been rare to use Federal regular army troops for domestic
disturbance. One example is the 1957 Little Rock school integration where
President Eisenhower used, I believe, the 82nd Airborne Division to enforce
the Federal court's integration order; the U.S. Marshal's service was
clearly insufficient and the President knew he could not rely on the
Governor of Arkansas for assistance through the state guard. In other
integration disturbances, in contrast, I believe the President temporarily
"federalized" the state national guard - possibly to let the defiant
Southern governor save political face?
*
The "localization" of military force through the national guard is
expressed in part through the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
aimed (like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights) at limiting the
power of the Federal Government. It was the 14th Amendment after the Civil
War that has shifted huge power to the Federal government from the states.
The United States: in the 19th Century it was expressed in the plural ("the
United States are ...") as a union of states, but now it tends to be
expressed in the singular, reflecting the greater unity and power of the
central government through the people directly ("the "United States is ...).
European states - formerly as members of the EEC, then EC, now EU - are
facing many of these issues that we have lived through. Since the U.S.
constitution was adopted in 1787 there has been a strong trend for power and
functions once exclusively the province of the states to be assumed/usurped
by the Federal government. To decry any loss of "states rights' brands one
a racist, which would be true in some contexts but not in many others. As
for leaders, governors often make excellent presidents. But that is for
another place and I'd love to talk with you about it off this list sometime.
The point has been made about MacArthur, who was of course acting under
civil direction in 1932. That was the nation's capital so it is not
surprising that regular troops were used. The debate goes to the necessity
to use troops against war veterans - again an argument for another place.
Turning to Ireland, in the 20th century, as we shall see next week, Britain
tried to treat the insurrection of 1919-21 as a police action, not a
military action per se. So it limited its use of troops. Britain does not
have the decentralized governmental tradition that we in the U.S. have, so
any use of troops in British history (in any country things may get beyond
the power of local police) would be use of national troops.
I don't think WSC would have claimed enough of an understanding of the
American federal political system to have formed a view of the relative
advantages of central versus decentralized control of military forces vis a
vis domestic disturbances. But if he did, let's hear it.
Joe Hern
_____
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kyle, David J. (CDC/CCEHIP/NCEH) (CTR)
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 3:12 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ChurchillChat] NSPD 51 and HSPD-20 improvements in US law for an
emergency
As an expat trying to gain a Green Card and subsequently citizenship of the
USA I have been moving my realm of study from British politics to study US
politics.
Much amazes me of what I find.
One thing I learnt early on is that the States are basically little
countries within a country, with in a few cases great leaders, many good to
middling leaders and a few with corrupt leaders in positions of relatively
high power.
I digress .... Preamble over ......
With the Churchill Conference coming up and it being on Ireland (which I
will miss as I have to travel to Toronto US Consulate to renew my H1B) I am
sure the use by the British Army on the streets will be discussed at length.
WSC used troops and tanks against British citizens a few times I think, and
I for one agree that he should have been able to do so.
Here in the USA I was often told that the Posse Comitatus Act was indeed
passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement,
and that US military could not be used against US Citizens but on reading
said Act I now know this not to be true , indeed with the passing of NSPD
51 and HSPD-20 that the President has a far better grip on power in a
National Emergency and can us the military as and how he sees best for the
situation.
I would like to think that WSC would approve of these bills ensuring one
central leader who had some real clout in a dire situation giving
instructions to the States as a whole rather than piecemeal.
...... Though near where I stay in GA there is a Sheriffs' Official Patrol
Car that proudly displays the Stars and Bars on his front fender so I
believe there may be some dissenters :-)
David J. Kyle
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ChurchillChat" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
