Paul has received some rather unfair criticism about his understanding of 
the US military in US history.  Paul knows this history in detail but let me 
"speak" for him for a minute.

The US militia and "professional" military during the Revolution was a 
rather thrown together force.  They prevailed, but for reasons that seem 
almost miraculous.  It helped that Americans often fought asymmetrically 
from Concord on out.  It also helped that the field of battle was so large 
that the British military, itself without a draft, didn't have enough troops 
to completely occupy the 13 Colonies/united States.

What posters are overlooking is what happened to the military AFTER the 
Revolution.  In the early republic, the military was an ambiguous and 
somewhat dangerous institution.  Think only of the treason trial of Aaron 
Burr, where army general Wilkinson (Wilkerson?), who was also military 
governor of New Orleans, gave crucial testimony against former Vice 
President Burr.  How did Wilkinson have so much information?  He was in 
secret coded communications with Burr.  The grand jury for the circuit court 
in Virginia came within a few votes of indicting Wilkinson for treason, too, 
but the prosecutor pointed out that if Wilkinson were indicted, he couldn't 
testify against Burr.  It was later alleged that Wilkinson was in the paid 
service of the Kingdom of Spain while serving as a general officer in the US 
military.  Sound like Bolivia?  It should.

The great antebellum reform that transformed the US military was the 
establishment of West Point and Annapolis.  The creation of the federal 
military academies, open to all white male applicants with a full federal 
scholarships changed, I think, everything.  These academies were dedicated 
not only to training US military officers, chiefly as engineers, but also in 
training military officers to be true republicans, subordinated to civilian 
command.  Remember, even at the great divide in 1860-1861, academy graduates 
decided whether to serve under civilian command for the Union or for the 
CSA.

This officer corps, by and large, shaped the institution that enlisted 
men--volunteers in times of peace, draftees in time of war--entered.  Since 
the "Newburg Conspiracy" in the Revolutionary era, how many threats of 
military action against civilian leadership (outside of literature and film) 
have we experienced?

Bracket Latin America and Africa:  think of Thailand, a functioning 
constitutional monarchy, which has recently experienced a military coup.  In 
France, 1960 when de Gaulle announced the withdrawal from Algeria there was 
an attempted military coup.  In Greece in 1968, the militarized police 
overthrew the government and ruled by force.  In Spain (1980s?) military 
officers seized parliament and attempted a coup.  Think also of the 
militarized KGB in the USSR, arresting Mikail Gorbachev in the Crimea in 
1990, breaking the tradition of civilian Communist Party dominance since 
1917.

One of the great challenging dilemmas for any republic is to have a military 
strong enough to repel aggressors but be able to maintain civilian rule. 
Somehow, the US has achieved that.  When the mlitary becomes fully 
politicized, as may always happen, the republic is lost.  This has in no 
ways happened yet.

You do not have to have served in the military to realize this.  Though I 
must confess, I am one of those liberal, even leftist historians from the 
1960s, who had so many mentors from the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the 
Army, I cannot count them.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: June 6, 1944


> Both postings remind us that for most of our history wars were fought by
> men who lived together before and after the war.  Regiments were from
> counties and cities and even divisions were from states.  Such shared
> combat made wars more real to the people at home as well as to the
> politicians who sent men off to battle.  Thus, wars had to have a
> purpose and political support at home. Since WWII this has not been the
> case; soldiers are in a professional army, disconnected from the home
> front and from regular Americans; the military is a place for the poor
> and unfortunate who see it as "a way out" of where they are, but the
> soldiers are not part of units that come from where they do.  THe mixing
> in the military was probably a plus in and after WWII -- people from all
> parts of the country met and learned about each other -- even if they
> were in "home town units" like the 116th.  In our modern professional
> army people also meet others from all over, but there is no going home
> after the war because the army is their home.  In the long run this is
> probably not good for our Republic; it underscores the Founders fear of
> a standing army.  We cannot always "learn from history" but I think the
> larger memory of the 116th (and thousands of other units like it) is a
> lesson we should learn.
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>     and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York   12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> Randy Cabell <[log in to unmask]> 06/06/07 1:46 PM >>>
> Yes, we would do well to remember our heritage of the 116th Infantry.
> It
> has its roots in the 2nd VA Infantry, CSA which became known as "The
> Stonewall Brigade."  The 116th (in its earlier unit designation I think)
>
> went to Mexico with Pershing just before the US entered WWI, and went to
>
> France in 1918.  There is a classic photo somewhere of Will Ruebush
> leading
> the Band of the 116th Infantry down Broad Street in Richmond when they
> returned.  Back about 1988, I walked the beaches of Normandy, saw the
> monument to the 29th Division, marveled that anybody could scale the
> rocks
> at Point-du-hoc, and got a lump in my throat when walking among the
> crosses
> at Coville-sur-mer which Richard Dixon calls out.
>
> Units of the 116th, including companies from Winchester  have served in
> Afghanistan, the local unit losing two men to a roadside IED.  I learned
> in
> the paper that the local unit has been mobilized once again, this time
> for
> service in Iraq, leaving at the end of this month.  Whether you agree
> with
> out current policy in Iraq or not, you gotta applaud those men who are
> willing to up-root themselves, turn their lives upside down, and serve
> their
> country when called upon.
>
> I am guessing that for the past several years, more than 50% of the
> Virginia
> National Guard has been in Federal service at any given time, but I have
> no
> stats to back it up.  It would be interesting to see what it is, and see
> how
> many units have been called up more than one time.
>
> Randy Cabell
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Heritage Society" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:32 PM
> Subject: [VA-HIST] June 6, 1944
>
>
>> The crosses stand in perfect formation beneath the Normandie sky. It
> is
>> the graveyard at Colleville-sur-mer overlooking Omaha Beach where 9000
>
>> young Americans came to France on June 6, 1944 and now stay, forever
>> brave. On that morning, the first to reach the beach were men of
> Company A
>> of the 116th Regiment, 29th Infantry Division from Bedford County,
>> Virginia. Of its 36 men who went to war, 23 died in France, 19 on
> D-Day,
>> the highest percentage lost of any community in the United States.
> Today,
>> in Bedford, there is a memorial to the D-Day landings. To reach it you
>
>> will probably travel on a highway that bisects Virginia, known
> generally
>> as Route 29, but it's full name is the 29th Infantry Division Memorial
>
>> Highway, a daily reminder of the men who were heroes at Omaha.
>> Richard E. Dixon
>>