"To provide and maintain a Navy"
by
Published on 01-12-2015 07:58 AM
Over on the
The Aircraft Carrier is Obsolete thread I made the statement that we can thank the Founders for the ability to have these kinds of discussions. The text of the Constitution contains the specific duty to “… provide and maintain a Navy.” Why was that included? Everyone KNOWS that the concern then was about standing armies, and that navies were universally acknowledge as not being a threat to our newly won Liberty.-------Not exactly. In fact, not even close.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the last naval warship had been sold for the lack of funds to maintain it. The delegates who drafted the Constitution included the text “…to provide and maintain a Navy” knowing that they had no Navy at the time.
While prepping for this post I came across this paper that I think will help put the thoughts of the delegates in context. –Big PDF Warning-
A Navy in the New Republic It takes about an hour to read through.
There was great debate within the very First Congress on exactly what the wording in the Constitution really meant. Some feared that a standing Navy was even more dangerous than armies. One such advocate of this position was
Rep. William Giles of Virginia.
First, while he was willing to admit that America’s overseas commerce needed protection, Giles did not believe that a naval force was the best way to protect commerce. Secondly, he was opposed to all national naval strategies because they meant the creation of a permanent naval establishment. Giles declared that “the question of a permanent naval establishment was one of the most important which could be presented” and he feared “that the most serious consequences were necessarily connected with it.” In the opinion of anti-navy policymakers like Giles, a naval establishment would entangle American in the affairs of Europe and
“possess the greatest tendency to war.”
Emphasis mine. Clearly there were those who believe that the presence of offensive weapons by the Republic would lead to war because leaders would not be able to control themselves and implement a rational policy for their use.
Specifically, for the crisis at hand, Giles preferred diplomacy, such as paying off the Dey of
Algiers, to any kind of naval or military solution.
Even then there were elements that preferred to strike a conciliatory posture with a Moslem dictator to hopefully avoid the seizure of vessels and enslavement of sailors.
.cont.