To Build the Nation’s Might: Tradition and Adaptation in The U.S. Army, 1775–2025
Generations of US soldiers.
by Dr. David W. Hogan, Jr.
Special Report 25-1 / September 2025
Introduction
A nation’s armed forces reflect its geography, presumed threats, wealth, culture and traditions. Changes over time alter some factors; others stay relatively constant. Such is surely the case with the U.S. Army, one of the oldest, most celebrated national institutions and a central player in the American story. As a military organization in a Western-oriented republic, it takes much from European precedents and practices, but it also draws from American circumstances. The country’s vast spaces, abundant natural resources and lack of major security threats on its borders—as well as its individualized society, frontier heritage and increasingly diverse population—have shaped its military establishment, including its historical reliance on a sizable reserve component to accompany a professional, regular force. At the same time, technology and a shrinking world have changed perceptions of national security and the Army’s contribution to it. The rise to superpower status and the expansion of national interests to a global scale have added to the Army’s role and responsibilities, presenting a spectrum of potential conflicts in which the most dangerous contingencies are not necessarily the most likely, but for all of which the Army must prepare. And it does so under the nuclear specter, an existential danger that constrains the full use of American power.
The Militia Versus the Standing Army; 1607–1815
Origins of the U.S. Army
The dangers facing isolated communities during the early years of English settlement of the New World may not have reached the scale of weapons of mass destruction, but they were real enough. A long land frontier and extended coastline, a sparse and dispersed population, political disunity and a distant imperial government left numerous points vulnerable to attack from land and sea. The 17th century was an era of great imperial rivalry; colonists had to prepare for attacks from the Spanish, from the Dutch, and, later, from the French. Native Americans also presented a potential threat. Although European-introduced epidemics and alcohol, loss of farming and hunting grounds, and the slave trade largely decimated the eastern woodland nations, they were still key players in the international system, particularly as the fur trade grew in importance. For the natives, war could involve property destruction, ritual torture and killing of noncombatants to displace territorial rivals and gain revenge or tribute, but it also featured cultural restraints, avoiding heavy casualties and taking prisoners for prestige or adoption and replenishment of native populations. By 1650, many Indians possessed muskets and—in several cases—were more skilled in their use than were the colonists. Although some nations adopted fortifications, native tactics mostly involved raids, mobility, stealth and surprise, cutting off and attacking isolated settlements and ambushing columns passing through the dense forests. Early colonists also faced internal threats from dissidents, criminals and revolts by enslaved peoples.
Following their colonial charters, the settlers turned to an old English institution: the militia. Every able-bodied male, excepting clergy and a few other exemptions, was liable for service and was supposed to supply his own firearm and ammunition. Some Blacks and natives served in the early days, but by 1774, most colonies south of New England prohibited their participation. A few professional officers, such as John Smith of Jamestown and Myles Standish of Plymouth, might provide guidance and oversee periodic musters, but training days were generally too few to instill more than a basic competence. Different systems emerged. In the Chesapeake region, with its plantation economy, the colonies formed companies from the inhabitants of a given area. Each town in more densely populated New England formed one or more companies soon after forming local governments. In South Carolina, with its rice plantations and majority of Blacks, the militia primarily repressed slave revolts. When the frontier moved west, the system followed it, as the backcountry relied on local militia to maintain order. Even when the British Army eventually built forts in the interior, those posts were often so undermanned and poorly supplied that they depended on the local population just to survive.
https://www.ausa.org/publications/special-reports/to-build-the-nations-might
