By U.S. Rep. John Carter Co-Chairman House Army Caucus
Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON DC 237 years ago on June 14 1775 the U.S. Army was officially organized by Act of Congress. While Americans had been fighting in conflicts as separate militias since our first recorded military casualty at Jamestown Virginia in 1607 this new law creating an American Continental Army" gave our fledgling nation a unified national military force instead of a collection of state militias.
In that Act Congress authorized ten 80-man companies of expert riflemen" consisting of 68 privates one drummer or bugler and a combination of 11 officers sergeants and corporals. Congress specifically used the term expert riflemen" as psychological warfare against British Army morale since the redcoats most feared the tactics and effectiveness of the American long rifle.
There was a big difference between a rifle and a musket. The British used the famous Brown Bess" smoothbore musket which could be re-loaded three times faster than a rifle had enormous stopping power was sturdy enough to mount a bayonet and be used as a club but was a very inaccurate and short-range weapon. With opposing infantry massed shoulder-to-shoulder in an open field the Brown Bess was the gun to have. But with American riflemen crouched behind fences and rocks two hundred yards outside musket range the redcoats faced a whizzing death with no defense. The use of that specific term by Congress formally told the Redcoats in writing exactly what type of war they would face and it would not be one they would like.
It was anticipated from the start that this initial 800-man force would rapidly increase to meet the British threat and as predicted within just a few months around 27000 troops were deployed in the New England area to break the siege of Boston.
This new truly American full-time army was notably different from the old militia units. The soldiers were younger typically in their teens or early twenties compared to the militia which included all ages since militia members were drawn from their local community at-large.
These young Continentals were usually second sons or further down on the inheritance list. In these early days of our country when the majority of Americans were farmers the old English legal system of primogeniture was still largely in effect. This meant that in most cases the family farm would pass automatically by law to the first born son. The first born son and the father had to stay fairly close to home to manage and protect their land and crops and therefore served in the militia. When the British came near they would be called up briefly for battle to re-enforce the Continentals then return to their farms at the end of the fight.
The second and younger sons who frequently were in line for nothing were more willing to head off for the grand adventure of becoming a Continental Solider fight for their countrys independence and seek their way off the family farm which held little future for them.
They also provided a stark contrast in diversity of social background with the British Army. Most British enlisted men were from the lowest economic rung of society with many having been conscripted into service often violently dragged from taverns. Those who did join voluntarily did so in large part to escape the grinding poverty of a class-restricted society where the accident of birth mattered more than individual merit. Officers were from middle to upper income families and the aristocracy having bought or inherited their way into command.
These young Continentals were not drafted they were volunteers. They took to military discipline far better than the militias could be depended on to hold their ground under fire and to face the harsh deprivations of camp life through determination and the physical endurance of youth. They were not fighting for wealth but for freedom.
The Continental Army brought together young men from across the nation from different backgrounds and wealth young men who were willing to step forward with strength and courage to defend their nation.
We see that pattern established in 1775 continued throughout the U.S. Armys 237 years. There have been brief moments of diversion from that principle the use of paid substitutes for draftees in the Union Army being the most notable - but we have always returned to that natural standard of Americans from all walks of life coming together in our Army to stand in harms way for the rest of us.
Today our young men are joined by young women in defending those freedoms in uniform. Like their Continental forbearers our troops come primarily from middle-income backgrounds. Unlike nearly every other world military the lowest income-level households are in fact slightly underrepresented in our Army. We dont use our poor to protect the wealth of the more affluent. Our recruits come in nearly even demographic percentages from all major racial and ethnic groups.
As we look at our troops - our 21st Century Continentals - on this 237th anniversary of the U.S. Army we see that same spirit the same unique and diversified mix of Americans unified through service and sacrifice and melded into a powerful force to defend the freedoms won by our first soldiers.
They represent the best of us upon whom our nations future freedom depends. May we all wish our U.S. Army and its soldiers a happy 237th birthday and for a thousand more.
