Namely, the very values that the American patriots claimed to be fighting for were incompatible with the disciplined culture required in a professional army. Republics were committed to a core principle of consent, while armies were the institutional embodiments of unthinking obedience and routinized coercion. The very idea of a "standing army" struck most members of the Continental Congress and the state legislatures as a highly dangerous threat to republican principles.
The American patriots professed to be fighting for values aligned with liberty and self-governance. However, these ideals often conflicted with the rigid structure and discipline of a professional army. In a republic, the emphasis is on consent and democratic participation, whereas armies require a culture of obedience and control that can undermine these very principles. This tension illustrates the complexities in establishing a military force that would align with republican values.
Furthermore, the notion of a "standing army" was viewed with suspicion by many in the Continental Congress and state legislatures. They saw it as a potential threat to the principles of a republic, as a permanent military could lead to coercion and undermine civil liberties. This apprehension reflects the historical struggle to balance military needs with the foundational ideals of democracy and freedom that the American Revolution aimed to secure.
