Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
Actually it was the populace as well. The military never really occupied a position of respect in this country until the 20th century. It was viewed throughout the 1800s as a refuge for drunkards, unemployable dullards, and foreigners looking to learn English...
was the real issue. That was the realm of the Congress.

What you say is true but that enlisted population constitution was as much or more a result of the extremely low wages paid as anything else, that and the tendency of older communities to shun newer communities of immigrants. You get what you pay for was as or more true then than it is today. The popular attitude was due to the perceived quality of the troops, a quality directly attributable to what it was paid...

Witness today. The combat arms are enlisting better than average quality in all aspects young men and women from the middle classes from all across the US. That's because we now pay a sensible wage. That also attracts larger than normal quantities of immigrants from newer communities.

Not that the current great quality is treated much better by many in as well as outside the services than were their 19th and early 20th century counterparts...
I would also question the long-term impact of citizen-soldiers who step into leadership positions after their term expired. Historically some of the biggest opponents to a standing force, and indeed good training and equipment for that force, were those same volunteers/draftees who later rose to political prominence. And if you think the officer corps is political now, you should look back through some of the stuff they were writing in the 1880s or so.
Very true. Many World War II graduates in positions of civil leadership also did not do anyone any favors.