• uienia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s not it. The thing is that they refused acknowledging that partisanship would evolve. They preferred to hold on to the illusion that everybody involved in office would always be altruistic and solely work for the greater good, which was laughably naive even then (as many people pointed out to them).

      • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        That part is really up to the voters hence the federalist papers and the whole “masses are asses” thing…

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It wasn’t intending on having an army at all, they thought a standing army would lead to tyranny so they came up with the 2nd amendment instead so a militia could be called as needed

      • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Which tbh was really short sighted as well. Every nation needs an army to hold onto their self determination. And it needs to be well funded. Such has been proved repeatedly throughout history

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not at all? This is nonsense. The very concept of a standing professional military has been exceedingly rare throughout history and was so during the Revolutionary period as well.