Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:10:15.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Changing Role of the National Guard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Bennett M. Rich  and
Philip H. Burch Jr.
Bennett M. Rich
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Philip H. Burch Jr.
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The dual status of the National Guard as a component of the national defense establishment and as a military force under state control has long been an object of Congressional and military concern, and lately has drawn some scholarly attention. It has not been generally appreciated, however, that without benefit of legislation or much public notice the domestic function of the Guard has been subtly and radically transformed during the past decade. From an embodiment of force it has become largely an instrument of rescue and relief. The change appears to be bringing a welcome increase in local prestige to this sometimes neglected and often controversial organization. But it suggests a serious problem in case an atomic attack should result in the mobilization of the Guard into national military service just at a time when its new domestic services are most urgently needed at home.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 1956 , pp. 702 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U. S. Annual Report of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, 1955 (Washington, 1956), p. 8Google Scholar.

2 New York Times, October 11, 1955, p. 1Google Scholar.

3 New York Herald Tribune, February 27, 1956, p. 1Google Scholar.

4 The Book of the States 1939–40 (Chicago: The Council of State Governments, 1939), p. 133Google Scholar. Florida had no state police organization until 1939, and many states restricted their police to highway patrol.

5 Ibid., 1954–55, pp. 282–283.

6 U.S. Annual Report of the Chief of the Militia Bureau, 1922 (Washington: 1922), p. 43Google Scholar.

7 These figures of Guard duty are approximations. The annual reports of the National Guard Bureau relating to the use of state military forces “… are very general in character, are lacking in detailed information, and are not regarded as either complete or authoritative ….” U.S. Annual Report of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 1936 (Washington: 1936), p. 16Google Scholar. In addition, the content of these reports has varied greatly over the last thirty years. Some accounts contain an elaborate description of National Guard state activity, while others do not carry a single line on the subject. This absence of uniform reporting standards still persists.

8 E.g., New York Times, March 21, 1936, p. 7Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., January 28, 1937, p. 16.

10 A survey entitled Participation of National Guard Units in Post-War Civil Emergencies was prepared in October, 1953, by Ruthrauff and Ryan, Inc., a research agency, for the National Guard Bureau. According to this report, the incidence of Guard state activity from 1947 to 1953 was as follows:

For an earlier, though incomplete, compilation of National Guard action during the 1918–1947 period, see pp. 180–181 of Reserve Forces for National Security, Report to the Secretary of Defense by the Committee on Civilian Components (Washington: 1948). For a detailed list of National Guard state action from 1934 to 1935, see 80 Congressional Record, 2069–2081. Current illustrations will be found in the annual reports of the National Guard Bureau, 1947 to 1954.

11 Lederle, John W. and Pealy, Robert H., “‘Halo’ over Michigan Drivers,” State Government, XXVII (December, 1954), 252–254Google Scholar.

12 As of mid-1955 forty-one states had passed enabling legislation. The Book of the States 1956–57. (Chicago: Council of State Governments, 1956), p. 348Google Scholar.

13 69 Stat. 686.

14 Statement of Hugh M. Milton II, Assistant Secretary of the Army, in Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, 84 Cong. 1 sess. on H.R. 7289, July 28, 1955 (Washington: 1955), p. 6Google Scholar.