Armament Quotes
This quotation is often provided by historians studying the gun culture of America. Even conservatives like Ames did not see a gun or an armed citizenry as important to America’s survival or well being. Contrary to popular belief, even the State Militias’ whose rights to bear arms was written into the Second Amendment did not bother to do so. In 1803 only three state militias had rifle companies. Firearms of the time were expensive, difficult to maintain, and hard to use. Unless one needed them for defense, it was too much of a bother. Even in the aftermath of the War of 1812 only 30% of Massachusetts adult men owned guns; by 1839, the rate was below 10%. It was on the frontier where guns were popular and necessary. See {613080}.
Even in democratic America, this has been true. We spend almost any amount of money to give our military the weapons of war that will make them more effective soldiers, but when they return with mental and physical wounds, government money is not so easy to come by to preserve them in good health. Cost is a major consideration in Veterans benefits and care, but weapons expenditures have little restraint. It has been so for many years in many cultures.
See Napoleon Bonaparte for a similar view.
RSD Party platform. The Russian Social Democratic Party was in 1887 a very modern democratic party inside the feudalism of Tsarist Russia. The Tsar and the nobility thought them wild radicals and yet their party platform was not only reasonable, but in large part influenced by the American Constitution, Bill of Rights, and then current practices in America. It is hard to believe but at the time a Russian could not work at an occupation he chose but could only do the work that was permitted by the aristocrat who owned the land he lived on. The Tsar, Alexander III, was a terrible autocrat, unlike his father who had desired some reform and abolished serfdom. All efforts at any kind of Democratic reform were put down, and Russian reformers in this party tended to split between those who still hoped for reform and those who saw violent revolution as the only hope. By 1906 the party which had no success at any of their planks of reform had split into two main subgroups—the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks—both active revolutionary groups, but the Mensheviks tended to be more democratic and moderate and wanted to include the workers and the middle class whereas the Bolsheviks saw the middle class as part of the problem and argued for a more radical political structure. The real split occurred after the 1917 revolution when the Mensheviks lost popularity among the Russian revolutionists as not being radical or realistic enough in what it would take to transform Russia. The Bolsheviks gained control and by 1921, they had outlawed and purged the Menshevik party. That was the last hope of democracy in Russia, as the Bolsheviks model was that which guided the country until the fall of the Soviet Union.
