National Guard Bureau - Militia Act of 1903

Militia Act of 1903

United States Secretary of War Elihu Root militated for reform of the national guard, in annual reports of 1901 of 1903 and in public letters. He argued that state militias should be more like the Army in discipline, uniforms, equipment, and training, to mitigate problems that arose in the U.S. Civil War and the recent Spanish American War of 1898. The Militia Act of 1792 was obsolete. The resulting Militia Act of 1903 (or Dick Act) became law. It gave Federal status to the militia and required the organized militia of the States to conform to Regular Army organization and standards. It dramatically increased federal funding of the militia: between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53 million on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.

The 1903 act authorized the creation of a separate section responsible for National Guard affairs. Located in the Miscellaneous Division of the Adjutant General's office, this small section, headed by Major James Parker, Cavalry, with four clerks, was the predecessor of today's National Guard Bureau.

This section remained under the supervision of the Adjutant General's Office until War Department Orders on February 12, 1908 created the Division of Militia Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of War. The Division remained a part of the Office of the Secretary of War until July 25, 1910 when the Chief was directed to report directly to the Army Chief of Staff. The Division continued to perform under the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Staff until the passage of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. Then the Division of Militia Affairs became the Militia Bureau of the War Department, under the direct supervision of the Secretary of War.

Read more about this topic:  National Guard Bureau

Famous quotes containing the word act:

    But the whim we have of happiness is somewhat thus. By certain valuations, and averages, of our own striking, we come upon some sort of average terrestrial lot; this we fancy belongs to us by nature, and of indefeasible rights. It is simple payment of our wages, of our deserts; requires neither thanks nor complaint.... Foolish soul! What act of legislature was there that thou shouldst be happy? A little while ago thou hadst no right to be at all.
    Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881)