# Has the US Armed Forces ever come close to mutiny against their Commender-In\_Chief? Could it happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 10, 2020, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522 "2020-05-10T06:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2020, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/41 "2020-05-14T22:51:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As I said earlier, the years before 1789 have no legal force… Nonsense. The Articles of Confederation had legal force. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2020, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/42 "2020-05-14T23:08:35Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The modern meaning of Commander-in-Chief coincides with being the President of the United States of America, a non-member of the military symbolizing civilian control over the armed forces. But the OP does not restrict the meaning to its use under the second US Constitution. You’re the one doing that. The Continental Congress served as a defacto government from 1775, and took it upon itself to raise armies for the United States. [The Congress appointed Washington Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in 1775.](https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/commission.html) However you want to nitpick, Washington was CinC of US Armed Forces (which is what the OP asks) before he was president, at a minimum from 1781-1783 (although I would say at 1776-1783). ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/43 "2020-05-15T00:09:19Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > The Articles of Confederation had legal force. They did, true… albeit the government wasn’t run in quite the same way as we know nowadays… In the fall of 1783, Congress met at the French Arms Tavern in Trenton, New Jersey, where they pretended to conduct affairs of state while getting drunk. This lasted until they adjourned for Christmas, when they proceeded to get _really_ drunk. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/44 "2020-05-15T01:58:54Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Nonsense. The Articles of Confederation had legal force. Today. They don’t have legal force today. Nothing from before 1789 has legal force today. And, oddly, the OP has not come back to explicate exactly what he meant by his OP. He is usually quite conscientious in doing so, and hopefully will appear in the near future. ---
**Author:** ![davidmich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@davidmich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidmich)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/45 "2020-05-15T03:44:07Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Today. They don’t have legal force today. Nothing from before 1789 has legal force today. > > And, oddly, the OP has not come back to explicate exactly what he meant by his OP. He is usually quite conscientious in doing so, and hopefully will appear in the near future. engaged Exapno Mapcase. What prompted me to ask the question about whether a mutiny had ever occurred against the US Armed Forces was watching unmasked top brass in a meeting with President Trump and wondering how mixed their emotions were toward a civilian President/CIC with no wartime experience, potentially putting them in harms way. Mutiny seems to be triggered by an emotional response to perceived ineptitude on the part of the military leadership. ( I have not read any precise clinical reasons for mutiny) I don’t know the dynamics of the relationship Trump has with his generals. But there must be some line that they will not cross, even for their CIC. If they were asked to perform a mission or task that seemed unethical or unwarranted or put the country at risk, I suppose they could resign. But what is to prevent them from refusing en masse to carry out a command? Could it happen in individual states? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/46 "2020-05-15T04:02:23Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > They did, true… albeit the government wasn’t run in quite the same way as we know nowadays… > > In the fall of 1783, Congress met at the French Arms Tavern in Trenton, New Jersey, where they pretended to conduct affairs of state while getting drunk. This lasted until they adjourned for Christmas, when they proceeded to get _really_ drunk. Sounds like they ran it _exactly_ in the same way. ETA: Also, this ridiculous hijack about the founding date of the country is absurd. Whether you want to date it from the Declaration of Independence or the ratification of the Articles of Confederation doesn’t really matter; the fact is “The United States” was established as a sovereign entity well before the present Constitution came into force. Like, is it a surprise that laws, including organic laws, can be amended or replaced over time? That doesn’t mean you become a “new” country. That’s like saying France was founded in 1958. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/47 "2020-05-15T10:56:21Z")
So we’re on our _Deuxième République_, technically. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/48 "2020-05-15T16:27:53Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > engaged > Exapno Mapcase. What prompted me to ask the question about whether a mutiny had ever occurred against the US Armed Forces was watching unmasked top brass in a meeting with President Trump and wondering how mixed their emotions were toward a civilian President/CIC with no wartime experience, potentially putting them in harms way. > > Mutiny seems to be triggered by an emotional response to perceived ineptitude on the part of the military leadership. ( I have not read any precise clinical reasons for mutiny) > I don’t know the dynamics of the relationship Trump has with his generals. But there must be some line that they will not cross, even for their CIC. If they were asked to perform a mission or task that seemed unethical or unwarranted or put the country at risk, I suppose they could resign. But what is to prevent them from refusing en masse to carry out a command? Could it happen in individual states? Thank you. I assumed that this was the scenario you envisioned, or a modern precedent. You’re correct that resignation would be the normal response to an illegal request. Although it didn’t involve military personnel, the so-called [Saturday Night Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre) went down exactly along these lines. > [@](#): > > The popular name Saturday Night Massacre[1] refers to a series of events that took place in the United States on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal. U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. penultima thule already mentioned that the military took steps to prevent a drunk Nixon from acting. They were never needed and I don’t know of any overt actions at other times. Again, such extraordinary steps would be highly unlikely and it’s hard to speculate what would happen because the exact circumstances would decide everything. Not sure what you mean by “Could it happen in individual states?” Could you clarify? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/49 "2020-05-15T16:47:23Z")
> [@davidmich](#): > > I don’t know the dynamics of the relationship Trump has with his generals. But there must be some line that they will not cross, even for their CIC. If they were asked to perform a mission or task that seemed unethical or unwarranted or put the country at risk, I suppose they could resign. But what is to prevent them from refusing en masse to carry out a command? Could it happen in individual states? **Moderating** Specific discussion regarding Trump and his relationship with the military would best be discussed in Politics and Elections. Hypotheticals could perhaps go in IMHO. Let’s keep this discussion to past instances. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/50 "2020-05-15T17:03:54Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Today. They don’t have legal force today. Nothing from before 1789 has legal force today. That’s not really accurate. The most obvious counter-example is the existence of the United States of America as a sovereign country. That was established before 1789 and nobody felt the need to declare ourselves an independent country again in 1789. We just assumed that our national identity carried over into our new government. If that’s too abstract, there’s the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was enacted under the Articles of Confederation. The laws that were established by this (such as federal administration of territories and the admission of new states which would be equal to existing states) were carried over to the new government. I agree that the United States that was formed in 1789 was substantially different than the United States which was formed in 1776. But I think the new constitutional United States can be regarded as a successor state to the articles of confederation United States. But the articles of confederation United States was not a successor state to the British colonies. In other words, American history started in 1776 and has continued from there. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/51 "2020-05-15T18:17:06Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I find it unlikely to the point of “not going to happen” that a lot of people would go with personal loyalty to a General if he/she stated “Let’s overthrow the President” Oh, sure, if they just suggested this out of the blue, it’s very unlikely. But how many mutinies in history, US or otherwise, really just came out of the blue? For a professional force like the US military, any major mutiny or coup would have to be merely the last act in a long series of events that alienated the loyalty of a significant number of officers and enlisted members. In such a case, the General would probably know the answer before they even asked the question. Clearly, based on history, it will take _a lot_ for the US to get to such a point, but then, it also took Rome quite a while, but it did happen. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/52 "2020-05-15T18:22:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Today. They don’t have legal force today. Nothing from before 1789 has legal force today. There are several corporations in the United States, including a number of colleges, which still derive their corporate status from a pre-1789 charter. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2020, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/53 "2020-05-15T22:02:41Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > There are several corporations in the United States, including a number of colleges, which still derive their corporate status from a pre-1789 charter. There were 17th-century manorial fiefdoms in New York well into the 1840s. Pretty sure the only reason they got rid of them is because judges got tired of having to learn Dutch. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2020, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/54 "2020-05-16T01:17:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If that’s too abstract, there’s the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was enacted under the Articles of Confederation. The laws that were established by this (such as federal administration of territories and the admission of new states which would be equal to existing states) were carried over to the new government. Actually, no. Congress understood that AoC legislation no longer had legal force. They reformulated the ordinance with modifications and passed it as the [Northwest Ordinance of 1789](https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance). I had assumed that we were talking about federal legislation, so this is the only case that applies. I don’t know enough about individual state history to be able to cite whether states had to pass similar legislation to accommodate existing institutions. I’d be very surprised if they didn’t, though, even if it were some blanket grandfathering them in. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2020, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/55 "2020-05-16T01:35:13Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I had assumed that we were talking about federal legislation, so this is the only case that applies. I don’t know enough about individual state history to be able to cite whether states had to pass similar legislation to accommodate existing institutions. I’d be very surprised if they didn’t, though, even if it were some blanket grandfathering them in. These types of things are generally called reception statutes or reception clauses. For example, New York’s Constitution of 1777 has this to say: > [@](#): > > Such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2020, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/56 "2020-05-16T03:13:10Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > These types of things are generally called reception statutes or reception clauses. For example, New York’s Constitution of 1777 has this to say: My understanding is that reception statutes apply specifically to former British colonies becoming independent, hence the timing of New York’s. If there’s a name for the equivalent formal process that occurred in 1789, I’m not aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2020, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/57 "2020-05-16T04:19:55Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > My understanding is that reception statutes apply specifically to former British colonies becoming independent, hence the timing of New York’s. If there’s a name for the equivalent formal process that occurred in 1789, I’m not aware of it. It can definitely also happen when states or countries adopt new organic laws. Several US states (including New York) have rewritten their constitutions from time to time, and they generally include a clause stating that all laws and regulations and such from the old constitution will continue, except where they conflict with the new constitution. Notably, the (current) US Constitution does not contain such a broad clause, which is why the new Congress decided to re-enact some legislation like the Northwest Ordinance. But there absolutely _were_ certain matters that were received from the AOC under the Constitution. For example, the engagements clause: > [@](#): > > All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. It would be pretty hard to argue that there was a sudden, clean break from the Confederation to the present union when in fact litigation from the confederation era over federal debts and contracts continued for some years after 1789. (Fun fact! The Articles of Confederation _also_ had a debts clause regarding contracts made by the Continental Congress.) ETA: Here it is > [@](#): > > All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States [under the Confederation], in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2020, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522/58 "2020-05-16T15:49:50Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Notably, the (current) US Constitution does not contain such a broad clause, which is why the new Congress decided to re-enact some legislation like the Northwest Ordinance. My point exactly. > [@](#): > > But there absolutely _were_ certain matters that were received from the AOC under the Constitution. For example, the engagements clause: > > > [@](#): > > > > All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. Again, my point exactly. > [@](#): > > It would be pretty hard to argue that there was a sudden, clean break from the Confederation to the present union when in fact litigation from the confederation era over federal debts and contracts continued for some years after 1789. But that’s exactly what lawyers would have argued for any and all matters if Congress had not explicitly continued them when they started anew. It’s not hard, but impossible, to argue that there was not a clean break legally. If you don’t believe that, try to enforce any matter that was not addressed by the new Congress, the one and only Congress that makes our law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-us-armed-forces-ever-come-close-to-mutiny-against-their-commender-in_chief-could-it-happen/853522.md?page=2)