It could also be an idea that a navy requires a more trained skill set, or the idea that our most likely enemies are overseas, so the Navy would be the first line of defense, holding off the enemy for long enough to raise an army.
As I’ve tried to make clear, the clause isn’t motivated by fear of a standing army per se, but by fear of a standing army under the control of the President, beyond the reach of Congress.
To a Seventeenth or Eighteenth Century executive bent on self-aggrandizement–such as King Charles I or James II of England–the army was a more practical instrument of tyranny than the navy. It’s hard to build up a “personal navy” to serve as your palace guard, because the ships are scattered hither and yon on the high seas.
When King James II wanted to lessen his reliance on Parliament in 1685, he demanded (successfully) that Parliament vote him revenue to support a standing army for life. The ostensible purpose was to put down a rebellion by the Duke of Monmouth, a rival for the throne. The real purpose was to build up a force loyal to him personally instead of the state, which would serve on his side in a possible renewal of the English Civil War. Hence the application of the two-year clause to the army alone.
Plus, it may require a longer than 2 year committment to maintain a fleet. By then I think the naval and merchant vessels were becoming less interchangeable and if you expected to keep a fleet, you had to make a long-term committment. A stretched-out thinly populated coastal country would need a ready navy as part of its defences.
Plus, as pointed out, it’s hard to oppress the populace with just a navy.
Not sure how they planned to prevent someone from billeting their armed men on ships a month out of the year and calling them “navy”. At a certain point you still ahve to rely on congress and the courts to put brakes on things.
The historically-minded Framers also knew that, although there have been many generals who became tyrants, there were vanishingly few admirals. The democratic American experience since has also borne that out: we’ve had several former generals become President, but no admirals. Those who rise to prominence in command of the Navy have not, by and large, gone on to successful political careers.
md2000 is correct about the increasing specialization of warship design by the late 1700s. In Theodore Roosevelt’s (pre-Presidency but still frequently cited) book The Naval War of 1812, he’s absolutely scathing about Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a kind of American naval militia on the cheap, refitting merchant ships as needed, rather than a professionalized but more expensive permanent Navy to fight our then once-and-future foes, the Royal Navy (and the French, to a lesser extent).
John McCain was a naval captain, just short of being a rear admiral. Perhaps that stopped him from being president. 
President Kennedy was a naval lieutenant: have any other presidents been naval officers?
Yes, Jimmy Carter, who attended the Naval Academy and reached the rank of Lieutenant in the Navy.
The career step from Navy captain to rear admiral is a huge one. It’s a real career bottleneck.
JFK, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush were all relatively low-ranking Navy officers during WWII.
All true, but ironically the real Navy was actually started in response to the French in the Quasi-War which thankfully gave us a small useful force when the War of 1812 rolled around.
Not quite. The original six frigates were authorized by the Naval Act of 1794; the Quasi-War with France was from 1798-1800. The Quasi-War did result in the completion of the last three of the six frigates, however.
Right you are, :smack:
The Marine Corps is part of the Dept. of the Navy, and I would think every bit as capable as getting up to no good (in this context) as the Army. In addition, the Marines were around during the Revolution - so it was wasn’t something alien (like the Air Force).
They were disbanded in 1783 and reestablished in 1798. When they were reestablished, the article establishing read, in part:
“SEC 4. And be it further enacted, That [navals peeps] shall be governed by the same rules and articles of war, as are prescribed for the military establishment of the United States, and by the rules for the regulation of the navy…”
Isn’t the money simply listed as a lump sum for an intelligence agency’s entire budget, technically meeting the requirement?
Is not the number of Generals, i.e. the overall staff- much greater in the Army vs the Navy? Especially before WWII. So, you’d expect more Generals to become politicians. Next we’ve not had that many General Presidents. After the Civil War batch stopped, there’s only been Ike. So, some 20 or so Presidents (depending on if you count Harrison, who was only a Brigadier ) with only one a General.
IMHO only 5 Presidents were elected due to their Generalships, and one of those was Geo Washington.
Teddy was certainly a Navy man, having served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Geo HW Bush was a Navy Man, JFK was a navy man, and at least JFK likely won the Presidency due to his Naval career.