Talk:National Guard Bureau/Archive 1

Is this page mistitled?

It seems that this article has a great deal to do with the National Guard Bureau and the history of the National Guard but only a few sentences about the Militia Act of 1903. --Gblaz

I don't know what was wrong with the page mentioned. It has a privacy page, which states that is *can* be copy and distributed. It seems to be public information!

http://www.ngb.army.mil/ngbgomo/privacy.htm

I concur, The copyvio notice has been removed. RedWolf 17:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This article needs major clean up and rewrite. I'll get on it. First thing is to find the actual text of the Militia Act of 1903. Second thing is to move all the information on the National Guard, (which does not pertain to the Militia Act of 1903) and move it over to the National Guard entry.Tetragrammaton 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from Militia Act of 1903;

"The militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and and shall be divided into two classes -- the organized militia, to be know as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be know as the Reserve Militia." [from "An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes", January 21, 1903]

I am working on acquiring a complete transcript of the text of the Act.Tetragrammaton 07:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What the act means according to the National Guard of the USA

According to Lt. Col. Michael D. Doubler of the National Guard Association of the United States the Miltia Act of 1903 means this;

The Dick Act of 1903 temporarily settled the issue by transforming all state militia units into the organized regiments and companies of the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization.

The law recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend 24 drill periods per year and 5 days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods.

The law also called for Guard units to conduct maneuvers with the active Army and to receive training assistance from Regular officers. The Guard became subject to federal call-ups for nine months, though its service was restricted to within U.S. borders. In short, the Dick Act initiated many of the key aspects of Guard service that remain today.

The "state" militia units he is referring too are those created by the Militia Act of 1972/1852, i.e. "All able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45."Tetragrammaton 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The unorganized militia were encouraged to train for military service. The Military Appropriations Act of 1903 created the Department of Civilian Marksmenship and the Civilian Marksmanship Program which is still in existance today. The DCM/CMP's purpose is to provide military training for the conscriptable members of the civilian population.Tetragrammaton 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

is this supposed to be opinion or fact?

"the National Guard Bureau has repeatedly proven that the National Guard can effectively perform its duties, with its own personnel, at a high level of professionalism." Nothing against guardsmen, I am one afterall, but what does this have to do with the Dick Act, and how is it proven?Lar03 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)lar03

The last paragraph is too much boosterism as well -- not even for the Guard really, but for the Militia Act itself! I too am all for the Guard -- not just for the fighting you do on my behalf, but also the civil defense and rescue work. I went to volunteer with sandbagging when there was flooding in my city last year, and the guardsmen were doing yeoman's work -- and I'm not sure they had even been officially summoned by the governor and were drawing pay. Still, this is an encyclopedia and we're supposed to be detached and neutral and keep the opinion stuff on our userpages. This whole article will probably need going-over to really Wikify. --Jpbrenna 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The NGB

The National Guard Bureau is NOT an operational agency. It is only a coordinating agency which keeps both the 54 Guard forces and the US Army and Air Force on the same administrative and training page. When federalized, the National Guard forces are subordinated to Regular Army and Air Force units, while the Guard units are subordinated to the various State and Territory headquarters other wise. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

National Defense Act of 1916

I suggest creating a new entry for the National Defense Act of 1916 based on the content in the Division becomes a bureau section. The 1916 act is mentioned in several other entries so it makes sense to have a new entry they all can link to. Terjen 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I got to this page looking for the text of the act. 24.6.159.76 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

No, the present article is a history of the US NGB, a topic worthy of an article. Only the first section is about the 1903 Act, though its header doesn't say so. So, the way to go is to move this article from Militia Act of 1903 to National Guard Bureau (over redirect) and retitle the first section. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, with one reservation. In theory, this doesn't need to be moved, it needs to be split. But the page history belongs more with National Guard Bureau than with Militia Act of 1903, so the article should be moved before being split. Xn4 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, in that the current article is mostly about the National Guard Bureau. There is room for a separate article about the 1903 Militia Act, but at the moment it would be fine as a subsection of this one. Terraxos (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Old page history

I have moved some old page history that used to be at the title "National Guard Bureau" to Talk:National Guard Bureau/Old history. Graham87 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Guard Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516194811/http://kynghistory.ky.gov/history/3qtr/dickact.htm to http://www.kynghistory.ky.gov/history/3qtr/dickact.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)