Why was Congress reluctant to maintain a large standing army in the late 19th century?

During the late 19th century, Congress was reluctant to maintain a large standing army primarily due to a lack of perceived threats to national security. The United States had a relatively stable domestic environment and was not facing any immediate external threats that would necessitate a large military force. This perception led to a preference for a smaller standing army, which aligned with the prevailing belief in limited government and a focus on civilian life over military preparedness.

The political climate of the time was influenced by a desire to transition away from the militaristic approaches of previous generations, especially after the Civil War. Many policymakers believed that a large standing army could lead to the potential for government overreach and inhibit civil liberties. Therefore, the absence of any significant foreign threats allowed Congress to prioritize other areas of government spending and development rather than maintaining a sizable military presence.

In contrast, excessive military spending and domestic infrastructure development were not as central to this specific reluctance. While there were concerns about financial priorities, the overarching sentiment was more about the current security landscape. Similarly, fostering international alliances was not a driving force in the decision-making of Congress regarding military size during this period, as the focus was largely inward.