StoneMtnMinis | 09 Apr 2019 11:43 a.m. PST |
Looks like it would be a really interesting read. Has anyone read it? link Dave |
rustymusket | 09 Apr 2019 11:54 a.m. PST |
From reading the quote attributed to James Madison, it appears the article's author misread Madison's quote. I am not English major, but it appears that James Madison was referring to subordinate governments as being a check on the national government. I only read a little further and decided that if you begin with an incorrect premise you cannot draw a correct conclusion. As always, this is only my humble opinion. |
Pan Marek | 09 Apr 2019 12:50 p.m. PST |
One must recognize that the article appears on a website for so-called "militias", and is cherry picking Madison to defend its position that the main (indeed, the article calls it "the" purpose) reason for the miltias was to overthrow governments they (the militas) deemed unsuitable. This is NOT what the founders intended. Indeed, militias existed as the main form of military defense in a nation that did not have the money for a standing military, and a British inherited suspicion of standing armies. Militias were duly constituted military organizations under the command of their state's governor, who would appoint the commanding general of same. They were not to be freelance organizations set up with the idea that they had the right to police the government. Before the ACW, power rested more with the states than the people. If the states deemed the Federal government harsh, they would reign it in. Of course, in practice, this attitude helped lead to the ACW, as "harsh" came to be seen as "the vote didn't go our way". Lincoln recognized that if pieces of a democratic nation could slip away in such circumstances, that nation would eventually cease to exist. Thus proving to the Europeans that democratic nations were unworkable. |
StoneMtnMinis | 09 Apr 2019 1:16 p.m. PST |
Actually, I asked if anyone had read the book. I was interested in the book, irregardless of the site it was referenced from. "power rested more with the states than the people", actually the poser did rest with the people, as the States were more responsive to "the people" than a distant federal government. |
SOB Van Owen | 09 Apr 2019 1:54 p.m. PST |
The author refers to the 2nd Amendment. I've seen the clause about the "well regulated militia" abused by both Left and Right so many ways it makes my head spin. The farmers of the 2nd Amendment certainly knew what they meant, but didn't succeed very well in passing on their interpretation. I just wish they hadn't thrown it in. It just clouds the water. But I, legal scholar that I am (not), have always thought that "well regulated" implied that the militia was, or should be, wait for it, regulated. By whom? The States of course. Or maybe at the smaller level, the County or Township. This goes back to the hereditary horror of all good Englishmen at the prospect of a national standing army. I don't believe that the purpose of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was to overthrow said State if it got uppity, as the author seems to imply. Quite the opposite, I would think. |
historygamer | 09 Apr 2019 6:57 p.m. PST |
I can't see an author's name. Not read it but there are some good books out there but they are usually state-centric. |
Parzival | 10 Apr 2019 10:26 a.m. PST |
On the gripping hand, the "well regulated militias" of the various colonies were used to fight against and overthrow the established government of the day— that's how the American Revolution got started, and how much of it was fought! Certainly the various States and the Framers did indeed have that very fact in their minds when the 2nd Amendment was written. As for "well regulated" they didn't mean government oversight, as we interpret the word to mean today. That's a grafted on meaning, derived from later usage. They meant what we would mean by "well run" or "well trained" or "well disciplined." They were, of course, assumed to be State and local community militias, sanctioned by and run by the same, made up of citizens who were expected to be called into duty for the defense of their communities and State. However they were (and are) also under federal authority, and explicitly under the command of the President of the United States, as started in Article II, where the President is established as the Commander in Chief of the militias of the States! This is further echoed by one of the earliest laws of the nation, which required that all male citizens must own a musket, ammunition and powder (a law which remained on the books unto the early 20th Century!) |
Virginia Tory | 15 Apr 2019 10:18 a.m. PST |
"As for "well regulated" they didn't mean government oversight, as we interpret the word to mean today. That's a grafted on meaning, derived from later usage. They meant what we would mean by "well run" or "well trained" or "well disciplined." A very good point. |
SOB Van Owen | 15 Apr 2019 10:35 a.m. PST |
I stand by my OPINION, as stated above. To which I am entitled, right Mister Big? Harrumph. One of the arguments swirling around about the Civil War was whether the several States had a right to secede. Some said NO, because it was not written into the Constitution. Others said that it did not need to be, since it was implicit. Why would the Constitution write into itself the right of its several parts to revolt? The 2nd Amendment's preamble is about how a Militia secures its security. |
Virginia Tory | 16 Apr 2019 5:13 a.m. PST |
The idea that governments that become oppressive can be overthrown by the people? That's the whole basis on which our nation was formed. The Constitution was intended to supplement the Declaration of Independence, not pretend it never happened. But: "Governments long established should not be overthrown for light and transient causes." A cautionary comment, meaning just because you don't like a certain politician being elected doesn't mean you head to the barricades right off the bat. |
Major Bloodnok | 16 Apr 2019 5:46 a.m. PST |
I found it rather amusing that during Shay's rebellion that when the farmers started closing down the county courts etc., just as they had done in 1770, the Mass. gov't. said it wasn't legal. Gov. Bowdoin sounded just like Lord North. |
Virginia Tory | 16 Apr 2019 7:44 a.m. PST |
Well….yes, that is the irony, isn't it? |
Brechtel198 | 17 Apr 2019 3:24 p.m. PST |
A much better reference, without the present-day propaganda, is Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in American Society to the War of 1812. Two other references that are useful are 1794 by Dave Palmer and American Army Life by John Elting. Reliance on the militia for fighting wars generally stopped after the repeated failures of the militia in the War of the Revolution and the War of 1812. The Mexican War was fought with regulars and volunteers, and the reliance on volunteer units was the rule during the Civil War. It is also worthy to note that there were different types of militia in existence during the above periods which is significant in itself. Treating the 'militia' as a monolith is incorrect. |
Bill N | 18 Apr 2019 1:53 p.m. PST |
Well at least I agree with the last two paragraphs. "repeated failures of the militia in the War of the Revolution and the War of 1812" Perhaps we could start by asking when Matthews' forces hit Virginia in the winter of 1778-1779 or Campbell's and Prevost's invaded Georgia and the Carolinas at the same time, where were the large continental forces that had been raised by Virginia and North Carolina to oppose them? The answer is elsewhere. Likewise in the War of 1812 there were a small number of regulars to check the attack on Baltimore, a small number of regulars to oppose the attack on Washington and a small number of regulars and sailors to fend off the attack at Craney Island near Norfolk. One reason there were not more regulars is once again those that were raised were being sent elsewhere. The U.S. didn't have the resources during the AWI or the War of 1812 to come close to being able to field enough troops to adequately defend a country that was exposed on the Atlantic coast as well as the northern and western frontiers. Part of this was political, but a huge part was also financial and logistical. It isn't simply a matter of what would have been more desirable. It is also a matter of what could practically be done given the resources and needs of the country. After the War of 1812 things begin to change. The country goes through a huge growth in population and financial resources. In the Mexican American War the area exposed to danger of invasion is much more reduced. During the ACW it is the U.S. which was taking advantage of the greater areas of exposure of the Confederacy to attack them from sea to the east and south as well as by land from the north. Plus the militia doesn't disappear after the War of 1812. Militia units were active in a number of wars with the natives on the frontier. They were used in several of the opening actions in the ACW as well. |
Bill N | 18 Apr 2019 2:01 p.m. PST |
One argument Virginia Tory and Major Bloodnok is that there wasn't just one American Revolution. Instead there were two going on more or less simultaneously. After the AWI the two turn against each other with the more conservative one getting the upper hand with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, while the more progressive one providing the support that lead to the election of Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans in 1800. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Apr 2019 4:19 a.m. PST |
From American Army Life: An Historical Portrait of the American Soldier from Colonial Times to the Present by John Elting, 25: 'On active service, the militia (of 'Long Faces' as the Continentals called them) often were more of a hindrance that a help. Washington described them as 'badly officered and under no government. They come in you cannot tell how, go, you cannot tell when, and act you cannot tell where, consume your provisions, exhaust your stores, and leave you at last in a critical moment.' MajGen Nathaniel Greene compared them to the 'locusts of Egypt' because the wasted the countryside without performing any useful duty. In battle they usually broke and ran as soon as things got dangerous.' |
Brechtel198 | 19 Apr 2019 4:24 a.m. PST |
Daniel Morgan remarking on the employment of his militia at Cowpens in January 1781: 'I would not have had a swamp in the view of the militia on any consideration; they would have made for it, and nothing could have detained them from it. And as to covering my wings, I knew my adversary, and was perfectly sure I should have nothing but downright fighting. As to retreat, it was the very thing I wished to cut off all hope of. I would have thanked Tarleton had he surrounded me with his cavalry. It would have been better than placing my own men in the rear to shoot down those who broke from the ranks. When men are forced to fight, they will sell their lives dearly…Had I crossed the river, one half of the militia would immediately have abandoned me.' |
Brechtel198 | 19 Apr 2019 4:27 a.m. PST |
Henry Lee remarking on the militia at Guilford Court House, March 1781: 'The North Carolina militia…abandoned us…Many were missing, as is always the case with militia after battle; but they generally are to be found safe at their own fireside.' It should be noted, however, that the Virginia militia that had run at Camden in August 1781 made a fight of it at the American second line. They were commanded by General Stevens, who had also been at Camden. In order to ensure that the militia he commanded wouldn't run, he posted 25 picked men to the rear of the line with orders to shoot anyone who ran. |
SOB Van Owen | 19 Apr 2019 7:26 a.m. PST |
All right, fine. What would have been your solution to the manpower shortage problem way back in 1775-1782? Would you have concentrated solely on Continentals? At what expense? Congress wouldn't even pay for the Continental troops it had. What would YOU have done with the existing militia units? What roles that the militia filled would you assign to Continentals? You are very good at cherry picking sources to tear down the militia. How would YOU fix the "problem"? |
42flanker | 19 Apr 2019 2:06 p.m. PST |
No dog in this fight, but I have the impression the militia didn't do so badly in New Jersey in the early months of 1777; during the so-called 'Forage war.' Perhaps I am mistaken. Did militia have adequate training to fight in line of battle? |
Bill N | 19 Apr 2019 10:14 p.m. PST |
My point SOB Van Owen. We don't even need to get into a debate on the quality of militia during the AWI. Pick any date you want before Yorktown, June 1775, May 1776, May 1777, May 1778, May 1780, wave a magic wand and have the militia disappear. The Continental army wouldn't double in size. Most likely in the short term it might increase 20%, and it could well be smaller. Waging war with a larger standing professional army required resources that the colonies either did not have or were not set up to provide. The demands on the Continental Army would explode. It would not be just the threat posed by the main field army(ies) that would have to be provided for. There would also be the western frontier and the entire Atlantic seaboard. Danbury type raids would have been far more frequent. Washington and Greene no longer would have the luxury of surviving battles. They must win them. The alternative means the loss of resources to the British, perhaps permanently. There is to my knowledge only one instance when a colony made a deliberate choice to suppress Continental recruitment in favor of raising militia, namely North Carolina in 1780. So take away the militias in the Carolinas and add 500 raw NC Continentals to Gates army. Do you think Gates wins at Camden? To start with Cornwallis's army would probably be stronger than it was because units like the 7th, 63rd and 64th and Loyalist formations that were engaged in holding down the partisans in SC might have joined Cornwallis for the battle. 1600 Continentals against at least 3,000 mostly high quality British troops, my money is on Cornwallis, assuming Gates even fights. |
SOB Van Owen | 20 Apr 2019 6:13 a.m. PST |
There are those who post here, using the same quotes in thread after thread, who seem to say that the militia were totally useless. I'm asking what he would replace them with, and to consider if it would be practical and affordable to do so. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Apr 2019 4:44 p.m. PST |
What would have been your solution to the manpower shortage problem way back in 1775-1782? Would you have concentrated solely on Continentals? At what expense? Congress wouldn't even pay for the Continental troops it had. What would YOU have done with the existing militia units? What roles that the militia filled would you assign to Continentals? You are very good at cherry picking sources to tear down the militia. How would YOU fix the "problem"? Which sources were cherry picked? If you think that, then prove it with your own source material. If not, then the point is moot. There were basically three types of American troops used during the Revolution: Continentals, State Lines (or regulars) and the militia. The State Lines and the militia paid better and the enlistment terms were shorter, the militia usually being three months when called up. That determined that cohesion in any American army using militia because they had to would be lacking. But the heavy lifting was done by the Continentals and they usually suffered the heaviest casualties. If the states had pressed the enlistment of Continentals more forcefully at least partially the problem could have been solved. 3,000-4,000 Continentals at Camden and Guilford Courthouse could have been the difference. And Greene augmented the guerilla bands in the south with Continentals from time to time, employing Lee's Legion in that way.
There are those who post here, using the same quotes in thread after thread, who seem to say that the militia were totally useless. I'm asking what he would replace them with, and to consider if it would be practical and affordable to do so. And there are those that post here that carry on the old myth that without the militia the war could not have been won. It's the other way round-without the Continental Army and the support of the French, the US would not have won. |
SOB Van Owen | 20 Apr 2019 9:25 p.m. PST |
Are you saying that the war COULD have been won without the militia? Are you saying that it's sole purpose was to stand in the battle line? Are you saying that one must choose between either the militia or the Continental army? That there is no role for both? |
SOB Van Owen | 20 Apr 2019 9:31 p.m. PST |
Who penned up the British army in Boston after the retreat from Lexington and Concord? Did Continental regulars even exist then, except as s fiction of nomenclature? Who made it difficult for the British army to supply itself once it left the coast? |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2019 2:30 a.m. PST |
My point is quite simple: The militia hindered more than it helped and that its existence to the detriment of the Continental Army hurt the war effort. And the continued 'effort' to inflate the importance of the militia over the Continental Army is not only incorrect, it is ahistorical. A larger Continental Army, as Washington wanted, would have probably shortened the war. There were, of course, exceptions to the rule. For example, The Philadelphia Light Horse, the Associators, and the Delaware Light Infantry all contributed to the war effort on the positive side. And there was one militia regiment that stood with the Maryland and Delaware Continentals at Camden that didn't run. But those are exceptions, not the rule. The myth of the militia is exactly that-a myth. |
42flanker | 21 Apr 2019 5:51 a.m. PST |
I don't see any one inflating the role of the militia or citing myths. It seems to me that contributors are arguing against the contribution of militia contingents being dismissed out of hand. I may as well ask again, did militia have adequate training to fight in line of battle? Did militia not do what was required of them at the Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse? |
Brechtel198 | 21 Apr 2019 8:56 a.m. PST |
Generally speaking, no they didn't. The militia did well at Cowpens and they were emplaced by Morgan so that they didn't have much choice. At Guilford Courthouse, the North Carolina militia ran before they did what they were asked to do and did not rally. The Virginia militia in the second line did credibly and one of their commanders, General Stevens who was caught up in the militia rout at Camden the previous August, was determined that they would stand and fight. And he posted 25 picked marksmen behind their line to shoot anyone who ran to ensure they did. He was wounded in the action. As for myths and legends, that is the basis as far as I'm concerned as to the extent of the militia contribution in general. |
42flanker | 21 Apr 2019 9:44 a.m. PST |
As far as you are concerned. In general. Myths and legends do not seem to be the basis of Bill N. or SOB van Owen's comments, which seem reasoned and informed. |
thehawk | 28 Apr 2019 1:21 a.m. PST |
Are there any books on the militia civil war in The South? An old video on youtube briefly mentions that there were 300+ engagements between US and British militias. The objective of both sides was more about settling old scores and land grabbing but little to do with independence. |
Bill N | 02 May 2019 7:48 p.m. PST |
I am not aware of any book that focuses exclusively on actions between the Rebel and Loyalist militias in the south. Even finding a work that adequately covers the entire activities of the Rebel militia in the south would be a challenge. We would be talking about conflicts that stretched from Florida and the Cherokee country to western Virginia to the Chesapeake, and going on from 1775 until the British evacuated in 1782. This is without going into the back country civil war in the Carolinas that was fought immediately prior to the AWI, and that in some instances the AWI was a continuation of. One older book I like that provides information on the activities of the militia between the fall of Charleston and the Battle of Cowpens in the SC back country is Walter Edgar's Partisans and Redcoats. If you are just looking for raw data I would recommend the Carolana website sections on the fighting in NC and SC. |