"What was the role of the militia during the Revolutionary" Topic

"I love the smell of saltpetre in the morning…"

And we are to accept that because you say so? I doubt any others "equate" the two wars, but the similarities are quite obvious.

You could start by reading John Shy's collectin of essays in A People Numerous and Armed.

I've studied the war in Vietnam off and on since 1967. A good place to start is Summons of the Trumpet by Dave Palmer.

Then, if you're actually interested in a factual analysis of the war instead of the left-wing propaganda that flooded the 'market' during and in the aftermath of the war, try The Vietnam War Archive which was put together by the University of California. I've actually seen it and done some research in it. It is composed of primary source material from both sides.

One of the myths it proves false is about the US anti-war movement, a good portion of which actually supported the North Vietnamese war effort, which is, at best, sedition.

And the war was one of aggression against South Vietnam, whose existence was guaranteed by the Peace Treaty in 1954 which provided for two countries, not one. The North Vietnamese violated that treaty by invading South Vietnam. They would to the same thing after the 1973 peace treaty after the US army in Vietnam left.

Now which 'similarities' are you talking about?

A good reference for Virginia in the Revolution is The Revolution in Virginia 1775-1783 by John Selby.

Using one state to 'typify' the employment and value of the militia is ludicrous. They were all different and were not monoliths.

WEll, Kevin, first, I've used Shy's book (including assigning it in a course on the revolution) since it came out. And I think Shy's essay supports my view, which is, however, based mostly on my own research for my dissertation.

Happens I agree with you about the anti-war movement, and also about the war of aggression against SVN. I suspect our views of the VietNam conflict are pretty similar.

My quarrel is with your over-emphasis on the military aspects of the American war, when political and social and economic and diplomatic factors weighed as heavily. And of course we lost in VN not militarily, but politically.

Yes, of course each state was different. Virginia was the largest, and key in the southern campaigns. It also happens to be the one I have studied.

My quarrel is with your over-emphasis on the military aspects of the American war, when political and social and economic and diplomatic factors weighed as heavily. And of course we lost in VN not militarily, but politically.

I'm a militiary historian and study war. I only study social, political, and economic factors as they apply or affect the military side of conflict.

Quarrel all you like, but that is irrelevant.

" War is a mere continuation of politics by other means."
—-Clausewitz

Note that he considers war to be subordinate to politics. You will of course disagree, because that is what you do.

One major political consideration of the AWI was the long standing Englishman's distrust of a Standing Army. Hello, Cromwell.
I can cite a few instances where that fear was justified.
The mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.
The mutiny of the New Jersey Line.
The Conway Cabal.
The Newburgh Conspiracy.

And, what if Washington did not return to his plow, like Cincinnatus? The tradition of the United States as a constitutional republic is almost entirely due to the character of George Washington. What if Washington had been slain in battle? Would Gates return to the plow? Wayne? Sullivan? Hamilton?

And "other" considerations are irrelevant, because you say they are.

It also happens to be the one I have studied.

Exactly my point. You cannot apply what happened in Virginia to what happened in the other twelve states. Some is the same; I would say most is quite different.

My quarrel is with your over-emphasis on the military aspects of the American war

Without the soldiers, more specifically the Continental Army, there would have been no victory. All else becomes moot.

'For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste that the protected will never know.'

I am a military historian as well. But "war is too important to be left to soldiers."

Really?

I find that comment to be ignorant in the extreme…as well as being extremely naive.

Hitler would have undoubtedly agreed with that comment. Smart heads of state rely on their commanders to fight the war in question.

Kevin, the quote is from Georges Clemenceau. Before you go about accusing a French statesman of being "ignorant in the extreme", I suggest you look him up, and the context in which he said it. I'll even let you use Wikipedia.
If you disagree with centuries old American ideal of civilian control of the military, why not just come out and say it, instead of just hinting.

I firmly believe in civilian control of the military. Your false accusation is not only ludicrous, it is ignorant. I hinted at nothing.

I said nothing against Georges Clemenceau; perhaps you should read what I actually wrote again. Your 'inferences' are, as usual, wrong.

The anger of sheep is terrible.

Kevin, what in the world?!? It is a famous quote, and instantly findable if you do not know it. Clemenceau led France during the Great War and knew a bit about conflict. "Civilian control of the military" means a good bit more than merely the president being CinC. Soldiers can lose sight of too many important values in pursuit of military victory. Military strength and actions are a set of means, never an end in themselves, but the stress and passion of war can cause the generals to lose sight of that.

"The anger of sheep is terrible." What does THAT mean in the context of this thread? Marshall Ney would not have hidden behind vague implications or hints.

"Yellow-haired Hood, with his wounds and his empty sleeve,
Leading his Texans, a Viking shape of a man
With all the thrust and lack of craft of a berserk sword.
All lion, none of the fox.
When he supercedes Joe Johnson he is lost, and his army with him,
but he could lead forlorn hopes with the ghost of Ney."

Hitler would have undoubtedly agreed with that comment.

Godwin's Law says you lose. "A corollary to Godwin's Law is the well-known tradition in the Internet's Usenet newsgroups that once a person in a discussion thread invokes the comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, the thread is ended and the person who made the comparison has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

Kevin, please stop denying that you said what you said.
Doc quoted Clemenceau when he said "War is too important to be left to the soldiers", a remark you called "ignorant in the extreme…as well as being extremely naive."
Then you said you had nothing against Clemenceau. Which is it?
(Clemenceau actually said "generals", which changes nothing.)
If you reject that, it strongly implies rejection of civilian control of the military.

What's your opinion of Douglas MacArthur?
Should Hoover have fired him for violently, and against orders, suppressing the Bonus Marchers?
Should Truman have fired him for insubordination in Korea?
That is the definition of rejecting civilian control.
I'm curious to see what you think.

John, yes, McArthur is a great example. He was a brilliant man, and not JUST as a general; his rule over Japan between 1945 and 1950 gets and deserves high praise. I happen to agree with him about the real enemy in Korea being Communism and not narrowly North Korea, but it was not his decision to make, and Truman had every right to fire him, really HAD to fire him.

"The anger of sheep is terrible." What does THAT mean in the context of this thread? Marshall Ney would not have hidden behind vague implications or hints.

I read it as the self righteous privilege of mindless devotees to persecute nonbelievers.

And Ney would never have hurt sheep, he was too busy killing horses. I understand that horses ney-ed at the sight of him.

McArthur was an autocratic megalomaniac and in many ways had no business leading a citizen army.

I rather agree with your characterization of McArthur, but I would not consider that COMPLETE.

I'm curious to see what you think.

No, you're not.

You misinterpret then add your own 'version' of what you believe someone said or meant. And that, laddie, is horse manure.

Get a grip.

Well, Kevin, I AM curious about your take on McArthur. I gave mine above, spread over three posts.

You misinterpret then add your own 'version' of what you believe someone said or meant. And that, laddie, is horse manure.

Which is exactly what you do. ALL THE TIME. I'm just turning it back on you.

Let's see a show of hands. How many think this thread has run its course?

Having been butted in the hip, and almost into the middle of next week, by a disgruntled ewe, I should just like to confirm that the anger of sheep can indeed be terrible.

I AM curious about your take on McArthur. I gave mine above, spread over three posts.

Why are we discussing MacArthur in a Revolutionary War thread?

Which is exactly what you do. ALL THE TIME. I'm just turning it back on you.

Absolute garbage as well as being intellectually dishonest.

Why do you always want to pick a fight? All you are doing here is projecting. Get over yourself.

Yes, let's end this thread.

'I thought that Arthur MacArthur was the most flamboyantly egotistical man-until I met his son.'-Major General Enoch Crowder in the 1969 edition of Encyclopedia Americana.

'Old Army folklore' had General Pershing predicting that MacArthur's first marriage would end in divorce 'because there was only one full length mirror in the MacArthur's quarters.

His hot-footing it out of the Philippines leaving Wainwright holding the bag (and later not allowing Wainwright the Medal of Honor) was disgraceful.

Rumor has it that the Massengale character in the novel Once an Eagle was modeled on MacArthur's character.

MacArthur's tenure as Supreme Allied Commander-in-Chief in Japan after War II was 'probably his greatest achievement.

MacArthur's not preparing/training the US Army's occupation troops in Japan led to early defeats in Korea in 1950.

His request for a Marine Division for Inchon was common sense.

His assignment of Ned Almond as X Corps commander in Korea was not an inspired choice and led to disaster for the US Army troops assigned to the corps and the brilliant performance of the 1st Marine Division at Chosin Reservoir and their withdrawal to Hungnam.

My Dad, who commanded a US Navy attack transport in the Pacific in War II and was in Japan for a time after the shooting stopped remarked on the looting of Japanese family heirlooms by MacArthur's staff.

MacArthur was responsible for the disastrous defeat of the US and their allies in North Korea.

He more than deserved being relieved in Korea. I've never respected MacArthur nor his personal conduct.

When my brother was a cadet at West Point, he was present for MacArthur's 'Duty, Honor, Country' speech. His letter home about that event described MacArthur as 'the old fart.'

Having been butted in the hip, and almost into the middle of next week, by a disgruntled ewe, I should just like to confirm that the anger of sheep can indeed be terrible.

Perhaps she felt your "Hail, Hail Fredonia!" routine wasn't quite up to snuff?

Sheep can be such brutal theater critics.

Speedy recovery, old friend.

Well this thread took an unexpected turn.

Before you go about accusing a French statesman of being "ignorant in the extreme"

I'm not 'accusing' a French statesman of anything. The quotation was used out of context, and that is the problem. It reminded of some of the garbage a recent American president said about US generals-and that president is a draft dodger to boot.

Virginia was the largest, and key in the southern campaigns.

And they failed, along with their erstwhile governor, when the British invaded. And militia were mustered in Virginia without the needed arms and equipment.

Weren't militia supposed to report armed and equipped and not mooch of the state or, more frequently, the Continentals?

That McArthur was an egotist is beyond dispute. My only quibble with Kevin's summary would be McA leaving the Phiiippines; didn't Roosevelt ORDER him out?

Virginia's shortage of weapons was indeed a problem, and is a complicated story in itself.

But I think, Kevin, that you are grasping at straws here. The militia battalions in the Yorktown campaign were effective enough, because the state government had made some needed adjustments.

Nonsense. The militia was 'needed' at Yorktown because there were not enough Continentals to field with the main army.

I suggest that you read Chapters 11, 14, and 15 in The Revolution in Virginia 1775-1783 by John Selby. No 'straws being grasped' there.

Ordered out or not, MacArthur should have stayed in the Philippines. That was the honorable path. And his dishonor was 'enhanced' by his refusal to approve the recommendation for Wainwright's medal of honor.

You might also want to get hold of Yamashita's trial for warcrimes after the war was over. He was tried because he defeated MarArthur in the Philippines, nothing more, nothing less. The comments of Yamashita's defense attorney, a US Army judge advocate, are particularly telling. We studied the case in our military law class at West Point. It is interesting to say the least.

Agree about Yamashita trial…..

Armand

Population Control in the AWI is simply keeping the Loyalists suppressed and unable to set up pro-Crown governments. By and large they (the militia) were successful in this pro-democracy endeavor. (IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!)
Distasteful, of course. But it kept the Tories out of power. I'm a Whig, so I approve.
Any moral tut-tutting here?

"Seems to …."
Of course it does. Follow your own guidance.

I am NOT in agreement about , but am on the Yamashita trial.

Besides what John wrote, population control is just what it sounds like. Law enforcement including tax collection, suppression of organized resistance to law (there was quite a lot to the 1780 draft law), catching deserters and returning them to the army, control of the slaves, and providing some safety from raiders on both frontiers. Plus the political and social mobilization inherent in being called, individually, to militia service.

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Jefferson to Madison 1787

Weren't militia supposed to report armed and equipped and not mooch of the state or, more frequently, the Continentals?

There are a number of answers to that question Kevin.
1. Not everyone enrolled in the militia had firearms. If you read Virginia militia laws it was contemplated that the poor were to be armed by the community, but that didn't happen. When the time came to draft men from the militia for longer term service, the burden fell heavily on those elements least likely to be able to afford firearms. In the Carolinas unrest in the back country meant colonial officials were happy to see as many of them disarmed as possible in the days leading up to the war.
2. A fowling piece would be an acceptable firearm for militia purposes. Army commanders wanted them to have muskets.
3. Firearms broke and gunsmiths were not available.
4. Complaints about Continental weapons and state weapons being used to arm militia ignores that the flow went both ways.
5. A household might only have one firearm. If that firearm was taken by someone called into long term militia service it would leave the household with none.

As for Virginia not being prepared, the Commonwealth raised 7 infantry regiments for Continental service between 1779 and 1782, in addition to those regiments that were already in Continental service, which also gutted the State regiments. They also deployed a number of militia contingents to the Carolinas.

When the British invaded the colony, which they did a number of times during 1779-1781, those Virginia Continentals were elsewhere. To meet Matthews 1779 raid there was only three Continental regiments in the process of forming. To meet Leslie and Arnold there were no Continentals. To meet Cornwallis's reinforcements there was only one Continental regiment. In the days leading up to Arnold's invasion Steuben urged that the Virginia militia in the Commonwealth be released to free up more resources for troops to be deployed to the south. While Arnold was still in the Commonwealth Steuben sent a newly raised Continental regiment and militia to reinforce Greene. It was only with the arrival of Lafayette that Continental forces were finally being deployed to Virginia. The problem Virginia faced from 1779 to 1781 was that the resources that it could deploy were constantly being needed elsewhere.

Bill's points with Doc's comments:

1. Not everyone enrolled in the militia had firearms. If you read Virginia militia laws it was contemplated that the poor were to be armed by the community, but that didn't happen. When the time came to draft men from the militia for longer term service, the burden fell heavily on those elements least likely to be able to afford firearms. In the Carolinas unrest in the back country meant colonial officials were happy to see as many of them disarmed as possible in the days leading up to the war.

DOC: Militiamen who could prove indigence were to be armed with public muskets purchased from fines (mostly for missing monthly musters). This provision, like the militia law in general and indeed like many laws in general, was enforced with varying degrees of rigor before the revolution. Western counties facing Indian threats were more serious about it than tidewater counties.

2. A fowling piece would be an acceptable firearm for militia purposes. Army commanders wanted them to have muskets.

DOC: Yes.

3. Firearms broke and gunsmiths were not available.

DOC: The state maintained a shop for the repair of public muskets. There were never enough, gunsmiths or guns.

4. Complaints about Continental weapons and state weapons being used to arm militia ignores that the flow went both ways.

DOC: Virginia purchased a good many muskets from overseas, paid for with tobacco. Some were used to arm or rearm the militia. Administration was always a challenge.

5. A household might only have one firearm. If that firearm was taken by someone called into long term militia service it would leave the household with none.

DOC: YES. One interesting point is that militia WOULD NOT TURN OUT in the immediate neighborhood of a British force; men stayed home to protect their families. The state would call up militia from surrounding counties instead, with better results. A corallary was that young bachelors tended to move away from threats, e.g. on the frontier when Indian raids came; family men were stuck.

Bill, again, yes, that is correct. Virginia (and Governor Jefferson) deserves high praise for sending its defenders into the Carolinas.

It should also be pointed out that Virginia was well-nigh indefensible against an enemy with naval supremacy. Moving the capital from Williamsburg to Richmond was necessary but not sufficient. If you DID have, say, a brigade of reliable regulars to defend the state, where would you put them? The enemy had too many avenues of approach. The dispersal of targets made defense of all impossible, though it also limited what damage the invaders might do in a short period of time.

The Virginia State Gun Factory—also known as the Fredericksburg Gun Factory or the Public Gun Factory—was among the first public arms factories established by one of the former British American colonies. Colonel Fielding Lewis and Major Charles Dick established the facility along the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg after the Virginia council approved its creation in July 1775. The Virginia State Gun Factory operated throughout the war, repairing and manufacturing muskets, bayonets and small quantities of gunpowder for Virginia troops. The musket pictured above is modeled after the British Brown Bess musket.

On January 4, 1781, as British forces under Benedict Arnold invaded Virginia, Charles Dick wrote to Governor Thomas Jefferson on the status of the Fredericksburg Gun Factory. While highlighting the need for money and provisions to keep the factory at peak capacity, he noted the resolve of the citizens of Fredericksburg, writing "the Gentlemen of this Town and even the Ladys have very spiritedly attended at the Gunnery and assisted to make up already above 20,000 Cartridges with Bullets, from which the Spotsylvania Militia and of Caroline have been supplied, as also above 100 Good Guns from this Factory."

In addition to the Fredericksburg Gun Factory, Scottish immigrant James Hunter operated nearby the Rappahannock Forge. During the war, the forge contained a nailery, tanyard and carpenter shop. Located relatively inland from the coast, the Fredericksburg Gun Factory and Hunter's Iron Works were spared from destruction during the British 1781 invasion of Virginia.

To Thomas Jefferson from Charles Dick, 4 January 1781
From Charles Dick
Fredg. Jany. 4th. 1781Sir
I have just time to acquaint You That the Gentlemen of this Town and even the Ladys have very spiritedly attended at the Gunnery and assisted to make up already above 20000 Cartridges with Bullets, from which the Spotsa. [Spotsylvania] Militia and [those] of Caroline have been supplied, as also above 100 Good Guns from this Factory; As I propose to do all the good in my power in these troublesome times I shall continue to direct the Factory and keep the Workmen together if possible, which I find pretty difficult to do without Money and Provisions. I shall wait on your Excellency as soon as I hear the Offices begin to do Business, and have the Honour to be with the greatest Respect Your Excellencys Most Obedt Hbl. Servt.,

Chas Dick

RC (Vi); addressed: "His Excellency Thomas Jefferson Esqr. Governour &c. Virginia. favour Mr. Strachan."

I've never been a fan of Jefferson's "a little bit of rebellion now and then", or " the tree of Liberty must be renewed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and tyrants" nonsense.
He sounds too much like a faculty lounge radical. That's too facile an argument to justify

Perhaps she felt your "Hail, Hail Fredonia!" routine wasn't quite up to snuff?

Well, actually, I was singing "Comin' through the rye."

How did I end up on the Napoleonic board?

Yeah.
Sucks, don't it?