"The Citizen Militias of the United States, their ...." Topic

… ANTECEDENTS, DEVELOPMENT, AND PRESENT CONDITION

Of possible interest?

link

Armand

This article applies to the OP:

link

Kevin, your linked article relies on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is utterly discredited.

Wiki: "In 2010, a group of Republican politicians and conservative organizations criticized the SPLC in full-page advertisements in two Washington, D.C., newspapers for what they described as "character assassination" because the SPLC had listed the Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group for alleged "defaming of gays and lesbians".[18][170]

In August 2012, a gunman entered the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council with the intent to kill employees and smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches on the victims' faces.[171] The gunman, Floyd Lee Corkins, stated that he chose FRC as a target because it was listed as an anti-gay group on the SPLC's website.[172] A security guard was wounded but stopped Corkins from shooting anyone else. In the wake of the shooting, the SPLC was again criticized for listing FRC as an anti-gay hate group, including by liberal columnist Dana Milbank,[173] while others defended the categorization. The SPLC defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that the groups were selected not because of their religious views, but on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people… that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities."[174]"

Doc adds: at the minimum, SPLC is a player for the left in a lot of current controversies, and should not be cited as any sort of neutral or objective authority.

No, it is discredited as a "neutral" or "objective" authority. Time was, decades back, they did some good work, but they are too often cited as some sort of referee, when they are very much on one side.

I read the OP (the part on the Revolution) and am not impressed. He looks at the militia from the Continental perspective and not much otherwise. Barely scratches the surface.

Yes, CNN is discredited.

SPLC is only interested in raising money to pay themselves exorbitant salaries.

They have to look like they are doing actual "work" in order to justify the money given to them.

Nick, I agree that neither CNN nor Fox is 'objective." And indeed, I doubt we HAVE a neutral objective news source, these days. One large part of our division is that we cannot even agree on the facts about which to argue.

Btw, I'm a huge Poul Anderson fan.

Yikes! I think it is fair to say that none of the sources above are entirely without bias. But "discredited" implies a broad general understanding on the part of a majority that the organization is not a valid source of information, does it not?

bjporter, I feel like you could just as easily be talking about our most trusted right wing cable news network, whose highly successful business model you describe.

As for militias, I think this is an excellent topic Armand, but we might want to start with more than a college thesis.

Yes, doc, you are correct and I think this is the root of our current divide. My opinion. No solution comes to mind unfortunately.

…"As for militias, I think this is an excellent topic Armand, but we might want to start with more than a college thesis."…

For the moment … it's the material I have on hand … we'll see if I can find something else …

Armand

Good points Nick.

And now, I was wondering, among other things, what a "well regulated" militia means today.

More on the more-than-dubious 'mililtia movements' mentioned in the OP:

link

link

link

"…all 50 states have some provision in their state law, whether it's their state constitution or their state statutes, that prohibits private militia, private paramilitary activity. And that's also the case in Wisconsin. In addition, many states, including Wisconsin, prohibit private individuals, untrained, unaccountable to civilian authority from taking on official functions – functions of an official public officer like a police officer without any authority."

So is my brother's civil war reenactment group a private militia? How about a gun club? How about an organization that maintains armed security guards? In Texas the county sheriff can call on any and all armed citizens for his posse. That IS a militia.

I think some are afraid of the word.

I know that a number of churches now have organized reaction teams if an active shooter attacks their service. Armed reaction teams, the need for which is demonstrable.

You may know that the wagon trains crossing the continent (and beyond any existing jurisdiction, for months) would routinely establish a government for themselves. The Emigrants Guides included sample constitutions. Sovereignty of the people is a real thing.

If the breakdown of order proceeds further as it has for the past two years, people WILL organize to defend their lives and property.

Consult Boorstin's chapters on claim clubs and vigilantees in THE AMERICANS: THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE.

More based on the OP:

link

link

link

…your linked article relies on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is utterly discredited.

splcenter.org

From their website:

"The SPLC is the premier U.S. non-profit organization monitoring the activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists – including the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazi movement, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, antigovernment militias, Christian Identity adherents and others."

"We're currently tracking more than 1,600 extremist groups operating across the country. We publish investigative reports, train law enforcement officers and share key intelligence, and offer expert analysis to the media and public."

👍 😊

"In addition, many states, including Wisconsin, prohibit private individuals, untrained, unaccountable to civilian authority from taking on official functions – functions of an official public officer like a police officer without any authority."

Yet, oddly, a lot of states have no issue with people who fit this very description….bounty hunters.

'If the breakdown of order proceeds further as it has for the past two years, people WILL organize to defend their lives and property."

It's happened recently. In New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. Not to mention similar groups from the Black Panthers in the 60s, The Redneck Militia, groups in Atlanta during the Aubery trial, and others.

"Lol imagine saying BLM protests are the same as people attempting to break into our seat of government and Murder elected officials."

Well the Antifa groups in Portland did try to seal police officers in a federal courthouse then set it on fire. Does that count?

"What else would you call it?"

What it was. A riot.

I wrote and taught a class on the Sovereign Citizen movement a few years ago. I read a lot of SPLC articles, and a lot were very shallow if not factually incorrect. The problem with the SPLC isn't that they don't do good work, on occasion they do, but only on one side of the argument.

If you want news on right wing hate groups the SPLC is okay, if you want information on left wing hate groups you generally get excuses and downplaying of their crimes.

As a neutral source on all hate groups the SPLC is useless.

Dn, yes.

People organizing to defend their lives and property needs a rethink

The 2020 riots were a major challenge for law enforcement. There is never enough personnel to cope with events like this, or the well organized smash and grab crimes more recently. The Newark and LA riots are historic examples of loss of control, though we did not approach that scale last year as far as I can tell.

Recruiting for law enforcement is especially difficult now. The pay, hours, work environment, and physical danger take a huge toll. The leading cause of death for cops last year was Covid. The defund movement hurts morale and recruiting. The major support for law enforcement in the administration's proposed spending bill in Congress is vital if it can survive.

The police don't need vigilantes, they are an unregulated chaotic nightmare. They need more well trained officers who are educated, supported, and compensated to do their jobs and survive not just physically, but mentally.

Tortorella +1

The word "militia" has obviously evolved in history. Militia units used in gaming the AWI are never as strong or reliable as regular troops, even though in this era they were well regulated. Most importantly they were sanctioned by the military and the government.

Today's outgrowth of that might be the National Guard.

Unsanctioned, unregulated "militia", is not seen as a modern adjunct to the military or law enforcement. I would not speak to their intentions as I do not follow these groups.

10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

None of the above are the 'right wing' militia groups indicated in this thread.

Free speech, baby; if my gun club wants to call itself a militia, who is to stop them?

If government is doing its JOB, to maintain order, there is no need for alternate methods.

So tell me, is a Neighborhood Watch a militia? Is a church's armed response team against an active shooter a militia? Is a Civil War reenactment company a militia? They have military ranks and are all armed. How about clubs who fight each other using paint ball guns or other such toys? Some of them practice small unit tactics.

Persuade me that you are not simply using "militia" as a bad word for people of whom you do not approve. How about a definition?

DO you accept that there is such a thing as self-defense?

Is this a militia? YouTube link At least five members drew weapons in reaction to an active shooter. That doesn't just happen; it is a pre-arranged response.

If it is NOT a militia, why not? If it IS a militia, what's wrong with it?

I anticipate your argument that a militia has some government sanction, like a sheriff's posse. And I generallly agree. Except that sovereignty of the people is a real thing. If We the People, as a whole OR IN PART (as the wagon trains) have the right to create governments as needed, then it follows thta WTP have the right to create lesser organizations to make government effective.

Again, if the existing government is doing its job, thta is never necessary. But it may become necessary in the face of "mostly peaceful" protests and arson and looting.

link

Were the veterans who organized --and raided an armory -- to overthrow a corrupt local government a militia? an insurgency? We the People?

"Following a heated competition for local offices, veterans in the insurgent GI Non-Partisan League took up arms to prevent a local courthouse ring headed by state senator Paul Cantrell and linked to Memphis political boss Ed Crump from stealing the election. When Sheriff Pat Mansfield's deputies absconded to the jail with key ballot boxes, suspicious veterans took action. A small group of veterans broke into the local National Guard Armory, seized weapons and ammunition, and proceeded to the jail to demand the return of the ballot boxes. The Cantrell-Mansfield deputies refused, and the veterans, now numbering several hundred, opened fire. The ensuing battle lasted several hours and ended only after the dynamiting of the front of the jail. The surrender of the deputies did not end the riot, and the mob was still turning over police cars and burning them hours later. Within days the local election commission swore in the veteran candidates as duly elected. The McMinn County veterans had won the day in a hail of gunfire, dynamite, and esprit de corps."

link

Then there is Fort Wilson. That really WAS the militia, versus a Founding Father or two.

There originally 88 comments in this string, what happened to the rest?

Bill nuked them because we started arguing Jan 6.

Ok, thanks for the clarification

Doc what happened in McMinn county? Was anyone killed or injured? This article sounds a bit like it condones the action of the vets. Regardless of the provocation, these folks committed multiple major crimes as an armed mob.

B&E, larceny, assault with intent, the list of possible charges is long. They should have been in sworn in in custody. They had the corrupt deputies in jail, and with the evidence! Why open fire? Deputies fired in self defense, it appears.

Where was the legal system in the aftermath? The whole crowd should have been prosecuted, including the state senator who started it. Not I county I would feel safe living in down the road otherwise.

link

So how does one proceed "lawfully", as you urge, when the mechanisms of the law are corrupted?

The law is not supreme. We the People who create the legislature which makes the laws are supreme. That is why a jury has plenary power.

As to the aftermath, check out the Fort Wilson event. There were deaths on both sides; the militia used a CANNON against Wilson's house. The president of the state and the Philadelphia Light Horse finally separated the two parties. NOBODY was charged with ANYTHING, because it would have re-ignited civil war.

(This is the same James Wilson who is portrayed as a wimp in the musical 1776. Not hardly.)

"On October 4, 1779, the Fort Wilson Riot began. After the British had abandoned Philadelphia, Wilson successfully defended at trial 23 people from property seizure and exile by the radical government of Pennsylvania. A mob whipped up by liquor and the writings and speeches of Joseph Reed, president of Pennsylvania's Supreme Executive Council, marched on Congressman Wilson's home at Third and Walnut Streets. Wilson and 35 of his colleagues barricaded themselves in his home, later nicknamed Fort Wilson. In the fighting that ensued, six died, and 17 to 19 were wounded. The city's soldiers, the First Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry[14] and Baylor's 3rd Continental Light Dragoons, eventually intervened and rescued Wilson and his colleagues.[15] The rioters were pardoned and released by Joseph Reed."

Government is created by the social contract for the purpose of protecting natural rights. That is a real thing, a real contract, binding on both sides. But if one party violates the terms of the contract, the other party is no longer bound by it. This is the main point of the Declaration of Independence and the first part of our Fundamental Law.

Doc,

Given that we were in the middle of a revolution to become a nation in 1779, I would expect the contract to be a little wobbly, especially in an era of heavy drinking.

Tennessee, 1946. Should we believe that any individual or group can decide to take up arms and shoot it out when they are wronged, or believe they are wronged? In this case they had a real cause, but made the wrong choice. The right choice? Hard to say. But we all have a natural right not to get shot. Life, liberty, happiness in a town full of people running around stealing elections and shooting each other?

How does shooting at cops with stolen weapons sound today? Bad cops, I know. So you shoot them yourself? No courts? No justice system? Frank Serpico was nearly killed by bad cops, but in the end he beat them for all of us without firing a shot.

It is interesting to think about how this might have played out if the vets were a group of people of color, 25 years after Tulsa. The natural rights of black Americans were violated routinely. What if they had robbed an armory and attacked the jail based on the violation of their rights?

Our rights are about balancing the public good with individual freedoms. Its a tough job.

Individual freedom is the supreme public good.

What is your solution when government is abusing its powers, when government is violating rights? When elections are corrupted? When trust is gone?

The right of revolution is the LAST natural right. But it IS the last natural right. When "a long train of abuses, all evincing the same design" . . . .

You would agree, I suspect, that the US government was justified in breaking the legal system of segregation in the southern states? But what if the systematic violation of rights is at the national level, by the US government? What if elections are corrupted, and the mass media, so that the ballot box no longer avails as the means for the People to effect change? We have elections so we do not have civil war. As long as they are FREE elections with votes fairly counted.

That system was unconstitutional, undermining the intent of the framework, illegal in the broadest sense. I don't agree that individual freedom is on top of the the heap. It can only work in the context of the contracts you spoke of.
Abuse of power is too recent to discuss here under the rules, and remains under investigation across several jurisdictions in any case. History will judge.

Bill will quite rightly nuke any voting conspiracy posts here, and I could never convince you to look at the sources for your concerns in any case. I have many concerns myself. We have to let it go unless it's history.

Ah, but segregation was PERFECTLY constitutional under Plessy. Then sixty years later it became UNCONSTITUTIONAL under Brown. Not a single word nor comma had changed, yet the Court (properly) reached the opposite conclusion. Do you see any PROBLEM with that? Because I surely do. Do our fundamental liberties depend on what 5 out of 9 lawyers think, for now?

Segregation was never ethical, it was legal only in a strict sense of the word, never part of the ideals set out in the Declaration.

Yes, I agree with that. But isn't "constitutional" a moving target defined by the temporary majority of the Court? So how are we to respond when the national government acts unethically and in clear violation of the ideals of the Declaration? Must we wait for half a century and a world war to change popular attitudes, before redressing an evil?

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life . . . ."

So in my professional life, I was generally more concerned with the intent of the law than the letter of the law. In my world, this was how reality worked and I made judgement calls accordingly.

I think that the intent of militia in law is not to harm the government or the people of the United States. I do not think that militia was ever intended to be heavily armed groups of people meeting in secret, plotting against the government, looking to harm elected officials.

There are plenty of ways to air you grievances in this society. We are not perfect, but we have it pretty good. We can speak out. We have courts. We have free elections.

Once you draw a weapon, everything changes.