More "rights" for you

[liberty]

I anyone is interested:

___________________________________________________
http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-in- ... ry-war.htm

The Role of the Militia
During the Revolutionary War

By Edward Ayres, Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation Historian

Listen to an audio interview with Edward Ayres and Steve Clark of WCVE
Ideas Station about the Virginia Militia in the Revolutionary War.

If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been
most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.
– George Washington, September 1776


The role of the militia in the American Revolution is
interpreted at Yorktown Victory Center special events.
Militia re-enactors present a musket firing demonstration
at an October Yorktown Victory Celebration event.

Even before the struggle for American independence ended, two contrasting views of the role of the Revolutionary militia had emerged. Popular opinion, remembering the gallant stand of the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, held fast to the ideal of the brave citizen soldier as the mainstay of defense. Other Americans however, including many Continental Army veterans, derided the militia’s reputation for fleeing in the face of the enemy. The early histories of the Revolution also tended to minimize the contributions of the militia, and one acclaimed account of the war, written as late as 1929, even referred to “the utter failure of the militia system.”

More recent studies however have gone a long way toward revising this predominantly negative assessment of the role played by the militia during the war for independence. Although the relative effectiveness of the Revolutionary militia varied from state to state and year to year, this newer scholarship has explored and described some of the crucial achievements of the militia that had been previously unexamined. These historians note that the role of the militia is easily misunderstood and that it has to be judged by different standards than those applied to a professional military force. As part of its long-term exhibit planning process, the Yorktown Victory Center has begun researching the role played by the militia during the Revolution, with a special emphasis on Virginia as a test case.

From the earliest years of English settlement, colonists had depended on local groups of part-time citizen soldiers to defend themselves from the Indians or at times to maintain law and order. By the time of the French and Indian War, American colonists had come to rely more on British troops and volunteer provincial units for protection, but even though the militia system had deteriorated, Americans held fast to their faith in the concept of the citizen soldier. Beginning with the Stamp Act crisis and extending throughout the Revolution, the Americans’ experience with the British Army only strengthened their hatred of standing armies as implements of monarchy and tyranny and a threat to civilian government.


More than 3,000 militiamen, under the command
of Governor Thomas Nelson, were present at the
Siege at Yorktownin October 1781.
Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation Collection



Although George Washington and others frequently complained about the shortcomings of the militia, some Continental Army officers like Nathanael Greene had come to a more realistic appraisal of the value of these part-time soldiers by the end of the war. While the militia could not be counted on to stand up to trained, regular forces, it could and often did perform other important roles that were less obvious but crucial elements in the winning of independence.

The roots of the various militia systems that developed in the North American English colonies reached far back to Anglo-Saxon Britain. All able-bodied freemen could, in theory, be called up for temporary service by the king to defend their community and the kingdom from invasion. As the earliest successful English settlement in North America, the Virginia colony immediately faced the problem of how to defend itself from possible Spanish attack as well as from the native inhabitants.

The first quarter of the 17th century was a period of experimentation and improvisation as the settlers struggled to gain a foothold in the New World. During the succeeding decades, the colony’s evolving militia system was refined, reorganized, and continually tested in combat. Forced to defend themselves with little or no outside help, the colonists had developed an effective and well organized militia system that by the 1670s encompassed nearly all able-bodied, adult males.

As threats to the colony diminished, the Virginia militia largely ceased to be an effective combat force. By the early 1770s, the militia’s primary function was to maintain public order, and one historian has described local militia musters as something “of a joke” since many men were “untrained, unarmed, and uninterested.” The situation changed dramatically in the spring of 1775 with the outbreak of open hostilities between the Americans and British forces. By the summer of 1775, the Virginia Revolutionary government had established a threepart military establishment consisting of regular full-time soldiers, a militia composed of most free white males, and a smaller, elite militia group to be called “minutemen” who were to be given extra training and provided with hunting shirts and leggings. Although some minutemen companies did see combat early on against Governor Dunmore, within a year the special minute companies had been merged back into the regular militia establishment.


Visitors at the Yorktown Victory Center are invited
to train as members of a citizen militia during the
Liberty Celebration in July.

By 1777 the Virginia militia’s duties consisted mostly of suppressing loyalists, preventing slave uprisings, and serving as a pool of potential recruits for the Continental Army. Evidence of militia activity is scarce and usually fragmentary, but one way to learn what militiamen actually did during the Revolution is to study their applications for pensions, submitted decades after the war. Because the records from Amherst County, Virginia, are relatively complete, they provide a good example of what kinds of duties a typical militiaman might perform. Amherst militiamen played a variety of roles during the years 1775-1782, some being called up for as many as four or five tours, which usually lasted about three months each. Many Amherst men served as guards at the barracks near Charlottesville where the British soldiers taken prisoner at Saratoga were being held. Others were called out to fight Indians on the frontier or to relieve state forces at nearby garrisons. Some tours involved nothing more glamorous than gathering provisions or driving herds of cattle.

Most Amherst militiamen saw little real action until 1780 when they were called on to provide men to fight in the Carolinas. One ill-fated company was at the Battle of Camden in August when the men broke and ran away along with the rest of the Virginia and North Carolinia militia. Another company of Amherst militiamen was ordered south in March 1781 to support General Nathanael Greene, but arrived too late to take part in the Battle of Guilford Court House.

When Virginia was invaded beginning in January 1781, the Amherst militia was called out numerous times as the British seemed to march at will throughout large areas of the eastern and central regions of the state. A number of Amherst County men reported having served under the Marquis de Lafayette in the summer of that year, and some fought in the Battle of Green Spring against Lord Cornwallis. As Generals Washington and Rochambeau arrived in Virginia in September to begin the siege of Yorktown, Amherst militiamen, along with those from many other counties, were called up to support the regular army. Many of the elderly men who applied for pensions beginning in the 1820s proudly proclaimed that they were present at the “surrender of Lord Cornwallis.”

By the end of the Revolution, some Continental Army officers had learned what the militia could – and could not – reasonably be expected to do. Although the militia was seldom able to stand up alone to British regulars, it nevertheless made a number of important, even vital, contributions to winning independence.

[Lord Jim]

Well, that's a very interesting and in depth historical analysis Lib...

and there are some interesting points...

But overall, I have to say, it seems rather, "Steve like"....

The historical analysis seems sound...

But the paranoia seems a bit uncalled for...

[Gob]

[Guinevere]

And there is the further fact that the 'gun-nut' red states hive by far the highest rates of gun deaths.

The bees have gone to your brain.


Indiana has one of the highest if not the highest number of gun permits in the country. Gun ownership is through the roof and sky high. Yet, oddly enough, we are no where near Chicago and DC for gun violence.




Love from the red state gun nutters.

Don't forget that the state with some of the LOOSEST gun laws is consistently near the BOTTOM of the list. (That being: Vermont.) And, of course, DC bans guns completely and is essentially a war zone.

Having lived in both places, DC is not a war zone, thank you very much. And in Vermont the population is so small you'd have to look hard for someone to shoot. More likely you'd hit a cow or a moose than a person.

But seriously, as discussed somewhat above, you cannot draw a straight line comparison between DC guns law and VT gun laws, and the violence or lack thereof as being related to the availability (or not) or legal guns. You need to also examine population density, urbanization, and socio-economic factos. Otherwise, it's like comparing cherries and watermelons and saying because they are both pink, they're the same.

[Guinevere]

Interesting Lib. My forefathers were indeed militia members. We have family records showing that three brothers in my direct line guarded the Dorchester neck -- which pokes out in the Chesapeake Bay from the eastern shore -- during the war of 1812, in an attempt to help keep the British fleet from coming up the Bay and heading into DC and Baltimore.

And we all know how well *that* worked out . . .

[dales]

Don't like guns - - - - Don't buy any.

Simple.

Until the 2nd Amendment is eliminated from the US Constitution, please don't impeade my rights to own firearms.


~ Thank-You

[dales]

dales wrote:

And your answer to this lies where, Gob?

To which Gob replied:

In not living in the USA.

You are more than welcome to visit.

You'd fall in love with the SF Bay Area.

There's a firearms range 15 minutes from my home and Lord Jim could be at one within 20 minutes or so.

[liberty]

But the paranoia seems a bit uncalled for...

Jim, I don’t understand what paranoia? I thought it may be interesting to someone; it was interesting to me. I feel in terms of interest I have more in common with the people here than I do with some members of my own family.

I came across it while I was looking for support to show Scooter that the militia did not have cannon. I found nothing definitive. The article did say that the militia seldom had cannon. I suspect that the only time they had cannons was when fighting in corporation with the army or attacked to army unit.

I also think GW's remark about the value of the militia showed a lack of gratitude. After all it was the militia that saved him during one of his winter camps. If they had not provided the early warning bonfire system and come to his aid it would all have all been over. His troops were in bad shape in winter camp, but the militia were well feed and rested in their homes; it made all the difference. I can’t remember the details but it was one of the few winter battles.

[Lord Jim]

Jim, I don’t understand what paranoia?

Well Lib, I apologize if I read too much into your post...(you'll have to forgive me...I have spent the last three years dealing with Steve...my judgment may be some what skewed... )

When I see parallels being drawn between current events and The Revolution, my antenna tends to go up....

The antenna that seeks out tin foil hats and propeller beanies.....

[Rick]

The antenna that seeks out tin foil hats and propeller beanies.....

I feel mine is rather fashionable...

[Gob]

You are more than welcome to visit.

You'd fall in love with the SF Bay Area.

There's a firearms range 15 minutes from my home and Lord Jim could be at one within 20 minutes or so.

Dales, one day I'll take you up on that mate. I've always wanted to fire handguns. I used to wildfowl as a youth and was quite a useful shot.

I'd also love the chance to meet some of you buggers, and chew the fat over a beer or eight. I'm sure you're not as bad as you seem.

[loCAtek]

The antenna that seeks out tin foil hats and propeller beanies.....

Tin foil cat, you say?

[Lord Jim]

Okay, that's quite enough...

I've got my eye on you lot...

[@meric@nwom@n]

I'd also love the chance to meet some of you buggers, and chew the fat over a beer or eight. I'm sure you're not as bad as you seem.

You can't chew the fat you're veggie, you say our beer tastes like piss, and we aren't as bad as we seem, we are worse.



Edited to change your to you're.

[Lord Jim]

You can't chew the fat your veggie, you say our beer tastes like piss, and we aren't as bad as we seem, we are worse.

What she said....

However, if you should ever happen to find yourself in The City That Used To Know How But Did Too Many Drugs In The Sixties And Forgot, you will find a warm welcome....

We'll go to my favorite steak house....

[liberty]

Jim, I don’t understand what paranoia?

Well Lib, I apologize if I read too much into your post...(you'll have to forgive me...I have spent the last three years dealing with Steve...my judgment may be some what skewed... )

When I see parallels being drawn between current events and The Revolution, my antenna tends to go up....

The antenna that seeks out tin foil hats and propeller beanies.....

Jim, things would have to get pretty bad before I would advocate revolution. It is like I would tell my liberal friend back in the late sixties and early seventies. They could not wait until the peoples revolution came; it would make everything so much better. I pulled into their communal gas station one day and they all were all moping around depressed. I asked them what was wrong; was told that the pigs, police, in Los Angeles had jut assassinated the SLA. He said in a depressed tone of voice, you can’t resist the establishments they are just to strong. The common people would have to settle for a life of economic slavery.

I expressed the opinion that a revolution was a bad idea and was only justified in the most extreme circumstances. A people could easily end up in a worse situation after a revolt than before.

The problem is for a revolution to work there has to be a strong command and control system. After the fighting is over, the man or men in control may not want to give up the power.

Good night, I am sleepy,

[Jarlaxle]

You are more than welcome to visit.

You'd fall in love with the SF Bay Area.

There's a firearms range 15 minutes from my home and Lord Jim could be at one within 20 minutes or so.

Dales, one day I'll take you up on that mate. I've always wanted to fire handguns. I used to wildfowl as a youth and was quite a useful shot.

I'd also love the chance to meet some of you buggers, and chew the fat over a beer or eight. I'm sure you're not as bad as you seem.

I might be able to accomodate that...I could give you some real beer (Sam Adams, brewed in Boston), and could meet my uncle at the range. Maybe you could try out my Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 Magnum, Liz's Beretta 9mm, his Springfield Sledgehammer (.500 S&W), and maybe the M-14 National Match Liz's friend bought. (I do NOT want to know what she paid for that...) You could also see what a real 19th century New England farmhouse looks like.

[dales]

Is it a paradox that large urban enclaves run by liberal aristocrats have the highest firearms violence?

[Andrew D]

Not at all. Urban areas have the highest rates of gunfire violence no matter who is running them. And if they were run by right-wing aristocrats, they would be even worse off.

[dales]

I doubt it.

I would surmise that...

Citites in the states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada (states that lean in a conservative direction) have lower incidences of gun violence than...

Cities in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Califronia where laws defining firearms ownership are quite restrictive and liberal politicos are well-entrenched into the power structure.

btw:

Andrew, if you believe what you posted, a simple test of the PRACTICAL limits of your hypothesis are in order.

Being a resident of Contra Costa Coounty, file the needed paperwork in Martinez and see if you EVER get a CCW permit.

Would a resisdent of the states I listed have a near-impossible task of obtaining a CCW permit?

I doubt it.