What is a real Militia?

You know, the period before the civil war was also a period of great enthusiasm for state militia units both here and in other countries. I sometimes wonder if that contributed to the likelihood of war.
Click to expand...
Well ... it seemed to work in Virginia prior to the "Civil War". Some States seceded, and Virginia Militia was called forth to intervene ... Virginia said "no" and declared secession too. If all the States had such integrity, the militia principle would have secured free States as it was intended.

The antifederalists could see how the federal power over the State Militias might be used to send militia from one State into another to attack their free government. In Federalist #29, Hamilton ridiculed the idea:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government ... If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia ...

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That ... the militia of ... Massachusetts is to be transported ... to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?"

But, of course, the antifederalists were right, and the militia of Massachusetts was transported to Virginia to attack our free government.
 
One of the basic weaknesses of the Confederacy was the essential weakness of the central government. The basic claim of the right of the state to leave the union, or, the claim that the state government had precedence over the national government, meant that any confederate state could theoretically sucede from the Confederacy. None did, though one threatened to, and of course, Virginia did in fact split because of the war. It really was a "War between the States." Of course, it started with the state forces of one state attacking Federal forces, and also, the Confederacy itself transported the state troops of all the (Confederate) states to other places as well. "The whole South is here today." So you may have a point there. And it makes my point as well, I think. It is almost like the militia is a standing army!
 
I have to take exception to the post that suggests that the militia be organized without interference from the government or permission. The purpose of the militia, which also should be organized, equipped and controlled by local government, is to support the government. You do support the government, don't you?

Concerning the issue of using the state militia to subdue the haughtiness of the good people of other states, then how are we to defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

There is also the issue of using the militia for foreign adventures. In Great Britain there were (more or less) clear lines between units that could be sent overseas and those that were raised only for home defence. Those distinctions changed over the course of time, naturally, as did the necessities. Ironically, when the time came that Great Britain needed troops for overseas use, believers in the volunteers had a difficult time convincing the authorities that they (the volunteers) were of any use at all. Since then, things have changed once again and Great Britain, like the United States, relies on their Territorials for deployment to interesting and exotic locales.

But to return to the basic issue, the last thing I want is a self-appointed militia.
 
I think when the right of secession comes up, that I am going to start pointing out that I do not necessarily advocate a right to secede for no reason, but when yankees turned against the US Constitution, when they blatantly defied the part of the US Constitution that said that they must return runaway slaves, they violated the compact between the States, and the way I understand the nature of compacts, if one party turns against the compact, the other parties are no longer bound.

I don't think that anyone is ever going to convince me that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter, as if we could have just sat on our hands and the yankees would have gone home and let us be.
 
Blue Train if you'll look a bit later you will see that I recanted the part about governmental intereference. Upon reading the militia act of 1795 I can see that the government has the right to call up the Militia at certain times.

To the rest of you concerning the American Civil War, it is clear that slavery is wrong. The war was not fought about slavery though, anymore than Iraq is being fought (never was) over WMD. The civil War was fought over states rights. Iraq is about removing a madman. The current mess is about the administration not knowing how to get out of the mess they created. Remind you of VietNam? Politicians do things for reasons of power. They always try to find a red herring that the masses will swallow to justify their power trip.

A well regulated militia may be a great tool to curb the power brokers. Ready to sign up?
 
Concerning the issue of using the state militia to subdue the haughtiness of the good people of other states, then how are we to defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Click to expand...

Virginians, by seceding, did not become the enemy of the US.

What is the point of State Militia if not secure the right to secede? How else would Virginia use its militia to check the US? If there is no right to nullification or secession, if we must do whatever the US says and we can never leave, then how is that a free State as the Second Amendment is intended to secure?

And what about the Declaration of Independence, and our Virginia Declaration of Rights, declaring that the people of a free State have a right to alter or to abolish their government? I reckon there is no principle more American than the States' right to secession.
 
Slavery is an institution based ultimately on kidnapping. Funny it should be in the constitution. Firing on Fort Sumter was not the cause of the civil war but that's where it started. Do you suppose every soldier inside Fort Sumter was a foreign Yankee? The answer to that has no bearing on what a militia is, however.

But let me say that I am a Southerner. My father was born in Virginia and my first ancestor born here was born in 1626. Curiously enough, his father, the first immigrant, returned to England. But I was born in a border state, in a border county and in a border town. Tensions over such matters of succession are always high in such places and often they suffer for it. After the war, there were even struggles over where the county seat should be, the divisions between north and south being so strong. Ultimately the matter was settled with some midnight diplomacy and the instruments of local government were moved to where they remain today. At least I assume the matter is settled. There is even a town nearby named "Union." No question about where they stood in the matter.
 
Slavery is an institution based ultimately on kidnapping. Funny it should be in the constitution.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything funny about the States' right to slavery having been protected by the US Constitution. The US Constitution is a compact between the States, and some States had slaves ... what's funny about declaring that States escaping from one State into another had to be returned? How else could it have been? Why would a slave State enter a Union where its slaves could just runaway and not have to be returned? And why would a State without slaves enter a Union where slaves from another State could flock there and have to be absorbed? It makes perfect sense to me that the agreement was that slaves had to be returned to their masters.
 
I don't think slavery was what the initial poster was interested in. Whether you think it was immoral or you are in denial for slavery being a bad thing, how does that stay on Doug's topic of wanting to understand what a militia is about?

Debating the causes of the Civil War is just an exercise in cognitive heuristics or Freudian defense mechanisms for Southerners, anyway.
 
Slavery is an institution based ultimately on kidnapping.
Click to expand...
Actually, the slave TRADE was supported in its original form by kidnapping. But the concepts of slavery itself was based on property ownership. When the slave trade ships were outlawed, the slave industry was maintained entirely by following generations born in-country. The northern states had their own version of slave labor long before the first shots at Fort Sumter rang out--in the form of Irish and German immigration. This was one major point of contention from the South's perspective. Northern immigrants were making next to nothing for wages and living in the absolute worst contitions while southern slaves were housed, fed, and had to be maintained--in essence, taken much better care of.
It makes perfect sense to me that the agreement was that slaves had to be returned to their masters.
Click to expand...
As mentioned, slaves were considered property, not unlike a draft horse. If your horse gets away and wanders into your neighbor's pasture, it's still YOUR horse. Slaves were regarded the same way in the early 1800's. Look up the Dred Scott case.

What is the point of State Militia if not secure the right to secede?
Click to expand...
The basic principle that fueled the civil war was the Ordinance of Nullification, which stated that if the Fed Gov't passed a law that was damaging to a state, that state could nullify that law. It had nothing to do with the original purpose and intent of a militia, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a state's right to sucede. Militias were formed and maintained as a direct result of the revolutionary war and the original constitution known as The Articles of Confederation enacted at that time. One thing that was not covered by that earlier version was the Gov't had no authority or ability to tax, which meant there was no funding to maintain a standing army. This made a standing militia an absolute necessity. It wasn't until after Shays' Rebellion in 1786 that the Connecticut Plan (our Constitution) was even a rough draft, and it was only ratified in September, 1787 under the condition that an individuals rights be covered by the Bill of Rights.
 
As surprised as I am to say this, as much as I largely agree with and admire Rangefinder and HughDamright's stance and statements, Glenn Meyer is correct. To be clear, I am unReconstructed Southern and proud of it, meaning I think in principle the South was right in it's stance in 1861 in regard to their States rights and liberties that were supposed to be protected under the Constitution. (Which DOES NOT mean I support slavery or think we should go back to slavery. I do try to put things in historical context and understand why people did what they did back then under the conditions that existed in the world and not look down my nose at someone because they "owned slaves" in 1850. The subject of slavery, while certainly not ideal, is a complicated subject in American history, much moreso than modern leftists, neo-cons and even KKKers make it out to be.) BUT neither slavery nor the War to Prevent Southern Independence have anything to do with the subject at hand lets stay on the topic of what a militia is. 'kay?
 
Did you know that the only difference between an “insurgent” and a “freedom fighter” is which side you are on? Now, Im basically a simple guy. And according to John Kerry, if I’d have done better in school I wouldn’t be a Marine in Iraq right now. However, one thing this simpleton does know is to learn a lesson from a bad situation. And Iraq isn’t exactly a good time.

My point is this: we should all learn from the enemy, because they are “a well regulated militia”. These people are not heavily armed, yet they destroy countless heavily armored vehicles. For the most part, they are loosely organized, but that only makes them harder to catch. The weapons they employ are “low tech” compared to ours, but they still manage to kill our guys. The most effective weapon any “militiamen” can possibly field, whether he be an enemy insurgent or American patriot, is motivation and a belief in his cause.

As for my definition of a militia… I would say if you own hunting rifle, and you’re willing to use it to protect your family, community or nation you are a militiamen.
 
You are correct, reils49, hence the reason for the media's attempt at vilifying the militia.
Thank you Glenn, for reminding us why "The War of Northern Aggression" will never be over.
Debating the causes of the Civil War is just an exercise in cognitive heuristics or Freudian defense mechanisms for Southerners, anyway.
Click to expand...
badbob
 
+1 on that badbob, but let's not let Mr. Meyer (who I think is actually from Texas...a Southern state, though you wouldn't know it from his comment...but then a lot of Southerners take that attitude now sadly...or maybe he or is parents are transplants) or anyone else's snooty comments against the Southerners take this thread off topic. Even Mr. Meyer pointed out in the same post different line that it was not the point of this thread.
 
Sorry Doug, you're right. What do you think we can do to counter the propaganda, about the militia, put out by the media? Should we even bother?

badbob
 
Badbob>> Well, technically we are what a modern militia can be--armed citizens within our rights to protect ourselves and our own. So long as we maintain what we already are, and continue to teach our children and grandchildren, we ARE countering the propoganda. Every new shooter we introduce is one more step against the propoganda. We only loose when we as citizens give up our rights to protect ourselves and our families. History ought to show pretty clearly what that leads to.
 
My main point is that the militia (northern or southern) is subject to civil authority, just as the army is. In fact, it is so mentioned in the constitution. Congress has the power to equip, organize and I believe even appoint the officers of the militia. The militia even predates the revolution. One of the specified purposes of the militia was to surpress insurrections.

A militia, almost by definition, cannot be organized independently from civil government and by that I mean at any level, state or local. If it is, that amounts to either an armed insurrection or the threat of one. That is one of the basic problems of government in places like Somalia and probably Palestine as well.

Who is a member of the militia is a different question.
 
Art. I section 8 clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Which is just another indication that the Guard is not a State militia under the Constitution. The Feds appoint the officers, not the States.
 
As Denny said about calling him Mr. - that's the title for my dad.

If you want to use a title, I'm appropriately Dr. or Prof. Meyer. :D

But call me - Glenn - this is not a professional venue.

I did point out why the Civil War will never be over - Bob and Doug - some Southerners are in denial of the major causal factor of the war and use all kinds of selective information processing and defense mechanisms to avoid that issue. That is because we see that slavery was intrinsically wrong and to defend a system that had slavery was a major part is a threat to one's world view and thus slavey as a cause must be diminished.

Similar analyses of military historians discuss why some Southerners actually think they won a noble military victory in the war rather than being defeated.

But never mind. The war is over except in the mind of some Southern folks. I might remind Doug that Sam Houston was against the war and Texas had significant Union supporters and guerrilla fighters for the Union cause.

Doug - the reason for having militias is so we can organized and pistol whip zombies when they come to our neighborhood:D . I recall that you wanted to run out and give guns to your neighbors to fend off the evil hordes leaving the inner city to come after you.
 
"Militia" would be a counter productive term. How to be a "Law Abiding" citizen willing to take up arms against the Law of Government? Wouldn't make much sense. However, an armed Civil Defense could be useful to deter invasion or to restore calm after some type of local or national emergency. We used to have a Civil Defense an it was very useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top