What is a real Militia?

I think another principle of a real militia is that it is well regulated, with people being required by law to report at certain times to practice shooting and taking orders and learning to function as part of a group. Webster's 1828 dictionary said:

MILITIA - The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

I am reminded of Georgia's 1777 Bill of Rights which declared that:

Every county in this State that has, or hereafter may have, two hundred and fifty men, and upwards, liable to bear arms, shall be formed into a battalion; and when they become too numerous for one battalion, they shall be formed into more, by bill of the legislature; and those counties that have a less number than two hundred and fifty shall be formed into independent companies.
 
Double J:
Right now we have several hundred legislators camped out in and around Washington, D.C. whose sole aim in life is to make laws. Once the law is properly made, all actions covered by it are defined either as "legal" or "illegal." The past few years have brought several new laws to light that any person with two neurons within shouting distance of each other would quickly recognise as unconstitutional. Yet these laws stand. Not because of their legal value but simply because for a citizen to go against them would bring down upon his head a platoon or so of lawyers, administrators and - finally - armed police. The laws are thus being enforced by the threat of armed force.
There's nothing new about this. It's happened more times in history than either of us has time to read about. Were we to read about it though, we'd find that in every case where unjust laws are passed and enforced unjustly the government doing so soon devolved into some form of tyrannous dictatorship. It will happen here too.
Some will fight this transformation, indeed some already do so. Unfortunately though, they're a distinct minority and the majority is constantly fed the line about how resistance to the government is treason and/or terrorism. Once the majority has fully swallowed that line our "revolutionary" is toast.
Somewhere on this computer I have a long list of pithy quotes. One of them states something like 'It's dangerous to be right when your government is wrong.' Just our own history has several cases where this is proven. The biggest and easiest to find is the Southern Seccession. According to the Declaration of Independence, such action is the right of any people who find their government not supportive of their needs. Yet the Southern States were attacked and defeated for simply wanting to govern themselves.
Militias must be ready to not only defend against foreign aggressors but also against domestic enemies regardless of what the law du jour has to say about it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That slavery was A factor (not the only factor and certainly not THE factor) nobody will deny. BUT, I would say it was more the weapon that it was the issue. I would counter that people like you home in on it to avoid the bigger picture.

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

Outnumbered at nearly every battle. Outnumbered, outgunned, blockaded off from resources. Holding out for 4 years. Winning great victories under such notables as Forrest, Lee and Jackson who's tactics are still studied today. The South DID win MANY noble military victories. They were basically exhausted by the war, not beaten. Any historian who denys this is just downright dishonest (and they do exist, Alan Nolan I believe is one of them).

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.
Click to expand...

Texas voted to secede by a landslide and Sam Houston and his little crowd of unionists were in the minority, as they were in a lot of other Southern states. Anyway, Houston was against secession not so much because he was against states rights (he was indeed quite supportive of states rights and the principles which his fellow Texans stood), but rather he felt the South wouldn't have been able to take on the industrialized North as many Southern leaders such as Davis & Lee realized too. Also Houston was planning a filibustering expedition into Mexico and didn't want to lose the support and power of the entire American Union. Unionists to a large degree came from immigrant camps (Germans) that were pocketed around Texas in the Austin and San Antonio areas (didn't understand the concepts which the Union was founded)


Okay, I've been baited into straying off topic. Both the professor and myself who pointed out that the topic is what a militia is have now strayed off topic.

BACK ON TOPIC: Francis Marion (whom the movie the Patriot is loosely based) lead a militia of guerrilla fighters in backcountry South Carolinia. They, and other such units, weren't part of the regular army or appointed by the Continnental Congress and pretty much governed themselves.
 
Last edited:
We've already covered the part about the militia being there to defend against domestic enemies. The question is, who are they? That is for the president to decide, the way it works now. But I like your quotes. You are exaggerating, however, about the threat of lawyers and armed police. People take cases to the supreme court all the time over constitutional issues. It is probably true that in many cases threats are made but generally not by government. But I could be wrong. Either way, if that were not the case, the supreme court would never have anything to do.

There is also something in the constitution about states not being allowed to secede. Perhaps the whole thing should be passed anew every fifty years or so. But clearly, it is not so easy to say if something is constitutional or not. Apparently the creators of the federal government thought about that in establishing the supreme court but again that isn't so clear either.

Reading again one of the earlier posts, I begin to wonder what it means to use who are over the age of 45--or 55, 60, 65, pick a number?
 
The militia

Well, it is every body. Gun owners that have integrity and honor and love our country. It is the individual as well as the Guard. It is the general populous after invaders take out the Army, Guard and the LEO's. To the last man, we have an obligation if we are of fighting ability and age. To prevent tyranny at all costs. To prevent our enemies from conquering us whether it be foreign or domestic.
 
BlueTrain said:
There is also something in the constitution about states not being allowed to secede.
Click to expand...
Sorry. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says a State may not seceed.

There is a Supreme Court Decision that says how a State may leave the Union - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). [And some say Judges don't make law] The Court said that it was implied that because of the way a State was admitted to the Union, that was the way it left... Through the consent of the Congress.

Once again buckster, when speaking of "the militia" one is talking of the ordinary citizen-soldier. One is not talking of the Guard or the regular Armed Services. They are the Organized Militia.

I submit that if we citizens waited for our military to be defeated by an invading enemy, before we mobilized, it just might be way too late to do anything about it.
 
Buckster, it is NOT everybody. In most, if not all states, militia is defined by law. Generally, it is all able bodied men (in some cases it may be persons) from some age around 17 to some age around 45, who are not in an exempt class such as active military, organized militia, LEO, or judges (depends on the state). In some cases a governor can appoint a commander of the unorganized militia who will answer to someone like the Adjutant General of the state's National Guard. Here's an example, may not be the best example, but it gives you an idea: http://www.empirestatemilitia.org/ . Goggle unorganized militia and see what you get.

All of this is founded in he Constitution and law. It's real, it exists, and in most cases, it's not what people think it is.
 
The thing is ... militia was intended to secure free government, and it is a principle of free government that the people have a right to alter or to abolish their government, and that includes secession.
 
A lot of state governments have a state guard or state militia. They are mainly made up of retired military but that isnt a requirment. The washington state guard where I live is a little know militia under direct authority of the govenor. They are headquartered at the National guard main base (camp murray) and work hand in hand with the national guard. While the national guard falls under federal command of the army as well as state command, the state guard is only under the state government and was organized to serve in place of national guard troops when they are sent overseas to war. And to fall in with the national guard during state emergencies. Many people including army and national guard soldiers dont know what the state guard is and the state guard finds themselves explaining to the other soldiers who they are. The only visible difference is uniform patches. Where the "army" patch is on a regular army and national guard soldier, the state guard has a "washington" patch. And their unit insignia is similar to the washington national guard insignia. However they are not under army or federal command only state government.
While they would probably be an organized militia. An unorganized militia is you and me.
 
Found some of the laws governing the Utah state militia... It's interesting. Here's one section I found ammusing...

39-1-1. Militia -- How constituted -- Persons exempted.
(1) All able-bodied citizens, and all able-bodied persons of foreign birth who have declared their intention to become citizens, who are 18 years of age or older and younger than 45 years of age, who are residents of this state, constitute the militia, subject to the following exemptions:
(a) persons exempted by laws of the United States;
(b) persons exempted by the laws of this state;
(c) all persons who have been honorably discharged from the army, air force, navy, or volunteer forces of the United States;
(d) active members of any regularly organized fire or police department in any city or town, but no member of the active militia is relieved from duty because of his joining any volunteer fire company or department;
(e) judges and clerks of courts of record, state and county civil officers holding office by election, state officers appointed by the governor for a specified term of office, ministers of the gospel, practicing physicians, superintendents, officers and assistants of hospitals, prisons and jails, conductors, brakemen, flagmen, engineers and firemen of railways, and all other employees of railways actually employed in train service; and
(f) idiots, lunatics, and persons convicted of infamous crime.
(2) All exempted persons, except those enumerated in Subsections (a) through (f), are liable to military duty in case of war, insurrection, invasion, tumult, riot, or public disaster, or imminent danger of any of these, or after they have voluntarily enlisted in the National Guard of this state.
Click to expand...

I suppose it could be a matter of opinion whether or not I could be an idiot or lunatic... :D
 
What is a real Militia?
Click to expand...

Thats those folks behind every rock, tree and blade of grass you better worry about if you plan on invading the USA.

This is my country land that I love, stand beside her and guide her with the.......
 
Rem33, other than what's been written down - the legaleze of ist all - , you got it!

I am retired Army (and not officially part of the militia) and too old, but if it came to it, I'd be finding a rock or tree next to yours - with rifle, ammo, and my kit.

Hooah! sundog
 
Someone once told me that the Russians (Soviets) knew if they ever turned the Cold War into a Hot War, they would never be able to take over the United States by military invasion because they knew that people in the united states by and large were free to own guns and would use them (unlike most other countries)
 
Rem33>> I've got dibs on a few blades of grass--rocks don't tuck into the guille suit very well and trees are uncomfortable unless they're really small... :D
 
Webster's 1828 Dictionary, Electronic Version by Christian Technologies, Inc.

MILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=militia+
 
However useful or accurate the Webster's definition of militia might be, neither Webster nor the Federalist Papers were created and voted on by any legislature. But when do you suppose was the last time the militia was embodied prior to the creation of the National Guard? I am not asking that question in a cynical way at all but rather as a historical trivia question (I do not know the answer). And also, were the state units prior to the Civil War, and afterwards also, I suppose, considered to be militia at the time. Likewise, if they were, was there more militia beyond that? At least to the extent it ever existed to the point where names were ever recorded?

From what reading and research I have done on frontier life, at least on frontier life in the area where I'm from, I note little mention of the militia in connection with Indian fighting, though I do not doubt it was used in other places. In southwestern and western Virginia, the settlements were so few and far between as to make the possibility of a militia academic. Besides that, it really was a frontier and there did not exist the level of government to make a militia possible from that standpoint. What did exist were multiple forts, which would have been stockades, all over what is now West Virginia. This was all before 1800. Curiously, some of these private forts had a few soldiers stationed there but I am not aware of the details of these postings. There were constant troubles with the Indians including massacres now all duly noted with roadside markers but I am not aware of any incidents that would be described as battles.

I believe militia units played a bigger role in settling the south and I'm sure other here could fill us in on the local history of the militia. The Indian troubles in this part of the country pretty much ended after the U.S. Army under Wayne defeated the Indians in Ohio. After that the countryside was flooded with land speculators.
 
I think there's a thin line between militia and possee. A possee is usually after a lone lawbreaker or small gang, while a militia intimates visions of a larger enemy like black, err redcoats & indians and back then, the army was prolly starving for guys so just absorbed them (made em join) and applied organization for the bigger threat. That's prolly why you don't hear about militia fighting the indians.
 
Gentlemen,

I am an outsider as far as this group goes, but I am also an American and a patriot. I wish to commend Doug for putting forth a question that every American who loves liberty should, and regrettably will, learn the answer to. I hope you will forgive my intrusion here and know that it is with the best intentions that I offer the following comments.

That "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" when government fails to heed the consent of the governed and secure our unalienable, God-given rights, is true. But it is also true that it is not just our right, but "our duty" to throw off such a government.

It was said and asked, "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?" I do not know the writer and cannot ascertain if he was being facetious or serious, but the question deserves an answer. There is a difference between supporting our republican form of government and supporting those in power who have ignored Constitutional law, actuated a campaign of fear among the people to make them more amenable to that which will make them "safer" and who are set on the wholesale give away of our national sovereignty to a North American Union, amongst numerous other abuses and usurpations. Do I support the republic? Unquestionably. Do I support the despots in power? Absolutely not!

The Constitutional guardians of our liberties is the real militia. It is the armed real militia that stands in the gap between a tyrannical government and a free people. If you don't believe that or understand it, then the day is coming that you will find yourself making a choice. On that day when they come to take your guns, or your property, or put chips in yourselves and your children; when martial law is declared and militarized police patrol your neighborhood or your livestock is confiscated or Mexican flags fly in the land of the once free and not so brave; then you will know what the real militia is and you will have to make the choice. Will you 'die on your feet or forever live on your knees'?

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." James Madison

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." Edward Abbey

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

Yours in liberty,

Diana
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top