Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
and Hamilton..

"In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct governments in each can take no regular measures for defense.  The citizens must rush tumultuosly to arms, without concert, without system, without resources, except in their courage and despair."

Alexander Hamilton (federalist papers)

Hmmm.... it would seem that even Hamilton could find a use.... no... a demand, for a militia.  "without system" "without resource"  sounds like a bunch of guys with guns to me.

I would say that they not only need ":courage and despair" tho but some damn good battle rifles and the time spent in learning how to use em eh?

does that speak to your question about the founders?

lazs

without concert and without system means without them being in a militia right?

my whole point of this is that the Militia was not seen by the founding fathers as anything that could defeat, much less bring down a tyrannical government.

[lazs2]

perhaps these quotes by the founders...

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
        --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
         --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
        ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
         ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

lazs

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
no raider I suppose I don't understand that.... not if you are saying that these guys had no experiance with the rifles they carried.   they were hunters and riflemen.  they used their own weapons.

lazs

I wouldnt say all or most. Congress did actually provide funding for the arming of militia's. Not all used their own weapons.

[lazs2]

No.... without concert and without system means not being part of an organized army.

and congress couldn't even fund the regular army.  you are on thin ice here.

lazs

[Toad]

Thought you'd say that. Here's your punishment, a long clip:

Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment

In truth, Washington never cared much for the militia. His letters in the American Revolution echo those of the French and Indian War: The militia was lazy, it would not obey orders, and it showed scant respect for its officers. His comments were very much like those of British officers, who, based upon their experiences with the Americans in the French and Indian War, felt they could not conduct much of a war against the British.

What was really at issue here was that these officers wished a disciplined, regular army that would engage in an aggressive, even imperial, offensive campaign in traditional formations, rather than a citizen’s force, which cared for little except to defend its own locality from invasion by an outside force.

Almost by accident Washington arrived at his strategy to “protract” the war as a means of eventual victory, a strategy Mao Tse-tung would later also adopt. General Nathaniel Greene put it succinctly: “We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again.” Washington’s aide, young Alexander Hamilton, expressed the strategy most fully: “It may be asked, if, to avoid a general engagement, we give up objects of the first importance, what is to hinder the enemy from carrying every important point, and ruining us? My answer is, that our hopes are not placed in any particular city, or spot of ground, but in preserving a good army, furnished with proper necessities, and waste and defeat the enemy by piecemeal.”

To appreciate the extent to which that apparent stalemate was actually an American victory, we have to examine the war from the standpoint of the British and what definition, if any, they had of what “victory” might consist. Their first assumptions had been that a few American agitators were stirring things up, but the reports of General Thomas Gage gradually made it clear that most of New England was in arms against them. After the swarm of militiamen at Lexington and Concord, and the relatively orthodox battle at Breed’s Hill, Washington brought cannon to Dorchester Heights and the British decided to evacuate Boston.

Apart from some raiding parties from the sea, never after Concord did the British army venture any distance into the New England countryside. Therefore, the British were never anywhere near conquering that “hot-bed” of rebellion that remained for the whole war under the control of the militia.[/b]

On the other hand, as Thomas Paine noted, “It is distressing to see an enemy advancing into a country, but it is the only place in which we can beat them.” It was the American militia coming from all over the countryside that insured the encirclement and eventual surrender of the forces in upstate New York under General Burgoyne.

Late in the war the Hessian forces ventured out of New York City into New Jersey in quest of that perpetual mirage of British fantasies, the large force of Loyalists somewhere out there in the countryside waiting to be liberated. Instead, they came under the virtually unceasing attack of skirmishing American militia and decided it was the better part of valor to retreat to the city.

There was also for a time the British-Hessian enclave at Philadelphia where the Germans admitted that “the Americans are bold, unyielding, and fearless, . . . and we cannot block their resources.” It took more than three thousand British troops to try to protect the wagon trains of supplies traveling the distance of 15 miles from Chester to Philadelphia from the attacks of American militia, and even then many of them did not get through. Again, the British ended by evacuating the city.

The end of the war, of course, came in the South, another area where the myth of Loyalist legions in the interior was repeated. It was in the South during Lord Cornwallis’s long meandering march up and down that the American militia began to come into its own. The Americans won only one battle of any consequence, Cowpens, but they so bled the British by their constant harassment that the exploits of Sumter, Pickens, Morgan, and Marion are prime examples of guerrilla warfare.

Every people’s revolutionary war is ended by the triumph of their regular forces as the struggle nears its successful conclusion, but that is the result and not the cause of victory. People’s war is fundamentally political, and it was the militia that gave the Americans virtually the control of the whole country and that insured the legitimacy of the revolutionary government.

British foraging parties were under constant harassment, and British units seldom went out after dark in less than battalion strength. As John Shy suggests, it was the militia that was the sand in the gears of the British pacification machine.

The regular American army, as well as segments of a rag-tag militia, accepted the surrender at Yorktown. The existence of that army should never be allowed to obscure the large reason for the British defeat which was that they could never control, let alone win over, a population of armed militia that was the foundation of support for the American government.

The British military historian Eric Robson acknowledged: “Restricted to little more than the ground they stood on, the British increasingly found subsistence a matter of considerable difficulty.” That was not the result of Washington’s valiant little army camped at Valley Forge or for so many years across the Hudson from the British in New York City, but rather the American guerrilla militia that from local homes and farms made life in the British Army a living hell. Every small detachment was legitimateprey for the Americans. Historians will never know how many of these small skirmishes there were, but only glimpse them all over the landscape, realizing that they form the real reason for the low British morale and eventual defeat.[/b]

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
perhaps these quotes by the founders...

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
        --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
         --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
        ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
         ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

lazs

Ok lets wrap this up.

Do you think a militia is necessary to defense of the country/state?

Or do you just think armed citizenry is enough?

Basically I feel militia and armed citizenry are the same although militia is supposed to be trained at least somewhat.

[lazs2]

or these...

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
         ---Alexander Hamilton

The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
         ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
         ---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

       ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
         ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
         ---George Mason

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
         ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

lazs

[lazs2]

or these..

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Thought you'd say that. Here's your punishment, a long clip:

Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment

ouch that hurts

Ok the Militia played a bigger role than I gave them credit them for, but they had lots of failures on many levels as well that show why a militia is no good for National Defense.

[Raider179]

Thanks for the reads guys. If/when I am wrong you are much more likely to be able to convince me when you act and speak as you did in this thread. Thanks for the edumacation.

[lazs2]

I will wrap it up....

I believe exactly as the founders did that an armed citizenry is absolutely the best safeguard against tyrany from within and without and that the right to keep and bear arms is not only an individual right (the people) but..... a human right.... so important that it was ratified second only to the right to speak freely.

I believe, as everyone who has studied the constitution does, that the militia is nothing more than every able bodied man in Amercia and that keeping and bearing arms makes America stronger and keeps it free.

I do not believe that tyranny anb evil have been outdated... I do not believe that all violent and evil men have dissapeared from the earth.  

I also believe as Heinlien does that " an armed society is a polite society" and I think that the swiss might bear this out.

what do you believe?

lazs

[Toad]

Can the militia go fight a major war by itself?

No. Nobody expects them to do so; never did. That's not what they were about.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Thanks for the reads guys. If/when I am wrong you are much more likely to be able to convince me when you act and speak as you did in this thread. Thanks for the edumacation.

You're welcome. Any old time.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
I will wrap it up....

I believe exactly as the founders did that an armed citizenry is absolutely the best safeguard against tyrany from within and without and that the right to keep and bear arms is not only an individual right (the people) but..... a human right.... so important that it was ratified second only to the right to speak freely.

I believe, as everyone who has studied the constitution does, that the militia is nothing more than every able bodied man in Amercia and that keeping and bearing arms makes America stronger and keeps it free.

I do not believe that tyranny anb evil have been outdated... I do not believe that all violent and evil men have dissapeared from the earth.  

I also believe as Heinlien does that " an armed society is a polite society" and I think that the swiss might bear this out.

what do you believe?

lazs

I'll be brief.

I have no problem armed citizenry.  What type of arms well you know how I feel on that, so we don't have to go into it.

I think any modern use/formation of militia's is dumb. It's just another excuse to stockpile guns. And when something really happens where you could use some militia, such as in NO, Where are they??? All talk and no walk...

Maybe your right, maybe everyone should have a gun. Be interesting to see what society was like. You say the Swiss are Entirely all armed? Maybe I will read up on them next.

Cheers

[rabbidrabbit]

I am right and every one else is wrong!  Thats is all.  Not only that but my point is pointless!!!