Another Disaster Reporter has a Rod Serling Moment

[lazs2]

and... I am still not following your arguement... are you now saying that it was all the brits fault for even fighting the militia?

  seems the milita fought a very smart war...   seems we all benifieted except the brits.   the militia won in any way that you care to name.   It matters not if you win a major battle if you kill and tie up the enemy until they are defeated.  

For what we payed for the militia.... even you would have to admit.... we got a hell of a deal.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
Ok I will concede the militia did have a moment or two but in no way would I rely on them for defense or my person or my country.

The nascent United States DID rely on them for defense. The militia BECAME the Continental Army.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
oh... and what remark about the founding fathers was I supposed to address?

I allways try to address the issues you bring up (at least till the thread gets locked).

I really think you are grasping at straws here... you seem to be saying that the militia was useless even tho they caused no end of harm to the british by hounding them and inflicting huge casualties and tying up their army.   You seem to be saying that if you don't win major battles that your group is pointless.  Perhaps I am not understanding you but it sure looks like you are saying that skilled riflemen are of no use to a nation or themselves in a war.

lazs

This one

neilsen... I enjoy firearms in any case and feel that the founding fathers were correct in thinking (as do the swiss) that a nation of riflemen was a good safeguard to freedom...

lazs

A quote from George Washington letter to the Continental Congress, September 24, 1776 (founding Father)

"To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows."


Alexander Hamiliton Federalist Papers

"Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would beat all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which from our own experience forbid any reliance of this kind are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind."

The militia was a terrible fighting force, unable to defend the US from any attack by regular troops or even large forces of Indians. Basically the only reason it survived so long is the fear of a standing army.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
who wins is the determinate of who wins.   How they got there is allways interesting tho.   It points out strengths and weakneses.

So far... I have seen no weakness but only strength from having a nation of riflemen and the second amendment.

if you felt that the militia did not perform as well as you would have liked.... perhaps you would care to speculate on how well they would have done if they had given up their arms to the british as was demanded of them when this whole little difference of opinon came about?

lazs

The militia was a farce then and its an even larger farce now. That is the point.

Unprofessional(non-soldiers) individuals with guns are fine but I by no means expect our country to be protected or defended by them.

Some did join the British, They were called the loyalists .

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Here's your problem, simply stated: You are unable to understand the evolution of the Continental Army.

Again:



The militia BECAME an army equal in professionalism and esprit with that of any major European power.

At the start they were not an 18th Century professional standing army.

They were a militia that knew how to fight the fights they had to fight, primarily "Indian wars".

If you had been a skilled Indian fighter at the time, you'd have thought it absolute lunacy to stand in a line, take cannon fire and then take volley fire from massed enemy. I wonder how many ran from fear as opposed to how many ran from correctly figuring out that there was a better way to fight.

As the Brits retreated from Lexington and Concord, the militia fought "their fight". They fought as Indian fighters. How'd that turn out for the Brits? How many militia ran then?

so let me see If I understand you. Militia becomes Continental Army, GW instills discipline, training, military instruction and you still call them a militia?

Once training and discipline occur they cease to be militia and become regulars. Now if someone would have went and done that to the militia instead of just taking them into battle whilly-nilly maybe they would have fought better. As it was they were unreliable and inept.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I see. I cannot respond to your responses. Sorry, missed that rule. I'll try to observe it in the future.

Wait...am I responding to one of your responses right now?

No, I'm saying anyone who thinks the force that had a superior K/D in actual combat "had their bellybutton handed to them" uses a far different yardstick than most other historians.

lol shut up I didn't go into that because I am trying to stick to the current topic.

The south was pretty much destroyed during it, But lets look at it anyway.

numbers in thousands I believe
-------------------------------------- KIA ---Casualty
Confederate 1,064.2 Enrolled in military  7.0%         31.5%
Union            2,803.3 Enrolled in military  3.9%         22.6%

Add that up with the South being pretty much leveled and you have a beatdown.

[Toad]

See if you understand this:

Without the militia, there would have been no Continental Army.

Further, without the militia's previous organization and training, Washington's (a former Virginia MILITIA officer) task would most likely have been impossible.

As for your disregard of the militia, you only view them through the lens of the standard 18th century army.

The militia were not a regular standing army. Duh.

Could they fight well? Absolutely! They fought "their fight" VERY well.

I'm sure the name Francis Marion rings a bell with you. In September 1775 Marion commanded the capture of British forts in Charleston. He went on to fight "guerilla" style with great success.

Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?

[lazs2]

well... it will perhaps come as no surprise to you that I am more prone to be a Jeffersonian than a Hamiltonian... (Washington had nothing to do with the declaration of independance)

Jefferson was the man who wrote it...  

"the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

It still boils down to the fact that an army drawn from such a people... a nation of riflemen is more effective than an army that is not.

the militia then was not a farce... it was the winner... Washington never did recognize that fact.  He didn't want to admit that he couldn't have done it without em and was bitter that he didn't really comand them.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Raider179
The south was pretty much destroyed during it, But lets look at it anyway.

numbers in thousands I believe
-------------------------------------- KIA ---Casualty
Confederate 1,064.2 Enrolled in military  7.0%         31.5%
Union            2,803.3 Enrolled in military  3.9%         22.6%

Add that up with the South being pretty much leveled and you have a beatdown.

The South lost but it surely wasn't because the North had better soldiers. They didn't.

The stats you quote are totals enrolled in the respective armies and KIA as a percentage of that total.

Let's see... the North enrolled 3X as many soldiers as the South, ~ 3 million vs 1 million.

Percentage wise, they suffered fewer KIA. Really? No cheese? That's a DUH.

However, when it came to fighting, a 3X numerical advantage yielded the North about a .68 K/D.

The vastly outnumbered (3 to 1) South, OTOH, managed to put up a K/D of 1.47.

Who got whose bellybutton handed to them in combat?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
See if you understand this:

Without the militia, there would have been no Continental Army.

Further, without the militia's previous organization and training, Washington's (a former Virginia MILITIA officer) task would most likely have been impossible.

As for your disregard of the militia, you only view them through the lens of the standard 18th century army.

The militia were not a regular standing army. Duh.

Could they fight well? Absolutely! They fought "their fight" VERY well.

I'm sure the name Francis Marion rings a bell with you. In September 1775 Marion commanded the capture of British forts in Charleston. He went on to fight "guerilla" style with great success.

Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?

I see what you are saying but I am not so sure they couldnt have raised an army without the militia. That seems to be pure speculation. Unless you are saying no army has ever come about unless a Militia was First????

Charleston was re-captured by Brits with the entire rest of the "southern army"

Francis was a good leader.

I am sure you didn't forget Gates at Camden when Cornwallis attacked him, His militiamen threw down their weapons and fled. Leaving his regulars to get decimated.

[Toad]

Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?

Simple question, Yes or No is all you need.

[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

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2


It still boils down to the fact that an army drawn from such a people... a nation of riflemen is more effective than an army that is not.

the militia then was not a farce... it was the winner... Washington never did recognize that fact.  He didn't want to admit that he couldn't have done it without em and was bitter that he didn't really comand them.

lazs

You do realize most militiamen were not these "riflemen" you like to call them. For the most part they were poor, foriegners, slaves, criminals, and were made up of people who couldn't afford to buy their way out. It wasnt guys like you who hone their skills that were in it, it was the dredges of society, for the most part.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Toad
Ask yourself this: Could the British have been defeated without the various and numerous Continental militias?

Simple question, Yes or No is all you need.

Yes

[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