The United States militia is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. And while the militia movement of today is widely known, its history – and the history of independent Constitutional militias stretching back to the dawn of the republic – is far less well known.
Why does this matter nowadays? Because understanding the historical roots of America’s militias helps modern-day members appreciate the role they play in our federal system of government. Because since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter – a crucial check against incremental encroachment by the state, as James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers on January 29, 1788:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
The militia is the final means of recourse in this cycle of self-government – and arguably the most important. Thus this is the first in a two-part historical series on America’s militias. The second part, American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond, looks at additional changes this American institution underwent from Reconstruction onwards.
The Colonial Origins of the United States Militia
The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.
A militia is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, prior to the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 8, drafted around the same time as the founding of the Springfield Armory (ground zero for American ammunition manufacturing), mentions it three times alone:
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- 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;
Article II, Section 2 designates the President of the United States as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”
While the 1903 Militia Act is a relatively recent innovation to the world of the American militia, it is worth referencing, even if briefly, as we dive into our long history. The Militia Act of 1903 separates the militia into two groups:
- Organized Militia: These are the forces that comprise the National Guard, which are the organized militia forces of each state. It is not synonymous with the National Guard of the United States, which is a reserve military force under joint control of the federal and state governments.
- Unorganized Militia: This is virtually every other man in the United States. Men are not part of the unorganized militia if they are part of the organized militia. All other able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are considered part of the militia. This is an important concept to remember, even as we work through the part of militia history predating this Act.
In the pre-1903 Militia Act era, the line between the two is not so clearly defined. Many of the militias discussed below are organized and subject to statute, but not “organized” in the sense that they have official membership rolls, uniforms, or even significant involvement from their respective state and territorial governments. Much like the later independent or “Constitutional militia” movement, there is a rank, structure and a chain of command, but the organization is not necessarily subject to government oversight – other than having to comply with all relevant statutes. In the case of the militias of the Revolutionary War period, this is very fuzzy.
The militia is an outgrowth of an English common law institution. The word itself dates back to 1590. Originally, the word simply meant soldiers in the service of the state. By the mid-17th Century, however, it had taken on connotations of a civilian military force. It carried additional connotations in terms of a military raised in temporary service to respond to some kind of an emergency.
The early militias, on both sides of the Atlantic, served the purpose of both security and defense. These were particularly important in the New World, where attacks from hostile Indian tribes were a constant threat. Indeed, these militias played a key role in the French and Indian Wars, including the primary one taking place concurrently with the Seven Years War between the years 1754 and 1763.
During these periods, militias organized by towns were also the pool from which the Provincial Forces were drafted. This was, in fact, a rare occurrence. The Provincial Forces were one of the best-paying wage labor opportunities available to American colonists, so their ranks were rarely short.
While the Provincial Forces were very professional and disciplined, the militias were not. Indeed, no less an authority than George Washington (at that time the adjutant-general of the Virginia militia) noted that the militia was largely disorganized. He considered the militia fit for times of peace, but ill-equipped for times of war. Even during peace, the bulk of the colonial military were what are today Army Rangers – well paid, professional, highly disciplined, and accomplished.
Militias During the American Revolution
The militias, however, played a central role in the American Revolution. The famous “Minutemen” – figures as iconic as the cowboy in American mythology – are, in fact, personifications and embodiments of the militia as it existed during the time of the American Revolution.
The history of the American militia cannot be discussed without talking about the Minutemen. These were effectively partisans in the war against the British, for which there is a subtle irony: The Minutemen harked back to the earliest traditions of the English countryside militia – ready on a moment’s notice.
Indeed, the militia is perhaps the British institution that most shaped the United States and its culture.
The British did not represent the entire militia, but the most disciplined and committed elements of it. They were, as the name implies, ready to go at a minute’s notice. They represented approximately a quarter of the entire force, and skewed toward the younger and more radical members of the revolutionary movement.
The roots of the Minutemen (and of the militia in general) lie in the old British colonial militia. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were obligated to serve in the militia. By 1645, possibly earlier, there were men selected specially for rapid deployment segments of the militia, known as “training bands.” The term “Minutemen” was even used during this period. These were organized on a town-by-town basis, with some towns, notably Lexington, not having special rapid response units.
During this period, Minutemen could not be over 30 years old. Officers were elected by rank and file, as was generally common throughout the colonial militias. Fowling pieces were the most common weapon. Uniforms were nonexistent, with hunting gear being the most common form of clothing. The French and Indian War provided the irregular forces with training in proto-guerilla warfare that European troops were not familiar with.
On the eve of the Revolutionary War, the Minutemen became something distinct from the rest of the militia, not simply its most committed segment. The Powder Alarm of 1774 underscored the need for a sleeker, more committed and more rapidly responding segment of the militia – the regular militia simply did not deploy quickly enough to prevent the British military from seizing materiel from the local ammunition stores and armories.
The British feared the power of the militias and the Minutemen prior to the Revolution. One of the strategic aims of the Intolerable Acts was to significantly decrease the power of town government. When General Thomas Gage, Governor of Massachusetts under the Intolerable Acts, attempted to seat his hand-picked court in Worcester, 2,000 militiamen prevented him from doing so. In response, Gage set out to confiscate provincial munitions. The militia responded in kind by assembling 4,000 men to the Cambridge common.
From the very beginning of the revolution, the militias played a pivotal role, despite the fact that they were of limited utility. The Battles of Lexington and Concord started as a confrontation between the local militias and the colonial authorities. On April 19, 1775, 800 British troops marched out of Boston to Concord. They were unable to locate their target, the colonists’ arms and ammunition, which they were to confiscate. It was at 5 a.m. that they encountered 70 militiamen in Concord. They ordered the militiamen to disperse, but the militiamen refused. This is what led to “the shot heard round the world,” but to this day historians are unsure who fired first.
While the militias themselves were primarily used for disrupting supply lines and harrassing, skirmishing type attacks, many of the senior officers were those who had cut their teeth bush fighting during the French and Indian Wars. On the other hand, the British senior officers had no experience with this kind of fighting and had to learn it on the fly.
On their way back to the city after being unable to find the arms and ammunition, the British were stalked and sniped by militiamen. The company was routed, and 900 additional troops were required to save them from the clandestine attacks of the Patriot militias.
Throughout the Revolutionary War, the Minutemen model increasingly became the standard for irregular militia fighters. This provided the Continental Army with swelled numbers on short notice. While the Minutemen weren’t known as great marksmen, the psychological impact and distraction of their presence certainly helped win the Patriots’ cause. Scores of militias were culled from each of the newly independent 13 states, as well as Vermont, which was at that time its own independent republic and not one of the United States.
While the revolutionary fervor was felt most strongly in the militias at the beginning of the war, this waned over time. After all, the Revolutionary War lasted eight years – a long time to maintain that level of enthusiasm. The militias elected their own officers and often used this to ensure that they would not have to serve outside of their home state. Often times, militia members hired replacements, and in extreme cases, exorbitant bribes were required to get the men to perform their militia duties. The currency became inflated over the course of the war, requiring land grants and promises of slaves at the war’s end.
The militia was a hugely popular public institution at the end of the Revolutionary War. It was seen as the national defense of a free people, as opposed to a standing army. Most experts, however, did not feel that the militia had much in the way of actual military value in the event of a foreign invasion. Still, figures like George Washington were forced to support the militia publicly, while speaking of its limitations more privately.
Militias in Service of the State: The Post-Revolutionary Period
During Shays’ Rebellion, the role of the militia was transformed. This time, a militia was used to defeat a rebellion, rather than to fight the dominant power. There is a deep irony in the role exercised by the militia during Shays’ Rebellion, which was one of the factors in scrapping the Articles of the Confederation and replacing them with the Constitution. During the Constitutional debates, figures such as James Madison stated that the militia could be a check on the power of a standing army. However, in the case of Shays’ Rebellion, the militia acted as an instrument of centralized power and taxation.
Militias in the service of federal power did not end with Shays’ Rebellion. President George Washington personally led a militia of 13,000 for the specific purpose of putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Much of the military forces that fought the British during the War of 1812 were militia forces. This is part of why the United States exhibited such a dismal performance on the battlefield. While they were effective at battles in Plattsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans, this was largely due to the entrenchment of the forces rather than their military abilities in their own right. It was after American defeat in the War of 1812 that the militia effectively ceased to be the primary means of defense, supplanted by the Regular Army.
Slave Patrols
During the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, the state militias of the Southern states took on a new function: slave patrols. When slaves would run away, militias were raised out of the general population to look for them. This was effectively another form of forced labor, though militia service did come with pay. In the case of North Carolina, militiamen made 46.5 cents per day of service in 1826.
Mormons and the State of Missouri
In Missouri, the militias served another purpose – that of public order. Tensions between the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and the rest of the community around the State of Missouri ran high. So much so that there were anti-Mormon vigilante squads roaming the country, looking for Mormons to target. In 1838, General David R. Atchison ordered the state militia to “prevent, if possible, any invasion of Ray County by persons in arms whatever.” This led to the disarming and expulsion of Mormons in Northwestern Missouri. In response, the Caldwell County militia (a Mormon-heavy area) rescued Mormons expelled from these areas.
The two state militias came into conflict with one another in what is known as the Battle of Crooked River. As funny as it might sound to us today, the State of Missouri took several precautions and preparations for a Mormon invasion of the state. This and other tensions led to the battle, which prompted an Executive Order expelling all Mormons from the State of Missouri. The Mormon community of the state then relocated to Illinois, before ultimately settling in Utah.
For their part, the Mormons organized their own militia, which fought against the United States government in the little-known Utah War. The matter was eventually defused by negotiations, but not until 150 people died. This might not sound like a lot, but the Utah War lasted one year and the number of deaths was equal to the full seven years of “Bleeding Kansas” – which was likewise patrolled by militias in a sometimes fruitful attempt to keep the peace between pro-slavery and pro-free state forces.
John Brown’s Attack on Harpers Ferry
Another famous battle in the years leading up to the Civil War is John Brown’s uprising and attack on Harpers Ferry. Every village and town in a 30-mile radius around Harpers Ferry had their militia activated. For his part, Brown did not think much of the capabilities of the state militias of Virginia and Maryland (nor, for that matter, of the Regular Army forces that might be dispatched against him). This factored into his planning of the uprising that ultimately resulted in nearly 20 deaths and precisely zero freed slaves. The final capture of John Brown was executed by a detachment of 88 United States Marines, however, the local militias played a key role in pinning down his forces.
A Militia Divided: The War Between the States
The War Between the States found each side ill prepared for the challenges that it faced. 75,000 militiamen were called up by President Abraham Lincoln to retake Fort Sumter. Lincoln considered the strength available to him far below what he actually needed. The problems with the militia system were not limited to the rank and file. The officers had no idea how to command a unit of this size, having never done so before.
The Western states and territories largely used militias as a form of common defense and security. It’s worth noting that in the Western states, Americans had to deal with much larger Indian populations who were also much more hostile, particularly in the Plains. Later on, during the Civil War, many of these militias were organized into groups of Regular Army volunteers. However, in territories like Colorado and other free states, militias were organized not only to repulse invasions from Confederate forces, but also to prevent an uprising from pro-Confederate forces that might exist in the state.
Some of the state militias had their moments of glory during the War Between the States. The Colorado Volunteers, for example, turned back a Confederate invasion of the New Mexico Territory. They later achieved further notoriety (and some infamy) for the Colorado War against the Plains Indians, which included the Sand Creek Massacre. The California Column were responsible for expelling the Confederate Army from the Southern regions or Arizona and New Mexico, as well as West Texas. They also kept the Mormon population of Utah under observation, as it was widely feared that the Mormons would use the opportunity of the Civil War to rebel and start their own independent nation.
Quantrill’s Raiders
The Union was not the only side with militias during the Civil War. Perhaps the most famous of the Confederate militias were Quantrill’s Raiders. William Quantrill (referenced in the film True Grit as “Captain Quantrill”) led the group, which included Jesse James and Frank James, later of James Gang fame. The organization had its roots in the pre-Civil War fighting of “Bleeding Kansas.”
The reference to “Captain” Quantrill during the True Grit film are not without historical basis. Quantrill was given a field commission by the Confederate Army for his work as a guerilla fighter. This backfired when the Quantrill gang engaged in the Lawrence Massacre. Lawrence was the center of an abolitionist and Unionist organization. As such, it was a common target for Quantrill’s men, who numbered about 400. Frustrated by the constant raids, the Union authorities began imprisoning the wives of Quantrill’s men with an eye toward deporting them from the area.
This is what led to the Lawrence Massacre. Quantrill’s men burned down a quarter of the buildings in the town in a coordinated attack. At least 150 men and boys were killed in the attack. One of the main targets of the Massacre, Senator Jim Lane, escaped by fleeting into nearby corn fields. The Confederate leadership could not abide such an attack and withdrew any support they had given to Quantrill and his men.
Quantrill’s Raiders fled into Texan territory, massacring 100 Union soldiers at Baxter Springs along the way. He still enjoyed some support among the officer corps of the Confederate military, such as from General Joseph O. Shelby, “The Undefeated” who withdrew his troops into Mexico rather than surrender to the Union Army. In 1864, one of the Raiders was killed in a gunfight with a Texas Posse and lynched a sheriff in retaliation.
The Raiders began returning home in 1864, none of them led by Quantrill. Curiously, one of Quantrill’s men was a freeman, John Noland, who was described by other Raiders as “a man among men.”
Quantrill’s Raiders were a product of the Partisan Ranger Act. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Confederacy. In effect, the law meant that partisan guerillas would have the same pay and command structure as the Confederate Army, but be able to act with broad leeway that was not afforded to the Regular Army. The law was repealed in 1864 under pressure from, among other officers, Robert E. Lee. While the strategy was largely effective, Lee and others were concerned about the effect of having many armed men without much central control.
Two militias were allowed to continue after the repeal of the Act: McNeil’s Rangers and Mosby’s Raiders. These groups of guerilla fighters were distinguished by their discipline and adherence to the accepted rules of warfare.
The history of militias in the United States continues after the Civil War in American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond, when it becomes a whole other ballgame.
Early American Militias: The Forgotten History of Freedmen Militias from 1776 until the Civil War originally appeared in the Resistance Library at Ammo.com.
We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment, which is included in our BILL(list) of RIGHTS.
Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
Oppressive Governments ALWAYS ban the People’S RIGHT to arms.
The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.
the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.
… the Bolshevik-Left insists there is NO GOD so they can deny your GOD given RIGHTS.
“the Bolshevik-Left insists there is NO GOD so they can deny your GOD given RIGHTS”
no. no, you don’t get it at all.
the bolshevik-left insists that they are god to you. because in judeo-bolshevism, that’s how it works.
Good history lesson.
Tenth Amendment:
All other arguments are secondary, and the SCOTUS never had the “right of judicial review” until they gave it to themselves. Our current government has proven itself to be contrary to the Constitution, so we either throw it away entirely or fight to the death to reinstate it, in its entirety. I see no other alternatives.
Mousse – Marbury v Madison was the beginning of the end of the republic. The War of Secession was the next nail in the coffin, with the 16th and 17th amendments all but ending any chance we had of being a free people. The last 100 years has seen the noose tighten even tighter.
If you haven’t read this and want to read a ‘Deep Dive’ into the history of the Minutemen, which is different than the public persona, a snap shot of the lives of the critical individuals, and a griping chorological volley by volley – bullet by bullet – death by wound combat story of the events during the running battle…this is the book.
Without a last minute desperate dash, the Lobsterbacks came extremely close to their Little Big Horn.
I read it in three days. Hands down the best account of the battle I have read to date.
The concept of the farmer and shopkeeper pulling rifles off pegs on the wall to fight the British has been the typical image of the American minuteman. The fact that he may have had military training and drilled―and that April 19, 1775 was not his first battle―usually goes unmentioned. Winner of the American Revolution Round Table Award, The Minute Men will be of keen interest to those curious about the true history of some of America’s first soldiers.
put this up in an earlier post, absolutely no-one responded to it. care to try here?
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
would anyone here draw a necessary connection between “keep and bear arms” and militia duty? in the parlance of the times “well regulated militia” meant well drilled and well practiced and well officered.
gman…I have to leave but I will play later.
gman,
“So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people” except for a few public officials.”
I saw thousands of ‘the whole people’ in Richmond on the 20th armed to the teeth…many 3% Pecenters who were trained, standing in formation, and their leaders (officers) were obvious.
I have been vetted and invited to join a ‘whole people’ well structured, well trained local militia (they have a quarterly two training secession). Had a meal with their leader (officer) and the person who invited me to join, but I declined their invitation. (I was curious though, and impressed).
I was with another ‘whole person’ in Richmond who I shoot and train with all the time. I also have two other neighbors (whole persons) who I shoot and train with, and one is a Deputy Sheriff who is a raging 2A supporter. We are talking about coming together to support one another in mutual defense of our families and Constitutional rights.
I am also hearing, and will soon find out face to face, my County’s new Sheriff is a strong 2A supporter, and hopefully he will gather “the whole people” who are willing to be deputized when the time comes to fight and defend our families, homes, and God given Constitutionally explained rights of self-defense from all comers…including Federal Flying Monkeys (some of them literally flying).
2nd AMENDMENT: ORIGINAL MEANING AND PURPOSE
By: TJ Martinell|Published on: Sep 22, 2014|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Constitution 101, Founding Principles
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well-regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
the phrase ‘well-regulated militia” does not mean “the whole people” regardless of their condition or level of training, it means ‘well-regulated militia” – well-drilled, well-practiced, well officered, THIS condition being necessary to the security of a free state. and the 2nd (whether madison thought it superfluous or not) entrains “the right to keep and bear arms” with a “well-regulated militia” – officers, military assembly, chain of command, military regulations, military duty.
How or what was the intent of the phrase during the period in which it was penned? I feel this is the most significant meaning.
in the parlance of the times, “well-regulated” meant “well-drilled”. “militia” meant every able-bodied (white) male between the ages of 16 and 50 or 60. the model was the greek city-states, most of which fielded their able-bodied male populations every year to fight each other (athens kept records for about 200 years, listing casualties that averaged about 3% a year). in colonial times the militia was a fairly real thing, but was just on the verge of becoming obsolete when the bill of rights was proposed and adopted.
from wnd:
“In Sept. of 1774, Dr. Joseph Warren wrote the Suffolk Resolves. British statesman Edmund Burke cited the Suffolk Resolves as a major development in colonial animosity, which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence.
The Suffolk Resolves stated: ‘That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations … and that the inhabitants of those towns and districts … do use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and do, for that purpose, appear under arms at least once every week.'”
(by the way, for all you lone-wolf libertarian individualists out there who intend such things as “highly selective culling” first chance you get, all of these statements were predicated on the idea of communities and “the people”, not atomized stray “self-actuated” individuals striding magnificently alone across a landscape polluted by their lessers.)
From the article above:
During the Revolutionary War Period
While the Provincial Forces were very professional and disciplined, the militias were not. Indeed, no less an authority than George Washington (at that time the adjutant-general of the Virginia militia) noted that the militia was largely disorganized. He considered the militia fit for times of peace, but ill-equipped for times of war.
After 1903 Militia Act:
Organized Militia: These are the forces that comprise the National Guard, which are the organized militia forces of each state. It is not synonymous with the National Guard of the United States, which is a reserve military force under joint control of the federal and state governments.
Unorganized Militia: This is virtually every other man in the United States. Men are not part of the unorganized militia if they are part of the organized militia. All other able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are considered part of the militia. This is an important concept to remember, even as we work through the part of militia history predating this Act.
“After 1903 Militia Act”
if we’re going to talk about the 2nd, we ought to stick to the 2nd. if we include everything afterwards then we’ll have to include what the captive territories of virginia, california, and washington are pulling right now too.
gman,
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What does “well regulated” mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
I REST MY CASE…and my case has a well regulated, ccorrectly calibrated, functioning as expected, GUN in it!
“How or what was the intent of the phrase during the period in which it was penned? I feel this is the most significant meaning.”
Way to go Oldtimer505!
“I REST MY CASE”
as you wish.
“the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training”
sure. but the phrase under discussion is “well-regulated militia”, to which is appended “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. so, the right to keep and bear arms is concurrent with disciplined, trained, ordered, drilled, regulated, and officered, militia standing. which virtually no-one here has. (vixen vic please note that “unorganized militia” is not well-regulated militia.)
gman,
You are now hanging yourslf on one word Militia…implying ‘well-regulated’ in the contex it was written and used from 1709 to 1894 has no bearing….please.
Hmmm…hold on a second…I have to get on my soapbox…ready…here goes:
Why Stand ye all in the shadows patriots? Rise up Brothers and Sisters (and gman) Stand boldly and firm with one another, all across this nation, and demand that our elected servants return to the rule of law, or stand ready to be dealt with as the criminals that they are!
We desire peace, but not at the cost of our liberty! We stand united and ready!
For the time being, Oh ye tyrants, go ahead and legislate your unconstitutional laws against us, but while we prepare for the final action be warned, WE WILL NOT COMPLY! and in refusing to do so, we will castrate and nullify your unconstitutional legislations and render them useless!
Brothers and Sisters, To Arms!
It is the duty of the citizen’s militia’s to protect and defend the unalienable rights of all members of their communities. Under no circumstances will the Modern Militia Movement, tolerate those who advocate acts of criminal violence, terrorism, or a change from our Republic form of government; nor will it support any specific political party or candidate, nor espouse any particular religious denomination or doctrine. All members must understand the duties and obligation of both citizens and government under the United States Constitution.
The members of the Modern Militia Movement and the citizens unorganized militia’s, shall ever stand accountable, as have our forefathers before us. First to God, from whom we acknowledge the authority of all rights, and all the blessings of governments, and to our fellow citizens of our native sovereign states.
~That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their Life, Liberty, and Property; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
~That the integrity of the courts, be they local, State or federal, shall remain
uncontemptable providing that they shall respect and uphold the rights of the.citizens of the several states, including but not limited to, upholding the due process of law, and to preserve the right of trial by jury and to obtain immediate judicial review of cases wherein abuse of basic Constitutional rights are questioned.
~That governments, being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
~That all just government is servant of the people who have instituted it, that the people of the several states should never by force nor coercion be obliged to anything styled as “law” which has not been promulgated by their duly elected representatives, nor any as may be promulgated by them to bear conflict to the rights of the people, so that no government shall be made master of the people of the states united.
~To promote and defend the unalienable God-given rights of all citizens, regardless of race, sex or national origin, as is expressed in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
~To promote and defend the principles of just government bequeathed to us by our forefathers to whit: That the principle of the Tenth Amendment shall stand inviolate, as history has shown that the greatest system of checks and balances exists with the people and their States to check the powers accrued by the federal government.
~To promote and propagate the militia’s of the several states as well regulated, (trained and prepared) organizations knowledgeable in historical precedent and current affairs, that is composed of common citizens.
~To encourage development of a cohesive and competent command structure.
~To encourage our members to train in the many disciplines necessary to the function of the militia as a whole and to the members individually.
~To educate our members in areas of history, law and principle as compiled in the experience and records of our forefathers.
~To keep informed our members, and all citizens of events Local, State, National and global that threaten to imperil our traditional Constitutional rights, or such as may imperil the sovereignty of our Nation by the undue influence of those who have forsaken their loyalty to our Nation, and to the principles upon which it was founded.
~To repel foreign aggression and invasions, by preparing and training for defense and by our encouraging and showing reason why all citizens should stand stoutly against socialism, fascism, communism, humanism, and all forms of tyranny.
~To suppress domestic insurrections and violence, by supporting and assisting the appropriate Officers of the Law in upholding and maintaining law and order in accordance with such Local, State, and Federal statutes and laws that do not present jeopardy to our God given rights as acknowledged in the United States Constitution!
https://modernmilitiamovement.com/
Oops forgot to include this.
Game, Set, Match.
Well done, Mark
Thanks TN, gman is a good egg, with a good heart…but I’m keeping my right to be a Slender Man REGULATOR!
“You are now hanging yourslf on one word Militia”
more specifically you are. you are ignoring the standing military formation inherent in the word “militia” (which the 2nd clearly implies) and equating “well-regulated militia” with uncharacterized individuals (which the 2nd clearly does not do) – and from there declaring your point made. it is not.
so. you assert no connection between “the right to bear arms” and militia duty. this is in defiance of the actual words of the 2nd.
gman…look up stubborn in the dictionary…your picture is there.
Well regulated by who – the tyrannical, corrupt, evil, goberment? The very ones we must have the arms to protect ourselves from?
Well Regulated by the PEOPLE in the MILITIA.
I have met one local group, know how they train and are organized, they fit the 2A to a TEA…Boston Harbor flavor.
I gave you the context of the words ‘Well Regulated’ from 1709 to 1894! It is not your version.
The Milita themselves, the free, armed Well SELF-REGULATED Militia members are NOT TO BE INFRINGED ON.
If you don’t think me and my mostly ex-military neighbors, who shoot and prep together are not ‘calibrated correctly and functioning as expected’ and fit this Supreme Court ruling:
What does “well regulated” mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
You are dead wrong. The above ruling is one of the reasons they killed SCALIA by showing him a picture of Hillary naked! She may actually have jumped out of a closet naked, that would do the job in seconds.
Me and my neighbors are all disciplined and properly trained. We carry blindfolds in case the goberment attacks us with naked Hillary pics!
And so are hundreds of 3% groups like this:
https://modernmilitiamovement.com/
Constitutional Carry is my stand…said the armed free American.
gman,
In 1788, as Massachusetts was poised to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Samuel Adams advocated an amendment making it clear that “the Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Commenting on the proposed Bill of Rights the following year, Tench Coxe, a member of the Continental Congress, described the Second Amendment this way: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” ”
This tradition was reflected in state constitutions that explicitly guaranteed an individual right to armed self-defense. Pennsylvania’s, enacted in 1790, said “the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned,” for example, while Vermont’s, enacted in 1777, said “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.”
What Is a ‘Well Regulated Militia,’ Anyway?
The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.
The second amendment is short, sweet and to the point. It gives the people the right to bear arms. Not just certain arms deemed by government but, arm of and for defense. This would include arms against the now established rulers elite.
“It gives the people the right to bear arms.”
in a well-regulated militia.
Mark, you have done a service to us here in explaining the intricacies of the 2nd amendment, militias, and of the beliefs and intentions of the founding fathers. Thank you for your service in that regard sir. You are a well-regulated gentleman, scholar and patriot. And have a heart of patience for not losing your shit on gman.