Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Proposition: The gloried role of militias and citizen owned firearms doesn't measure up to the historical record.
Washington complained vociferously about the conduct of militiamen during the Revolutionary war and it wouldn't be until European mercenaries and former soldiers joined the ranks of the Continental Army that Washington was able to field anything approaching a competent force.
As for the armed citizen bravely facing the British, in order to arm the Continental Army over 100,000 muskets had to be imported from France. Need we discuss the role of soldiers of the French Army and sailors of the French Navy who should be given far greater credit for American independence than any Minute man?
The militia were more important in their political than military role; the Patriot militias allowed the Patriots to control the great mass of the countryside where Imperial troops had no day to day presence. In this the militias were vital to the success of our rebellion.
Kentucky and Virginia militias had success in campaigns against the Shawnees in southern Ohio and the British in the Illinois Country (but didn't do well against raids into Kentucky by Great Lakes Indians and British down from Detroit). But it can be argued that American claims to the Old Northwest, granted in the Treaty of Paris, were largely based on these campaigns in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
The Tyrone County Militia did some very hard fighting at Oriskany and arguably saved the Mohawk Valley from St. Leger.
The militia had a good day at Cowpens, yeah the Continentals drove the Brits but the militia did more than hold their coats.
Last edited by Irishtom29; 12-19-2012 at 01:00 AM..
Swamp Fox Francis Marion used militia to great effect. Washington's greatest mistake early in the war was attempting to use militia the way Europeans fought at the time.
It should also be noted the Green Mountain Boys contributed quite a bit early in the war by capturing Ticonderoga and letting the artillery be used in Boston. Militia succeeded in winning Vermont's independence.
. Washington's greatest mistake early in the war was attempting to use militia the way Europeans fought at the time.
.
Early in the war Washington commanded only militia. Yes, the New England militia groups which had fought at Concord, Bunker Hill, and were now besieging Boston, had been officially adopted by Congress as the Continental Army, but that didn't suddenly turn them into a trained army of regulars. It would not be for several years before there would be a clear distinction between the American regulars and the militia in terms of quality on the field.
The Continental Army which won the epic victory at Saratoga was primarily composed of militias, and they were quite effective in the forest terrain.
Because Americans did have some success with militias....Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens...a legend was created in the minds of the nation that the revolution had been won by militias rather than by the regulars. It led Americans to decide that their natural prejudice against standing armies was valid, and that the country could be safely defended in times of danger by calling out the militias.
The disasters of the War of 1812 showed that this had been a false impression.
I hasten to add that in the battle of Lexington and Concord the vastly outnumbered (4:1) British force was still able to inflicted 90 casualties upon the American militia despite receiving 250 of their own.
Early in the war Washington commanded only militia. Yes, the New England militia groups which had fought at Concord, Bunker Hill, and were now besieging Boston, had been officially adopted by Congress as the Continental Army, but that didn't suddenly turn them into a trained army of regulars. It would not be for several years before there would be a clear distinction between the American regulars and the militia in terms of quality on the field.
The Continental Army which won the epic victory at Saratoga was primarily composed of militias, and they were quite effective in the forest terrain.
Because Americans did have some success with militias....Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens...a legend was created in the minds of the nation that the revolution had been won by militias rather than by the regulars. It led Americans to decide that their natural prejudice against standing armies was valid, and that the country could be safely defended in times of danger by calling out the militias.
The disasters of the War of 1812 showed that this had been a false impression.
I think the disasters in the War of 1812 are a little more complicated than the Revolution. The War of 1812 was an unpopular war that was declared against an enemy that was not actually invading (until we declared war). The greatest victory of the war, that at New Orleans, was won with militia commanded by Andrew Jackson. The regulars abandoned the city of Washington as badly as the militia.
I think the disasters in the War of 1812 are a little more complicated than the Revolution. The War of 1812 was an unpopular war that was declared against an enemy that was not actually invading (until we declared war). The greatest victory of the war, that at New Orleans, was won with militia commanded by Andrew Jackson. The regulars abandoned the city of Washington as badly as the militia.
In defense of the regulars, in particular the Marines and sailors at Bladensburg, they remained in their positions long after the militia fled. By the time they were forced to retire there was no organized force left to rejoin. While there are plenty of reasons for poor militia performance in general during the War of 1812, Bladensburg stands out to me, because this was supposed to be what the militia were all about. They were defending their home states and the national capital against an invading force. They were in defensive positions and outnumbered their opponents in everyway including artillery. Still, even though they suffered light casualties and far fewer then the attacking British they broke.
Overall, I think the most pertinent facts have already been laid out. There were few battles where the militia performed well and none of the general officers ever felt they were a reliable force. Some groups such as Marion's were a force to be reckoned with, but the men in these units were hardly representative of the average militia soldier. These were largely frontier dwellers who were used to living off the land, travelled light and were excellent marksmen.
To me though, the real story of the militia is what happened after the revolution. The "militia myth" led strongly to a disdain for standing forces and the nations defense was modelled entirely on militia. Indeed some of the first acts of the national government were to "regulate" and establish unifrom practices in the state militia's. All men 18-45 were to serve and they were required by law to provide certain provisions and arms for themselves. The states were given instructions on how to organize the forces into uniform companies, regiments, divisions, etc.
In practice few people ever showed up for drills and even more were granted service waivers. Even fewer actually brought their legally required arms with them. When the militia was called out for the Whiskey Rebellion, few showed up which led to draft lotteries. Those drafted showed up largely unarmed and needed to be armed from federal armories. They completely lacked any sort of military training and had to spend months just learning basic drill before they could be employed. Early militia actions against Indians in the territories were universally disastorous and led to the formation of the Legion of the United States to act as a semi-permanent regular force.
Slowly but surely the idea of relying on the militia for national defense, even as a first line, faded and the need for a regular standing army was recognized. While there is strong sentiment still today for the idea of what the militia was supposed to be, the reality is far different from the legend and the entire militia experiment was pretty much a failure.
The militia system the founders envisioned has worked in Switzerland. The real problem here was that while some local leaders took it seriously and had effective, trained militias, others did not and the militia there if called upon would consist of a motley group of farmers with little training. The leadership was just so inconsistent from even one town to the next. We had a growing nation and a spirit of rebellion that rejected being told what to do, which made enforcing any kind of standard nearly impossible.
The militias had some rather stunning success when used properly. I think half of the problem stemmed from narrow minded officers. Even Washington tried waging a European style war. Marion knew better. Militia won New Orleans under Andrew Jackson but under other leaders fled. Our officers from the very beginning rejected new technology and tactics. Repeating rifles from the time of the Jennings repeater of the 1820's to the bolt and leverguns of the 1860's and 70's were rejected. By the time we adopted a smokeless powder arm in the 1890's we had one of the most obsolete service rifles of the time. President Lincoln personally intervened to get the army to buy more modern rifles in some limited amounts during the Civil War. The officers did not even want to test some of the new weapons.
Proposition: The gloried role of militias and citizen owned firearms doesn't measure up to the historical record.
Washington complained vociferously about the conduct of militiamen during the Revolutionary war and it wouldn't be until European mercenaries and former soldiers joined the ranks of the Continental Army that Washington was able to field anything approaching a competent force.
As for the armed citizen bravely facing the British, in order to arm the Continental Army over 100,000 muskets had to be imported from France. Need we discuss the role of soldiers of the French Army and sailors of the French Navy who should be given far greater credit for American independence than any Minute man?
What say you?
That concept has long been discredited.
Washington himself was militia in an earlier war. The seasonal and expeditionary nature of campaigning which was previously the custom of warfare made good use of militia. Washington needed to field a long service army to establish the bona-fides of the revolutionary movement. No one would expect militia to do so.
France provided aid post-1777. The conflict had already been in progress for several years. The information above is useless unless one knows the disposition of those muskets.
Anyone who reads well on this subject is familiar with French assistance in the conflict. No need to even mention unless this is the High School History forum
Last edited by Felix C; 12-20-2012 at 07:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
