|
|
|
|
|
|
by jcranmer
3795 days ago
|
|
|
The right-wing militias ideologically lay claim to themselves as the successors of 18th century militias. In actuality, these militias were basically auxiliary military units set up at local levels to deal with low-level threats that required fast response--slave revolts and Indian raids being the main ones present. These sorts of threats have all but disappeared in the First World, so their modern counterparts (National Guard or Gendarme) end up doing very little. The self-titled militia organizations, however, use a warped view of history that glorifies their role in the American Revolution, seeing themselves as the necessary vanguard against government oppression and particularly the potential oppressive nature of a standing army, which usually turns out to mean "I want to use this land that no one's using but the evil government won't let me." To lend credence to their claims, they need to look the part of a militia--the part of a well-armed, well-trained soldier, while their ideology precludes them from gaining experience in an actual properly-trained military environment (it seems to me that there are very few ex-military in these militia groups, and most current and ex-military are as disdainful of these groups as the general populace). I rather suspect that even if they did end up fighting the US Army, they'd still do it in their uniforms because a) they'd be clearly recognizable as heroes then and b) they think they'd still win anyways. |
|
|
As a proponent of non-violence I have no real support for such activities but after having read much of the constitutional debates I feel compelled to point out the fact that a civilian militia as a check/balance on government power as well as for auxiliary military purposes was a very considerable topic of discussion in the constitutional debates of the founding fathers:
>No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when 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, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use.
-George Mason, "The Father of the Bill of Rights", Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8...
However, others such as Alexander Hamilton noted the logistical difficulties of sustaining such a militia:
>A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm