Militia

Militia ( Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:43:16 GMT) From: John.Shy@um.cc.umich.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 13:31:24 EDT

This is in behalf of a journalist friend who is interested in interviewing scholars who could comment on parallels between contemporary "militia" groups and earlier groups in U.S. history that harbored extreme suspicion of the central government. What ideas, beliefs, symbols have such groups shared over time? What accounts for these ideologies? Also, what scholarly studies are available that might deal with this question?

• John Shy

> From: John.Shy@um.cc.umich.edu
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 13:31:24 EDT
> Subject: Militia
>
> This is in behalf of a journalist friend who is interested in interviewing
> scholars who could comment on parallels between contemporary "militia"
> groups and earlier groups in U.S. history that harbored extreme suspicion of
> the central government. What ideas, beliefs, symbols have such groups
> shared over time? What accounts for these ideologies? Also, what scholarly
> studies are available that might deal with this question?
> - John Shy

Professor Shy:

With respect to the subject of militia ideology in America, a good place to start is Marcus Cunliffe's SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS.

In Soldiers and Civilians, Cunliffe defined the military spirit in America as a hybrid of three model viewpoints: that of the Quaker, Chevalier, and the Rifleman.

The Quaker ethos, he claims, is that of a Benjamin Franklin or more recently, an Omar Bradley or Dwight Eisenhower. According to Cunliffe, the Quaker "stands for simplicity, shrewdness, ingenuity, diligence, decency, and piety." The Quaker is a good citizen, but resists state power and "all features associated with war--parades, weapons, display, hierarchies of rank, [and] collective anger."

The Chevalier, by comparison, is a persona similar to Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, George Patton, and Douglas MacArthur: "a mounted figure, an officer, a gentleman, proud of his family, proud of his calling." Chevaliers contain elements of fantasy and make believe: "they step out of the pages of romantic literature, endowed for a moment with flesh and blood--and presently step back again into make-believe." Patton, an officer who insisted on wearing cavalry boots and britches even though he rode tanks, not horses, fits this model well: among other fantasies, he believed he had fought with Napoleon during the Moscow campaign, and had been the Roman legionnaire who had stabbed Christ on the cross.

The Rifleman is Cunliffe's third model viewpoint. Like the Quaker, he is an individualist from a small town who is "unimpressed by rank and authority." However, he is much more of a joiner than the Quaker. He also enjoys reunions and the status of being a veteran. What he does not enjoy are long enlistments. The Rifleman is "eager to enlist," but as a civilian-soldier, he is also eager to return home. To him, war is like a hunting trip to the mountains: "sporting," and rigorous but only in a temporal sense. Like a hunter, his weapon of choice is the rifle. In short, he is a frontiersman, a sportsman, a Yeoman farmer, a volunteer, and an individualist. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt fit the Rifleman mold. Both believed that the defining feature of the warrior was character and will, not professional training or discipline. Both also emphasized war as a series of individual encounters rather than a collective effort.

I hope this helps.

John Sherwood
jds@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu

From H-RHETOR Digest:

Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 18:17 EST
From: SCHWEITZ@UCIS.VILL.EDU

Well, now I get to put my real historians' hat on, brag about the recent rating of Johns Hopkins' history Ph.D. program as number 2 in early American history (which is a complement to Jack Greene, my dissertation advisor, but I bet Jack is steamed he wasn't number 1 ...), and interject a little history here:

The militias go back to a long tradition, yes. Originally, there really wasn't another choice -- the British government had no intention of keeping an army in the colonies; too expensive. With the exception of pacifist PA, all the colonies had rules about training in a local militia. When Britain was at war with France from time to time, the colonies were requested to sent out their militia to fight the French in Canada. Massachusetts always did; most colonies rolled over and went back to sleep. Virginia's govt was controlled by plantation owners whose second source of income was land speculation, so they were always sending out the unfortunate militia to gain more land for speculation -- that's how the Seven Years War (French and Indian War) got started.

Little known, apparently, by nonhistorians: the issue about owning your own weapon goes back in British history, true, but by the time of the Revolution basically it was a cheap way to finance an army. The Continental Congress didn't have the FUNDS to buy weapons -- so you had to bring your own. The Revolution was fought with a mismash of soldier organizations: the militias, the state regiments, and the continental army. Washington DESPISED the militias because he thought they were indisciplined (they were). He really despised the Pennsylvania militia, which was all-democratic -- they even elected their own commanding officers. (It was the PA militia who held Congress at bay, prisoners in Independence Hall in Philly, because they hadn't been paid -- that's the main reason, BTW, that we have the District of Columbia.)

By the time of the Constitution, the militia tradition that the new militia is referring to had really lost favor with the leading lights -- the so-called "founding fathers". Shays Rebellion (where the local militia took over the Mass. courts so they wouldn't foreclose on farms in the middle of a currency revaluation) (the farmers were really getting shafted) (but they won in the long run because they took over the Mass legislature in the next election) Shays' Rebellion is considered a major cause of the movement to write a strong Constitution centralizing power.

That is, the militia is associated with the ANTIFEDERALISTS, the people who HATED the Constitution, not the FEDERALISTS, the people who WROTE the Constitution. (!) And the "rabble-rouser" types, like Patrick Henry (who was told it wasn't going to be a convention to write a new constitution, but just some talk about trade and was FURIOUS when he realized he had been deceived), weren't AT the Convention.

The PA militia was so furious they hung their own rep, James Wilson, in effigy and tried to start a counter-constitutional convention.

So now we get to the Bil of Rights. The Bil of Rights was the result of a compromise between antifederalists and federalists. Madison, author of Federralist #10 so beloved of conservatives, didn't WANT the Bill of Rights in the Constitution at first -- why do you think it wasn't there? But in Mass. and Virginia, the antifederalists agreed to acquiesce to ratification if the first session of Congress would start the amendment process to add a Bill of Rights.

Madison was elected to Congress, but his constituents made him promise he would vote for the Bill of Rights (as yet unwriten; there were, I believe, over 100 amendments proposed for the Bil of Rights). The story goes that he said if I have to vote for it, I'll write it.

Now: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is VERY IMPORTANT. Supposedly, it was MAdison who phrased it to defuse its meaning. It reads: "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." Note the wording here: "well regulated Militia". These guys don't want to be regulated, now do they?

Finally, a little over 200 years ago, in western PA in 1794, Washington settled the whole issue. Quite justifiably upset about a tax on whiskey, their main product, western Pennsylvanians called in the local militia and marched on the tax collectors and performed some "rough justice" (beating up, riding out of town on a rail, that stuff) Isn't that what these guys think the militia is for? And what was our founding father George Washington's response?

He put together the largest regiment he had ever commanded -- even during the war -- to march to western Pennsylvania and stop the "rebellion" -- today called the "Whiskey Rebellion".

So. If these guys want to say they are resurrecting the antifederalist militias, okay by me as a historian. But I find it absolutely astounding that not only do they say they are the true defenders of the Constitution, but that the media lets them get away with it! Sad, sad.

BTW, Before the Contitution, the national government, such as it was (really more of an alliance; the state governments had all the important powers) was cslled the Confederation.

It was no coincidence that in 1861, the recently seceded southern states took the name "Confederacy".

• Mary Schweitzer, Dept. of History, Villanova University

Interesting to note the anti-Federalist nature of early militias. From what I can discern about present militias, as they call themselves, they are generally loyal to the Constitution. They fear the gradual, subtle subversion of their rights instead of a sudden usurpation, a situation which Madison warned against. Historians who look back on this period may use the old saying, "Just because you're paranoid that doesn't mean we're not out to get you." After all, when the IRS can seize your property without due process, or when EPA can grab your farm for accidentally killing a couple of kangaroo rats (for God's sake!), people will justifiably begin to get angry.

A similar brouhaha is stirring up in the West, were locals are offended by Federal ownership of 85% of the state's land (as in Nevada), and by the the Federal government's land policies which impact their livelihoods. So, perhaps we can see some parallels to earlier frictions with local militias and their grievances (i.e., the tax on whiskey). At least these present groups voice some loyalty to the Constitution--for the most part.

There are quite a few others who defy description and who thrive on conspiracy theories. Some, as you know, fear "black helicopters" and a seizure of power by the UN, which will then institute a "new world order". Others can be classified as completely on the lunatic fringe, such as the White Aryan Resistance and neo-Nazi groups who are white supremacists. Some even are drawn to their "militias" by apocalyptic religious views which see the end of the world as imminent. Finally, some are full blown anarchists who hate government and taxes of any kind. This latter group includes the Posse Comitatus types, and the nutcases who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City. For them, the Constitution does not seem to be a major consideration and they are insurrectionists, pure and simple. They are as dangerous as the white supremacists and the religious fanatics. And, lest we forget, there are the eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists who have destroyed a great deal of property in the past few years and may really harm somebody.

Sorry if this is long winded, but I want us all to be sure not to lump these militia groups into a monolithic bloc. There grievances are as numerous as their membership, and not all can really be called anti-Constitution. Some have real gripes which can perhaps be solved through the electoral process. Others are a danger to society and pose a direct challenge to the Constitution.

Roger A. Dunaway
Ph.D. student in military history
Kansas State University

I remember, but predictably I can't find the source material, that in the original draft of what became the 2nd Amendment to the Second Philadelphia Constitution, all citizens were required to have a weapon available unless they had religious scruples about the taking of human life. The present version is more than a slight remove from that obligation. Of course, it also exempts those outside the ages 18-45.

#############################
Jerry Sweeney
S. D. State U.
hs00@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
#############################

I find Mary Schweitzer's equation of support for the Bill of Rights with opposition to the Constitution disturbing. My dissertation was also written at Hopkins, although a very long time ago when the consensus school of historiography dominated the profession.. (My dissertation was the AHA Beveridge Award winner in 1964 and was published as The Eleventh Pillar: New York State and the Federal Constitution [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966])

I have changed my mind about many things in the past thirty years. I was an early enthusiastic convert to the new social history, and my current military history interest is a long way from the narrow constitutional history that was my first specialty. I would like to think, then, that my strong sympathy for the "Antifederalists" is not just a sign of a fossified intellect clinging to an early thesis.

The Bill of Rights is not an insignificant add-on to the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution itself was "unconstitutional," framed and ratified in a manner contrary to the Articles of Confederation and to the explicit directions of the Federal Congress. "Antifederalist" was the label put on the supporters of amendments -- a Bill of Rights -- by their political opponents. Strictly speaking, the so-called Federalists, were the ones who had attacked the Articles of Confederation. The absence of specific limitations on the powers the new Constitution placed in the central government went against Anglo-American traditions dating back to the Magna Carta.

Nor were the fears of "Antifederalists" pure paranoia; Federalist #9 more than Federalist #10 deserves examination in connection with popular fears of use of government force against citizens. The Shays Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Fries Rebellion were protests squarely in the tradition of the Committees of Correspondence and the Minute Men. Sending federal troops against these "rebels" was hardly the only possible response to their dissatisfaction. Nor are he Federalist Alien and Sedition Acts, which imprisoned people for criticizing the President, the example most people would applaud as illustrative of the ideal workings of the Constitution. The election of 1800, which put the Federalists out of office and ended the existence of their party, may be viewed as a triumph for the Constitution. Indeed, the "Antifederalists," by then known as "Democratic Republicans" became the party of strict-construction, those most devoted to the letter of the Constitution.

This may sound old-fashioned and "consensus," but I dislike using history to argue contemporary partisan positions. There is a place in the American tradition both for those who are optimistic about government strength and those who preach "eternal vigilence" against government excesses.

Mary Schweitzer concludes her posting by saying "It was no coincidence that in 1861, the recently seceded southern states took the name "Confederacy." The war that followed has become the most popular part of all American History, filling up the history section in the chain book stores, so it is hard to imagine (or wish for) a less dramatic resolution of the differences between the sections in 1860. Nevertheless, in the last years of the twentieth century, conflict resolution short of violence must be preferred policy.

Roger Dunaway's posting describes several "militias" who believe themselves to be defenders of the Constituion and patriotic citizens -- rather like the supporters of Shays's rebellion who after having been attacked and beaten by government troops won the next election and swept those who had opposed them from power. Surely, two centuries later, we should be able to get to the elections without having "wars" with our own citizens first.

Linda Grant De Pauw
The MINERVA Center, Inc.
minervacen@aol.com

Roger A. Dunaway asserts we must not lump militia groups into a monolithic bloc and the advice is well considered. Nevertheless, earlier in that same posting he characterizes those who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City as "full blown anarchists who hate government and taxes of any kind." Needless to say, the strands of anarchy are manifold and complex. Many, if not most, would agree with Wilhelm Welting's admonition: "No government, only administration, no laws, only obligations, no punishment, no correction." Nevertheless, to move from opposition to oppression directly to armed violence bespeaks a comic strip awareness of the richness of the anarchist alternative. Moreover, inasmuch as the one individual held in connection with the Oklahoma bombing has yet to make a statement regarding his socio-political-economic viewpoint we must needs reserve judgment. Mayhap, he will turn out to be an Adam Smith capitalist!

#############################
Jerry Sweeney FREEDOM
S. D. State U. EQUALS
I WON'T
hs00@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
#############################

Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 09:59:23 -0400
From: MinervaCen@aol.com (Linda Grant De Pauw)

>John Shy wrote:
>Linda,
>
> Enjoyed your response, but on using history to argue contemporary
>positions, what choice do you have when others do it, and you--a historian
>by profession--know they are mistaken, sometimes terribly so, as when armed
>groups claiming "sovereignty" insist that this is the old American
>tradition of the minutemen?

I've been trying for a couple of weeks to get you through your personal e-mail to talk about another subject. Will you e-mail me so I have an address that will work while you are on leave? (minervacen@aol.com)

I do not believe people can be "mistaken" when they argue historical analogies. Neither can they be "correct." There are plenty of "facts" in the past to support virtually any kind of argument. Just as the Devil can cite Scripture, so can activists cite history.

The past. like the present, was complex, not neatly divided into "bad guys" and "good guys." As an undergraduate, I was struck by a quotation from Spinoza, that enunciates a wise policy: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, nor to scorn human actions, but to understand them."

I happen to like the Sons of Liberty (I guess I just like underdogs), but there is plenty of evidence showing they were guilty of some far from admirable activities -- torture, for instance, when they tarred and feathered government officials. Or when some splinter group of the patriot faction destroyed Governor Hutchinson's house with all his research notes for his history of Massachusetts. There was also that unpleasantness outside a government building (the Boston Custom House), that Hiller Zobel argues was a premeditated confrontation where the "victims" of the Boston Massacre were ultimately responsible for the violence. These elements are not highlighted by those claiming the "Minute Man tradition," but they are there in the heap of past "facts" for those who want to pick them up.

You ask "what choice do you have when others do it, and you--a historian by profession--know they are mistaken." History can be used to emphasize either divisions or consensus -- to divide people or to emphasize what they have in common. When there is conflict in the present, individuals (including historians) have a choice -- to take an adversarial stance and fan the flames or to look for ways to heal. I have always found history, stories of the "olden days," very useful for healing because it is easier to be compassionate toward people long dead than it is with the living. As I said in my original posting, I realize this is an old-fashioned 1950's attitude, but it still seems to me the right thing to do.

Linda Grant De Pauw
The MINERVA Center, Inc.
minervacen@aol.com