How the Militia Of the Whole Concept failed in the 19th Century

The Concept of the Militia of the Whole Gave way to National Guard

The Founders of this country had faith in the "Militia of the Whole" as the guarantor of our civilization. As long as the Frontier was near most citizens or we had credible outside enemies, this faith was justified. The Second Amendment was originally the "Palladium of Liberty" of this country because the notion of being able to force the entire populace of a county or Town to muster and defend their homes was noble, virtuous and made sense, until most of the country was relatively peaceful and there was no longer any immediate threat. At that point the concept began to seem absurd. By the end of the 19th century the underlying concepts behind the second amendment and Article One Section 8 militia had to change. For the further context here I'd recommend reading these posts:

1. Thoughts on Defending Democracy
2. Why DC Versus Heller was Badly Decided,
3. On Militia and the Founders
4. Militia Second Amendment and Democracy
5. Select Militia National Guard and Second Amendment
6. The Palladium of Liberty

The Once Reasonable comes to Seem Absurd

The reason we have such a muddy understanding of the second amendment and militia today are threefold:

• The project of drafting the entire population into Militia, failed, (as Predicted by Hamilton).
• The risks of a "Select Militia" and a "Standing Army", were realized in much of the country.
• There was a nearly 100 year project, led by Arms manufacturers and organizations like the NRA, to reinterpret the Second Amendment.

The Book "Armed in America" describes how the original concept of the Second Amendment began to break down under the absurdities of making people stand in line during time of peace, without paying them. Without a real threat to prepare for, forcing grown men with a job to take time from their work to muster once a week, or even once a month, just didn't make sense. The underlying principles still may have made sense. But the constitution of militia as drafting everyone no longer did.

Sectional Differences On who should bear Arms

There was a difference of opinion about who was to be armed and would have the right to bear arms between the south and the north from the founding of the country.

North and South, Frontier Versus Settled

In well settled areas of the north people were only to be armed under strictly regulated rules, except in areas of high danger. In the south armaments were more prevalent but only white males were privileged to bear them. Women, blacks and Indians were disarmed. The south was infamous, even before the Revolution, as a place for murder and mayhem. Men dueled over trifles and thugs and lawless people sometimes became the law. The Militia in the South was a tool for dealing with slave revolts and a source for posses to raise to go after murderers, horse thieves and escaped slaves. A number of near fatal slave revolts in the early 1800s scared Southern politicians and slave owners so bad they started living in a fantasy-land and killing anyone who argued that the Declaration of Independence was for other than White Males. The South developed standing armies of slave police because they were so afraid of more than half of their own people. "Liberty" was a cruel joke for many immigrants and slaves. Participation in the Nation and local defense was, and still is, seen as a ticket to liberty as full citizens. A war would have to be fought to make that a reality. That struggle isn't even over now.

In the North the Militia was a patriotic and general organization. For example the Massachusetts militia are still famous for not only fighting in almost all our wars, but for what they did at Lexington and Concord. They would make an almost seemless transition from "militia of the whole" to select service as national guard units. People who were in the militia, also voted, expected to have a say in Government and also have influence over law and participation. Militia was tied to civil rights and community. The founders saw participation in the militia, the right to do so, and training in the use of arms as a bulwark against tyranny, not only nationally but at the state level. The south saw the militia as a means to protect slave owners from their slaves. There was a disconnect. During and after the Civil War, blacks won the right to defend their homes. After the Civil War the South stepped on that right.

The Failures of Militia

The concept of a citizenry that could defend the country as needed, with the whole of adult males, was an article of "democratic republican" belief. It was ideology. And as with all ideology it was often more an article of faith than practical reality. This was only possible in those communities need a conflictive frontier or during wartime. This started to be obvious during and shortly after the War of 1812;

“The year 1815 marked a turning point in American military history, and the artillery companies of Boston felt its influence. Danger from foreign foes was at an end; the Indians were then so far to the westward as no longer to be a serious menace. America felt free to enter upon a career of peaceful conquest—and to get rich.” [OldMass]

After 1812, it became almost impossible to run a "militia of the whole", except in frontier regions.

“Whereas militia service had hitherto been regarded seriously, as the most important duty of citizenship, now men laughed at it. We begin to find reference to the “corn-stalk” militia.” [OldMass]

The Success of Militia Led to its decay

Unfortunately the militia decayed as America became more settled, more difficult to invade or harry, and Americans became more urbane and specialized. Over time we went to "select militia", which meant volunteers or draftees, selected from the people (selective service) as needed by the Government. Functions that had been militia became standing armies of policemen, firemen (unarmed), rescue workers and later, medical personnel. The education component of the militia also suffered. Training in military also meant training in civics, at least in most of the USA.

There had always been large swaths of the country where militia service wasn't taken seriously. But now it became darn near impossible for all the communities across the country to summon, muster, train and discipline a militia composed of all the citizens.

Additionally As the country expanded in population and specialized, the military also became increasingly specialized. As the frontier was settled and "controlled", the need for military service shifted from "on call" to episodal. Increasingly national service meant lots of training until a war, and wars increasingly meant mobilizing and going overseas or to where the conflict was outside of one's own state.

Image from The Old First Massachusetts [Militia]

Militia As a Path to Self Betterment

With the country, much of it, rejecting Militia Service as a lifetime sideline, concepts like militia as a "Reserve Force" or a "Select Militia" that involved volunteers who would serve when their country was in dire straights emerged. Militia didn't disappear, they changed from being an effort to involve everyone of fighting age all the time, to something that would be invoked in emergencies. By 1917, Militia Service had become a ticket to adulthood and a better life. But was no longer seen as a citizen duty and obligation:

“The better soldier a man learns to be, the better citizen he makes himself. Such training in team-work is of priceless value; this service has become a passport to business success, and today there is no better recommendation for employment. Civil Service commissioners recognize the enhanced usefulness of the trained soldier by according him preference in government appointments.”

The Second amendment never gave civilians the right to carry any arms they wanted to anytime. But Americans always had asserted a right to self defense, and a right to carry fire-arms when self defense might be necessary. They started claiming that they could found that right in the Second Amendment in the early 20th century.

Enough for this post.

Posts in the Series

Why DC Versus Heller was Badly Designed

2015/05/ What the Founders Meant By Militia

2018/03 Select Militia, National Guard and Second Amendment

Select Militia National Guard and Second Amendment

Selective Service Versus Standing Armies

Armed in America, by Patrick J. Charles:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y56WFY6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Related:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41043/41043-h/41043-h.htm

Notes and Postscript

I began exploring the meaning of Militia and the Second Amendment back in 2015, after questions about the Heller Decision. This post forms a whole when combined with previous ones and is a follow on to Selective Service Versus Standing Armies". In earlier posts I've written my opinion of;

1. Why DC Versus Heller was Badly Decided,
2. On Militia and the Founders
3. Select Militia National Guard and Second Amendment

I wrote all of this before reading "Armed in America" (though I edited the two recent ones based on it's first chapter) which helped me understand the segue between the understanding of the Second Amendment that the founders had and the modern understanding. I have subsequently updated the related posts with the goal of eventually separating the subjects into separate posts as a couple of the posts were way too big.

I'm re-editing the pages so that they are easier to read.