Lest We Forget

(Source)

I'm just finishing reading an excellent book on the events immediately leading up to the American Revolution, this one -

(Source)

From the Boston Tea party to the aftermath of the events of the 19th of April, 1775 - a day which saw the battles of Lexington and Concord and the long agony of the British regulars as they retreated from Concord back to Boston.

Mr. Beck tells the story well and I am looking forward to starting his follow on volume, The War Before Independence: 1775-1776, which I purchased the same day as the one above. But today's post isn't a book review (you can chase the links for that and to get a peek at the contents of those books for yourself).

No, Juvat's post yesterday, well the first part anyway, got me to thinking. As I pondered, I was reminded of a television program I used to watch, the opening line of each episode was -

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

The police, in general, don't exist to protect us, not directly anyway. They exist to enforce the law, and to investigate and apprehend those who break the law. It is the law which protects a society and, by extension, the people who make up that society.

With that being said (and this is where the book depicted above ties in), on the 19th of April 1776, British forces consisting of the Light and Grenadier companies (picked men, the elite of each battalion) drawn from the regiments quartered in Boston, and a force of Royal Marines, were directed to proceed to Concord. They were to move quickly and quietly in order not to arouse the countryside. Their objective was to seize a store of cannon, powder, and shot believed to be stored in and around the town of Concord.

To translate that into modern terms, the British were not so concerned about the personal weaponry of the colonists, but with military grade equipment (the cannon with their associated carriages and limbers - the former had the cannon mounted upon them, the latter to carry the ammunition for the guns) and with a store of ammunition (powder and shot) for those cannons (and muskets) and in such a quantity that the Crown thought exceeded the day to day needs of the colonists. That is, the Crown viewed what the redcoats were to seize as military assets. Things not needed for hunting if you will.

In those days most of the able bodied men of the colonies participated in the militia. They would train perhaps once a month, where they would march and perform the manual of arms. Instruction and practice in discharging their weapons properly was also given. These were not full time troops by any stretch of the imagination. These militia companies may have been the ancestors of today's National Guard units but there is no real similarity between the two beyond the part time nature of their service.

Today's Guardsmen are trained, regulated, and equipped by the regular forces of the United States. The militia companies, while some had veterans of the French and Indian War enrolled, learned their trade from their fellow militiamen. Some militia units were good, none were as good as the regular forces of the British Crown.

Also bear in mind that these were the days before police forces existed. Yes, there were sheriffs and the like to enforce the edicts of the Crown, but not to protect the inhabitants of the colonies. They were there to protect the Crown's interests.

The militia served to protect the people. Originally they were embodied to protect the frontier against marauding natives. (Who were none too pleased to have the whites encroaching on their territories and interrupting their own internecine warfare of raid, abduction, counter-raid, and pillaging. These were not a peaceful people living in harmony with nature. As if humankind anywhere has ever been like that!)

Though the British Crown gained greatly from the French and Indian War (known as the Seven Years War in Europe), mainly by booting the French from Canada and gaining that vast region, not to mention what would be the Midwestern United States someday. (George Washington gained his initial fame and military experience from a disastrous British defeat near present day Pittsburgh.)

But wars, as anyone who pays attention to such things knows, is a very expensive business. Because of the recent war, the Crown was a bit short of cash. So new taxes were created, and though many were dropped due to colonial protests and finding ways to not pay the taxes, some remained on the books. Which pissed off a number of colonists. The sort of colonists who refused to take things lying down.

Now Parliament in far off Great Britain was rather teed off at these colonials. "What, don't want to help pay for the war which removed the threat of raiding Indians and Frenchmen? Those ingrates."

Tea got dumped into Boston harbor rather than let it come ashore where it would be sold, consumed, and (of course) taxed and the Crown was most annoyed.

(Source)

The Crown was also a bit concerned with all of these militia companies running about, who themselves were concerned with the number of British regiments suddenly appearing in Boston. The former Royal governor had also been replaced with a military man. A general on active service no less. (Though in a bit of historical irony, that general, one Thomas Gage was married to a lady born and bred in the colonies and his political sympathies aligned more with the colonists than with Parliament.)

In order to keep the peace, someone thought it a capital idea to remove those military stores from the reach of all those undisciplined and unruly militiamen. So things began.

Fortunately for the future United States, the commander of the expedition to Concord, one Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, was a bit of an incompetent. His mode of operation was dither and prevaricate, a man of action he was not. The operation got off to a slow start and though General Gage had envisioned the regulars arriving at Concord at the crack of dawn, in reality they didn't get there until the afternoon. By that time everyone in the area knew what was going on and the only man perhaps surprised by what came to pass was the good LtCol Smith.

When the argument regarding the Second Amendment comes around, remember how it's worded, words are important...

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.

As we're talking about the militia, we're talking military grade weaponry, not hunting rifles, shotguns, bows and arrows, etc. There is nothing a potential tyrant (or committee of tyrants) fears more than an armed populace. And I do mean a well-armed populace with some familiarity with weapons.

What then is this "militia" of which you speak Sarge? You mean the National Guard right?

Wrong.

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.

• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (Source)

So who is the militia? Pretty much everybody between the ages of 17 and 45 who isn't already wearing a uniform. (I extend the courtesy of membership in the Reserve Militia to the fairer sex as well as men. I know some of the ladies are every bit as capable as men at pulling a trigger. And to leave them out would deprive them of a critical right, and responsibility, to defend this Nation.)

The Second Amendment is designed to arm the people so that they might fight invasion and/or resist tyranny. To augment the regulars if you will.

Not so they can go hunting.

And that's my...