The idea that a brand new, self-proclaimed nation had a regular army is a 
bit of a misnomer.  The militia was a local, mandatory military service 
mobilized into national/state service, the "line" I assume were volunteers 
under officers who generally had some combat training and experience.  The 
real professionals in the Revolutionary War were the British regulars and, 
again I assume, at least some of the Hessians.

The distinction between "regulars" and "militia" can have had little meaning 
in American history until at least the American-Mexican War, 1846-1848.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "qvarizona" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: June 6, 1944


> While I don't  disagree with you regarding the Continental Line,  may I 
> point out that its officers were the ones who wrote the bulk of reports 
> and since many --Light Horse Harry comes to mind-- were known scoffers of 
> the militia, their reports were not always accurate and tended to downplay 
> any militia participation, particularly if it infringed on their own 
> accounts of glory.  Here's one example of many:
>
> The battle in early 1781 near Guilford Courthouse:  Regarding the end of 
> that battle, Odell McGuire, wrote in  his acclaimed  "Many Were Sore 
> Chased And Some Cut Down",
>
> ". . . Tarleton's legion, [British troops] reinforced by 200 redcoat 
> infantry,
> were finally met and there was a sharp fight. Graham's North Carolinians
> refused to dismount and take their place with the  other riflemen. Nor 
> could
> Lee's cavalry do much in the thickets, but his Legion infantry and the 
> Botetourts
> [Rowland's 200 militia] quickly formed and returned fire. The losses after 
> fifteen
> minutes were about twenty or thirty on each side. At this point [Colonel]
> Otho Williams, instead of bringing up his much superior reserve, 'order'd 
> a
> gradual retreat which was well enough effected considering the 
> irregularity of our order.'"
>
> Following  Otho William's order,  Lee's Legion retreated, leaving the 
> "back
> woodsmen" militiamen trying to hold off the British alone to cover the 
> retreat.   McGuire continues,
>
> "That the riflemen didn't take part in the ordered retreat and that the 
> Legion
> was pulled out, leaving them behind, could not have been gathered from 
> Williams' report to his commanding General.  But Nathanael Greene, not 
> altogether without guile himself, was too shrewd a commander  to let he 
> equivocal phrase,
> 'considering the irregularity of our order', slip past without finding out 
> exactly
> what was meant. "
>
> In later reports,  Lee omits any mention of his own retreat --successful 
> due to the protection provided by Rowland's riflemen--  and instead 
> attacks
> the actions of the Botetourt militia during all of the North Carolina 
> Expedition.  In addition, he was the cause of many Virginia militiamen 
> being charged with desertion from which  they were cleared during a court 
> martial in March. . . but that's another story.
>
> By the way, the American force at Bunker/Breed Hill --which lost against a 
> far superior force-- were made up in large part by  farm boys --members of 
> militia groups from all over New England who enlisted following the action 
> at Concord and Lexington.  The outcome at Cowpens  also depended on 
> militiamen (Gilmore's Rifles Rockbridge Co. VA. ) I'm not so sure the 
> Continentals could have held up without them.
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
>
> James Brothers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: While there are instances of 
> asymmetrical warfare (king's Mountain
> comes to mind) during the American Revolution, they contributed to
> victory but did not win the war. It was the pitched battles such as
> Bunker's Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens, Yorktown, etc. that determined the
> final outcome. And it was not the militia, but the Continental Line
> that won those battles.
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:16, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:
>
>> Paul has received some rather unfair criticism about his
>> understanding of the US military in US history.  Paul knows this
>> history in detail but let me "speak" for him for a minute.
>>
>> The US militia and "professional" military during the Revolution
>> was a rather thrown together force.  They prevailed, but for
>> reasons that seem almost miraculous.  It helped that Americans
>> often fought asymmetrically from Concord on out.  It also helped
>> that the field of battle was so large that the British military,
>> itself without a draft, didn't have enough troops to completely
>> occupy the 13 Colonies/united States.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The fish are biting.
> Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.