Very well stated, Bill.  I would only suggest further that the "militia" units, "home guards", or however those might have been labeled at the time, very early (17th century) put together to confront and protect citizenry from dangers, soon became Saturday events and social gatherings when long decades passed with no widespread uprisings/apparitions/Indian dangers that required the use of arms.  The seriousness of such "drills" and "meets" decreased dramatically when it became apparent that the dangers for which the units had been designed were more perceived than "real".  

Too many casual genealogy readers fail to remember that it was 170 years - 17 decades - from Jamestown to the Revolution, and throughout most of that very long time span there existed only the need/desire to survive and elevate one's status a tad.  I must add that I have found that virtually ALL who engaged in farming and lived in rural areas (as most did) or resided anywhere near the edge of settlement, had firearms of every make and description used for both procurement of wild game as food and, to an even greater degree, kept loaded for use as protection of their livestock from wolves, foxes, bears, and such as "painters" - cougar and panthers - and, unfortunately, to avidly hunt and destroy eagles, hawks and owls which were perceived to be carrying off and killing calves, lambs, kids, chickens, any fowl, and even infants.      Paul         
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Cross 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:57 AM
  Subject: Re: County militia


  ....
  My point is that the term "militia" is complex, and bears very little resemblance to anything we can relate to in our modern life, and that it did not conform to one norm even in the period we're discussing. Indeed the term "militia" today is usually applied to paramilitary fringe groups with survivalist agendas and sometimes elaborate plans to wage war against the government (a far cry from its original meaning). It is true that the anti-Federalists framers of the Constitution bore a mistrust of strong, centralized government, but I don't think that mistrust extended all the way to insurrection or rebellion, at least if Washington's actions during Shay's Rebellion are any indication.

  Even within the context of early American culture (something I'm more familiar with than colonial history), the militia was a decidedly mixed bag. Some of the militias were real military units (New Jersey's militia formed the basis of its first assay of troops for the Civil War), while others apparently existed mostly on paper, much like the draft registration process that currently is used in this country (we have no draft, but we have a long list of eligible young men). From the evidence I have seen from the Civil War, many militias were really mens clubs. Ellsworth's Zouaves, for example, were a semi-professional drill club something like the barnstormers of the 1920s, challenging other drill societies to exhibitions. In the South, the militias were probably more effective because they had been used as slave patrols and to fight against Indians.

  Part of the mystery of the gun debate is why, if Americans were so well-armed, the state governments were always seeking money and arms from the Federal government? I don't think there's a black and white answer to this question (it seems there rarely is in life), and that firearm ownership and expertise varied wildly across regions, occupations, economic level, etc.

  Bill Cross

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html