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.