The ability to organize a militia is something that needs to be possible when there are no supply lines, and no clear chain of command
....
Basically, an armed angry mob able to cause serious logistical problems for the invaders, who's materiel can be readily absorbed and deployed by real armed forces as needed.
...
again, think french resistence fighters,
Where are you getting this from? No chain of command? There's a cemetery five miles from me that's got at least half a dozen officers from the revolutionary era militia. No supply lines? Then why did my town have a magazine? Food wasn't even getting canned until Napoleons time, in the 1780s when you have a magazine that's the complete supply line.
^^^^ This.
Colonial militias (pre-1770s) were intended to be local auxiliary forces so that the British Army didn't have to garrison every damn town against French/Spanish/Dutch/Indian attacks. Particularly on the frontiers, where the infrastructure to house and feed army units didn't exist. They also had officers and chains of command because an unorganized, armed mob is precisely the opposite of what the Crown wanted or needed. It was only when the colonies began to get restive that the Crown realized that having organized bodies of armed men with their own stockpiles of weapons was maybe not such a great idea, even if the training of said militias was considered far inferior to the British Regular Army.
In practice, colonial militias were ill-disciplined, poorly trained, poorly equipped and difficult to assemble for military action. They were more of a social club and potential recruiting pool for the Provincial Forces (standing forces recruited directly in the colonies, as opposed to the British-manned Regular Army and the as-needed colonial militias). Even during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army (the standing force of the Continental Congress) viewed the colonial militias with disdain.
The lack of
effective militia forces is core to why both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution had language about the states maintaining a "well-regulated militia". The Articles of Confederation even had language that the states would be responsible for providing the arms, ammunition, tents, etc.
EDIT: It should also be noted that the actions of some colonial militias bordered on terroristic at times -- burning farms and houses belonging to known Loyalists, assassinating Loyalists and Crown officials in those areas under British occupation, etc. Particularly in the Southern colonies (NC, SC, GA) there was a very nasty partisan war in the backcountry during the late 1770s to the end of the war, as the Continental Army was only present in New England and the bulk of fighting was between Patriot militias and Loyalist militias, pitting neighbor against neighbor.
In the early 1800's, there was considerable debate abut the role and capabilities of "the militia". Yes, quite a few founders did intend it as a counterweight to the standing army. But frankly, if that was their intent, it's unachievable now. No amount of civilians with semi-auto rifles is going to be able to stand against the US Armed Forces for long, when the Armed Forces have thousands of combat aircraft, heavy artillery, drones, etc. The only thing saving us from the US Armed Forces is that in the event of a military coup or dictatorship, you can be sure that some portion of the Armed Forces would rebel. Hopefully MOST or all of it.
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1580268 times)