Skip to main content

View Diary: Confessions of a Reluctant NRA Spokesperson (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When have state militia be used? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geekydee

    The vast majority of their use has been to put now slave rebellions. But Massachusetts used the state militia to put down Shay's rebellion.

    The Whiskey Rebellion was a bit more muddled. But what better source for the Founding Fathers can be found other than George Washington?

    From Wiki

    President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation.[75] Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army. Washington privately doubted the commissioners could accomplish anything, and believed a military expedition would be needed to suppress further violence.[76] For this reason, historians have sometimes charged that the peace commission was sent only for the sake of appearances, and that the use of force was never in doubt.[77] Historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick argued that the military expedition was "itself a part of the reconciliation process", since a show of overwhelming force would make further violence less likely.[78]
    Meanwhile, Hamilton began publishing essays under the name of "Tully" in Philadelphia newspapers, denouncing mob violence in western Pennsylvania and advocating military action. Washington and Hamilton believed the Democratic-Republican Societies, which had been formed throughout the country, were the source of civic unrest. "Historians are not yet agreed on the exact role of the societies" in the Whiskey Rebellion, wrote historian Mark Spencer in 2003, "but there was a degree of overlap between society membership and the Whiskey Rebels".[79]
    Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
    The intent of the militia has always been to defined the constitutional government of the people, whether we are talking the State or the Feds, from threats both domestic and external. It was not about shooting home intruders.

    When you are ready to take your gun to Afghanistan and defend you country, I will defined your Second Amendment Right to gun ownership.

    It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

    by se portland on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:55:31 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Very informative, thank you. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, se portland, BlackSheep1, oldpunk

      I do take exception to this, however:

      I do take exception to this, however:

      When you are ready to take your gun to Afghanistan and defend you country, I will defined your Second Amendment Right to gun ownership.
      Nowhere do I see any of these so-called "wars" as being defense of anything but filling the defense contractors pockets.  As has been said numerous times, we are not the world's policeman.

      Thank you again for an informative article, and a thank you to Diane Gee for her diary.

      Now, if we were being invaded by Canada, that would be another story, though as long as they bring some back bacon and Vernors, it might not be so bad  :P

      ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

      by geekydee on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:49:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  wow, what a hiccup! Sorry (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        se portland

        ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

        by geekydee on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:51:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site