A well-armed population will keep the government in check

Yes, technically the battle was lost, but these kinds of “losses” add up to a pretty decisive victory. Somewhere around a 3/1 attacker/defender loss ratios at the Alamo. If a civilian uprising could attain that kind of ratio with urban warfare this would bode well for rebellions of civilians verus military-supported governments.

It’s irrelevant though for a few reasons. Firstly, that was 160+ years ago. The gulf between civilian and soldier is much wider now. Secondly, the people at the Alamo weren’t exactly average joes. Most of them WERE soldiers. Not only soldiers, but famous marksmen/fighters/survivalists like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone. This site gives some detailed info on the battle and the participants. Thirdly, this was classic siege warfare. The Alamo was a heavily fortified area and it cost the Mexican army dearly to take it. Modern warfare, with modern military weapons, would simply have destroyed the entire structure with a “bunker buster” cruise missile or the like.

As ExTank said, applying these types of policies and practices in modern warfare will get you dead fast.

Enjoy,
Steven

A question was posed: when has armed civilians successfully challenged an established government, or fough effectively in a war.

1676: Bacon’s Rebellion Natahniel Bacon, a newly-landeg English Gentleman, was effectively shut out of the “land-owners” club by the Royal Governor, William Berkely, and his cronies, who had the tidewater region pretty well locked up. The less prosperous settlers of the lower- and mid-piedmont, beset by economic hardship and native Americans, and effectively shut out of the legislature, as well as other new-landed gentry who were also shut-out of Berkely’s club, rallied to Nataniel Bacon’s war cry.

They armed themselves, and marched on Jamestown and forced concessions to their grievances. While out fighting native americans, Berkely declared Bacon a rebel. Bacon marched on Jamestown and burned it to the ground, as well as numerous plantations of Berkely’s cronies.

While Bacon himself died of dysentary later that year, and the rebellion died out on its own.

1689: Coode’s Rebellion The Calvert family ruled Maryland by royal charter, and practiced the same sort of favoritism as Berkely. John Coode formed a militia, captured the proprietary governor, and went to England to successfully petition King James II for redress of grievances. The Calverts were “out” until 1715 or so.

April 14, 1775: Lexington-Concord “The Shot Heard 'Round The World.”

War of American Independence While the northern militias didn’t fare so well, the southern militias kicked some major booty. Francis Marion (“The Swamp Fox”), Thomas Sumter (“The Gamecock”) and the Over-The-Mountain-Men who claimed victory at the Battle of King’s Mountain in Georgia in 1780. While getting beat up pretty bad themselves under Gen. Horatio Gates, his replacement, Gen. Nathaniel Green did much better.

The southern militia did what a militia is supposed to do when confronted with overwhelming conventional forces: fade. Hit them where they ain’t. Harrass. Harry. Cut lines of communications. Attack supply caravans.

1786: Shay’s Rebellion Spurred by a post-war recession, Capt. Daniel Shay led 2,000 farmers against the state armory of Massachusetts, where they were defeated by the state militia. While only partially effective by itself, Shay’s Rebellion lent additional impetus for a Constitutional Convention, to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation.

1791: The Whiskey Rebellion As Pres. Washington’s Sec. of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton instituted an economic program which included a 25% excise tax on whiskey. Since many poor farmers made a little extra cash on the manufacture and sale of whiskey, this tax was immensely unpopular. To the point of rebellion (it really wasn’t much more than some PO’d farmers raising a bunch of ruckus).

Washingtom marched 13,000 troops into western Pennsylvania to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, but Hamilton himself soon took over. For all of his searching, all of his marching-to-and-fro-up-and-down-the-square, he met little organized resistance, which quickly collapsed.

Thomas Jefferson himself was quoted as saying, “An insurrection was announced and proclaimed, and armed against, but could never be found.” Even Hamilton’s Federalist supporters cautioned him, “Elective rulers can scarcely ever employ the physical force ofa democracy without turning the moral force, or the power of public opinion, against the government.”

Sounds like good advice for the FBI and ATF at Ruby Ridge and Waco, respectively.

For 20th Century examples: Vietnam and Aghanistan. WHile never winning any major battles (usually dying by the thousands, or tens of thousands), militias were effective in keeping pressure on enemy conventional forces by attacking them unconventionally.

Enough so that the world’s two greatest superpowers packed up their toys and left them alone.

I’m not saying it would be easy. Heck no. It would be a cast-iron bitch uphill-all-the-way battle, with the smart money on the better armed/trained force. But that’s failed often enough in history to give anyone with the willingness to fight, and pay the price as neccessary, reason to try.

Mtgman: no arguments on points A or C, but as to point B, you might be suprised. As long as we’re talking hand-held bullet-chuckers like the ubiquitous M-16A2, the M-249 SAW (same ammo) and the M-60 (7.62mm/.308), the civilians are just as well-armed, Kevlar-penetration-wise, as the military, if not better, even. And handguns are just a good, too. Although any unconventional force within pistol shot of just about any semi-competent military force is foocked.

That is, proper foocked.

msmith537

Has anyone said that?

Mtgman:
Yes, the military can win. An extreme strategy would be to simply evacuate the military to Canada, nuke the US, wait for the radiation to die down, and then move back in. If someone actually is claiming what msmith537 implies they are saying, then I would certainly disagree with them. The right to bear arms does not guarantee liberty, any more than the right to vote guarantees that people won’t vote for people who have no respect for democracy. But arms most certainly can create a situation where a government is forced to pay a price to win which it is not willing to pay, allowing the citizens to win.
Going to the OP:

I believe that, ignoring the question of whether the US government had “gone mad or bad”, Vietnam shows that this is indeed true. The operative word is “can”. And armed citizenry can curtail the actions of a government. Is it an invincible force? No, but it is one more thing that an oppressive government has to worry about.

ExTank and TheRyan,

Excellent posts, thanks.

Tracer,

Keep reading. The Alamo was significant, not because that particular battle was lost, but because the Texicans were so upset about their fellow civilians being killed and proud of their determination, that they later defeated a well trained and battle experienced regular Mexican army at San Jacinto who greatly outnumbered them. The Texicans at San Jacinto were not an “army”, they were not “trained” as an army - no time and no resourceses to do it. They were mostly the common armed civilian people who lived in Texas at the time. Texas independence and freedom was won in Texas by the common armed civilian.