Damuri Ajashi: Fair post for illustration purposes, but perhaps it would be better to leave a 2nd amendment in Korea debate for another thread.
Ok, so at least insofar as the revolutionary war is concerned the idea that irregulars are a bulwark against tyranny has been demolished: they played too small a role. At the other end of the spectrum, the idea that irregulars were inconsequential during the war doesn’t hold water either. It’s somewhere in between: readers wishing greater precision are referred to better read posters upthread.
Hopefully this bump won’t be an annoyance.
I’d say that evidence from both the American Revolution and more recent American argues against armed irregulars acting as an assurance of liberty. Post Revolution, militia supplemented the power of the Federal Government, not to successfully force concessions from it. During Reconstruction, the Federal Government took the step of abolishing Southern militia groups-- in Arkansas, a new militia was formed to augment Federal power by suppressing old militias, like the Klan. More recently, militias have proved ineffective, and, perhaps not surprisingly, anti-liberty, taking stances, for example, against free trade.
Have to agree with Martin Hyde.
Irregulars are good for ‘controlling’ territory where the enemy isn’t. The British controlled the territory they occupied but, when they left, it defaulted away from their control. This is useful in many ways, not the least of which is psychological and attritional.
They may not have been as instrumental in actual battles but they were useful. Imagine how the Revoluntionary war would have went if the default state was reversed - where the British controlled pretty much all territory where the American army wasn’t.
So the militia created a garrisoning requirement that was nearly impossible to meet?
I was never taught about Loyalists in the revolution. In college the mandatory US history course was taught by an instructor who spoke only of Indians and slaves.
The British were rather busy fighting the rest of Europe at time, as I understand.
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
The British were rather busy fighting the rest of Europe at time, as I understand.
[/QUOTE]
During the 1812 war yes, but not during the Revolutionary war.
Weird. We were taught about Loyalists during the revolution…and nothing about Indians OR slaves during this time period. The only part I remember about slaves was that the Brits offered to free anyone who would join their army, and I always thought it was pretty stupid that we didn’t do the same thing, though I guess it’s understandable since the Southern states wouldn’t have been too keen. Still, would have been a large pool of very dedicated fighting men if you offered them freedom for themselves and their families for fighting in the Continental Army for the duration of the conflict (as opposed to the militia or even regulars who had fixed time periods and expected pay as well).
We never had a national proclamation like that XT but we did have State level initiatives. Several of the northern States offered any slaves who signed up freedom, but these were matters of individual State law–actually I’m not sure under the nascent Confederation government that Federal law would have even been able to offer that sort of program.
While I’m not immediately aware of any similar programs in the southern States, I believe of the many slaves who did actually fight for the Continentals most obtained freedom in some manner. Bounties were often paid to Continental soldiers at various times, and those could generally be used to purchase freedom. Additionally, some Patriot slaveholders in the South were willing to emancipate at least some of their slaves that were willing to sign up, seeing it as in a sense their contribution to the war effort. All of this combined to mean there were a surprisingly large number of blacks in the Continental Army.
Interestingly they almost exclusively served in integrated units (there were a few black regiments.) History hasn’t well documented them, though. We have no clear picture as to how many blacks served or how many were slaves who were emancipated in exchange for serving. But some anecdotal observers at times noted Continental forces in some locations were up to a quarter African descent.
Maryland was the only southern state that allowed African Americans (free or slave) to serve. In 1779, Congress offered $1000 per slave to anyone in Georgia or South Carolina who contributed a slave to the army, but nobody took them up on the offer.
Here’s a little bit from the National Park Service about African Americans fighting for the Continentals.
http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/african_americans.html
That sounds on the rigth track. If you want to control this area you need to garrison it and not with a rrivial force or you will lose it.
HAS to have an effect both politically and morale-wise.
Note that slave and South wasn’t synonymous during the revolution. The majority of slaves and former slaves would have come from the North, all the Northern States practiced slavery in the period 1776-1783.
Wait, who?
Yes, but even then most slaves lived in the southern colonies.
That would be me (MfM) in a pit thread. Ah, here it is: page 4: it’s about Rosa Parks and guns: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=693509&page=4 Relevant posts from June 29- July 1.
Yes, but I would guess (as I mentioned earlier we actually don’t have solid numbers) most slaves, former slaves, or free men of African descent who were Continentals were from Northern States. Their numbers have been estimated from a hard minimum of around 5,000 (that we seem to know for sure served) to up to a quarter of Continental troops at Yorktown as an example. So while not many Southern States were thrilled about slaves or even Africans of any stripe serving in the Continental Army history does tell us that in fact a good number did serve.
Even the low end number of 5,000 would be a substantial portion, note that the Continental Army itself never had more than 20,000 active soldiers (but due to short enlistment periods probably 45,000-50,000 or more men may have served in some capacity at some point in the lengthy period of aggression as Continentals.)