When discussing militias, part of the problem is that the word is used in several ways, both in the law and in common usage. For instance, the Second Militia Act of 1792:
. . . conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
Please note that every able bodied free white male citizen was automatically a member of that militia and was required to report to training twice a year. The requirement for twice annual training for every male citizen of the United States is, of course, now gone. But, are you aware that, technically, to this day, every male citizen between 18 and 45 is a member of the militia and able to be called up for service in time of war or national emergency? That is why you must register with the Selective Service when you turn 18 (if you are male). You are joining the militia pool and–subject to certain regulations–may be called up and required to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. You are registered and part of what has been nicknamed the “sedentary” militia. The Militia Acts of 1792 was what made possible the use of the draft during the Vietnam Conflict, the Korean War, the Civil War, etc.
But, the use of the word militia also means military units organized by the individual states for purposes of self-defense, etc.:
On June 3, 1916, United States President Woodrow Wilson signs into law the National Defense Act, which expanded the size and scope of the National Guard—the network of states’ militias that had been developing steadily since colonial times—and guaranteed its status as the nation’s permanent reserve force.
In law, the National Guard in the various states was originally known as the state militias. Eventually, the word militia was dropped in favor of the “National Guard” from the French Guarde Nacional. But, in law, the various National Guard units are still considered state militias. Speaking of which there are two types of state militia, but that is another matter. Since 1792, the state militias can be called up by the President of the United States in order to cope with dangers, generally domestic, that cannot be handled in any other way. President Woodrow Wilson used this authority to call up the militia during the invasion by Pancho Villa in 1916. Please note that the National Guard of Georgia was stationed in New Mexico for a time. Both Presidents Bush and President Obama have been able to use the National Guard overseas based on the threat to the domestic order of international terrorism.
But the final category of usage is that of private militia, and it is here that the controversy erupts. Why? Because when one reads the Constitution and the writings of some–but not all–of the founders of this country, they were in favor of private militias. For instance, the Constitution allows the USA to issue Letters of Marque to privateers. What are privateers? They are people who man and sail a privately owned ship that attacks enemy ships and get to take, keep, and profit from any property captured during the attack. If you are the “enemy,” you will call them pirates. But, if you are the one who issued the Letter of Marque, why they are a legitimate private naval militia.
During the Civil War, private militias sprung up. However, they also placed themselves under the command of the Federal government. But, there are always exceptions to the rule. Out West, private militias did some of the fighting that kept some of the Western territories from seceding. As mentioned in yesterday’s post, as late as 1946 an incident of a temporary private militia appears to be present, engaged in military maneuvers, and yet was not prosecuted by the Federal government.
The question is, as USA and international law have evolved, as treaties have been signed and as Federal law has been amended, are private militias still a legally allowed part of the cultural and legal structure of the USA? The additional issue is also whether the idea of a militia is being exploited by some in order to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions.
===MORE TO COME===
That “Sasquach Militia” picture is hilarious.