George Washington was OK with "mandates"..

[annabanana]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/23/why-george-washington-would-disagree-with-the-right-wing-about-health-care%e2%80%99s-constitutionality/

the Second Militia Act of 1792

very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution.

[liberal N proud]

1. And how many of us follow that mandate

I know I don't have a musket, firelock or bayonet.

I don't even have the knapsack.


:rofl:

[Autumn]

2. Damn, I better run right out and get that

done.

[zipplewrath]

3. And the aliens and sedition acts

It is amazing that many of the people involved in writing the declaration and the constitution were involved in the passage of those acts.

So your point again?

[happyslug]

5. The Alien and Sedition Acts were opposed by the Democrats

Technically the opposition was the Democratic-Republicans and the party that supported the acts was the Federalists, but the groups that ended up being Democrats can trace themselves back to the Democratic-Republican Party, and while the Present Day Republicans try to do the same, the main groups that Support the Republicans today supported the Federalists in the 1790s.

On the other hand the Militia Act of 1792 was supported by the Democratic-Republicans and the main leader of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, opposed how it was written, Hamilton supported something much like today's National Guard then a universal militia as seen in his comments on the Militia in the Federalist Papers.

[happyslug]

4. Bad link, but sounds like the REGULATION to IMPLEMENT the Militia Act NOT the Act itself

The Actual Militia Act of 1792:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Copy of the Federalist Papers:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/

The Present day Militia act (Re-written about 1902 as part of the Dick Act, and then re-written sometime after WWII to include women (probably in 1947 but I have NOT checked when it was last modified) in the active National Guard):
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Patrick Henry on the Militia and the Constitution (Prior to the Passage of the Bill of Rights):
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm#henry-09

A paper I did on this subject on DU in 2004, this is a very old subject on DU (My comment was the 76th thread on a the subject on that date in 2004):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x80353#80697

[kestrel91316]

6. ZOMG, and they had to BUY all that equipment from private sources.

Heads are gonna explode right here on DU.

[happyslug]

7. Please note NO PUNISHMENT was ever part of the Act.

Thus in the Battle of New Orleans the people of Louisiana who did NOT own a Musket were formed into a Reserve that had standing orders to "plug" any gap the British achieve in their attack on the American line. Except for knives and clubs this unit was unarmed (If they had a musket they were sent to the trenches General Jackson had built). Fortunately for them, the British Attack failed BEFORE it hit the American line and thus never had to charge in to turn back the British.

Why were these men unarmed? Because they did NOT have the money to buy a Musket. What was their "punishment" for not having a Musket, to be put into this "filler" unit. What had been their punishment from 1803, when Louisiana became part of the US AND the Militia Act became applicable to these Louisianians AND the Attack of 1815? Nothing. for the Militia Act set NO PUNISHMENT for NOT having the equipment. Such people still had to show up for Militia Drills (When called) and Sheriff's Patrol (The Sheriff's Patrol was a related concept to the Militia, in that ALL men had to serve, generally 1-2 nights a month, it tended to die out in the North after the War of 1812 along with the Militia given the lack of any real threat even from the remaining Indians after 1815, but survived relatively intact in the South as part of the Southern policy of making sure the Slaves did NOT meet up and organize a revolt).

For the above reason each state had fines for people who did NOT show up for Militia Drills. These fines, after 1815, tended, in the north, to drop so that more people would opt to pay the fine then show up for drill. After a couple of Decades the North found that any further dropping of the fines did NOT bring in more revenues, some men would show up for drill rather then pay the fine (And the states had uses for the money from the fines). At that point in time most Northern States drop the fine to Zero Dollars and made what had been a fine a head tax you paid if you showed up for drill or not (the State preferred the Revenue over the ability to call up the Militia). Thus while before the Civil War most Northern States Militia had become more or less a joke (These were so bad that people who actually wanted to have some military experience form clubs of what they called the National Guard, these unites were enlisted into service by the State and Federal Government in the Mexican War and US Civil War and became what we now call the National Guard, the older Militia had some life in the form of "Home Guard" units during the Civil War but as a whole the Militia was just ignored (Through even today the Militia comes into play, most often during disasters when everyone in the neighbor shows up and work together for example building sand bags alone the rivers during major floods, mostly called "Volunteers" today but it is the Militia but rarely called by that name).

In the South, on the other hand, the Sheriff's Patrol and Militia stayed active till the Civil War for both were tied in with containing the Slaves and making sure no slave revolt occurred. Thus the South was better able to quickly field an effective army in 1861 compared to the North but as time went on the North more then made up for this Advantage.

Just some comments on the Militia and the Militia Act.

[bobbolink]

8. Am I really the first rec on this????

Amazing...thank you for this bit of history!