Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Was the Militia Act of 1792 Effective In Creating a Mandatory Organized Militia?
I like to study history, but I've found a discrepancy that I can't seem to rectify. Basically, as I read the Militia Act of 1792 (the second one), it seems very clear that it's establishing a mandatory militia for pretty much all men of age, which will lead to all of them being in an organized militia within 12 months of passage.
However, then we have Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion, well over 12 months later, where the militia is called forth. But from everything I read on this, it claims that since VOLUNTEER service in the militia service was very low, he had to do a lot of conscription to actually raise the force he needed. I even find many examples of said non-militia volunteers being conscripted (sometimes with much resistance).
See the conflict? Was the organized form of militia (where people had a rank, an officer, a unit, met for drills, etc.) volunteer or wasn't it? Did the Militia Act of 1792 simply fail in the mandate portion and in effect only lead to a smaller volunteer organized militia and a larger unorganized reserve militia like the Militia Act of 1903 later codified anyway?
@laduron7 - Nobody is saying that the militia was active duty. Nonetheless, drafting people and calling forth of a militia unit are different concepts. From everything I can tell, it says that volunteerism in the militias themselves (not the regulars, though it may be true there as well) was low, and an actual draft had to be instated beyond just calling forth militia units. This is where my confusion comes from, as it conflicts with law of the time that basically everyone be in a militia unit.
This statement of yours here outlines what I'm having trouble with: -- "so the president invoked and activated the state militias AND state conscription" -- If basically all able bodied men were in the state militias/reserve (regardless of how often they did or did not drill) then activating them would have activated all able-bodied men. Who was left to conscript? And yet...as I read about the rebellion, it does indeed seem that he both activated, didn't have enough AND then conscripted.
2 Answers
- ?Lv 57 years ago
It took quite a bit of looking, but I eventually figured it out.
The whole of the able bodied populace was considered part of the militia, assigned a unit, etc, yes. The confusion came from applying the modern concept of a militia reserve being "called forth" or "activated".
In modern times, activating a reserve militia unit means everyone in that unit is now active. So by those standards, if everyone was in the militia and the militia units of a given area were activated...everyone would be activated...and nobody would be left to conscript even if they wanted to, and volunteerism simply wouldn't have been involved anywhere. Everyone was in the unit, and the whole unit is now active...what's volunteering got to do with anything (which was basically what I was confused about, since mention of volunteering was all over my studies of the raising of the force).
However, that's not how "calling forth" a militia unit went back in those days. When a given unit was to be "called forth" or "activated" or whatever, it was given a quota of how many men were needed. The whole of the unit was not activated at once. For filling this quota, volunteers from the unit were asked for to actually fill that quota for activated men. The threat of conscription then hung over them only if not enough volunteers actually came forth from the unit to fill the quota. This then explains what happened with the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington activated militia units and sent them a quota. Even though everyone was part of the unit, the unit activating didn't mean everyone was actually activated, they took volunteers for the quoted number. In this case, not enough volunteered, and conscription had to happen from the rest of the unit to fill the quota.
So no, it was NOTHING like the modern reserves in that respect. You don't get to be in a reserve unit and then say "nah, this time I don't want to volunteer when the pres. calls my unit up, maybe enough from my unit will volunteer that I won't have to."!!!
- Anonymous7 years ago
The first militia act of 1792 gave the president authority to mobilize state militias, and the second act gave the president authority to conscript able-bodied males for such militias. Previously, only Congress could do this.
This didn't mean there were standing state militias like this at all times, it was more like the Reserves, where you were assigned a regiment and got training, and then went about your life until such time as your state required you to go through some additional military training (a couple of times per year, e.g.) or to see actual combat. But there was also still a volunteer National force of regulars that was more-or-less similar to a permanent army.
Around the time of the Whiskey Rebellion, this volunteerism among the National regulars was low, so the president invoked and activated the state militias and state conscription to fight for what he thought was a national cause.