Modern Militia in MA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are there currently any active militias in MA? I did some googling but came up empty.

If done right and with a enough members, I think we could greatly benefit from one. What do you all think?

And no, I am not picturing a bunch of mall ninja’s fumbling through the forrest and shooting at trees with their faces covered. But rather some kind of a brotherhood that is organized, armed, prepared, united around a narrow set of causes and known to the public. Something you can be proud to say you are a member of.

Hi, Maura, nice to see you on NES!
 
According to the Founders, you're already part of a militia - we all are. Congrats!
 
It was also predicated on the idea that these united States would have no standing army. Jefferson saw a standing army and a central bank as the two main threats to freedom. So here we are, a nation at perpetual war with a people in perpetual debt.

The problem with Madison and Jefferson's idea about an army of the people is that the people have, in their minds, better things to be doing besides training for the next time the British come down from Canada or across the pond. By like 1820-1840, the town militia day in New England was more like the aforementioned drunken BBQ rather than a day of serious military preparation. There were border clashes around here during the Aroostook War and the Republic of Indian Stream period up in Pittsburg, but there wasn't much likelihood of Boston or Providence or New London being burned again. Combined with agricultural struggles and industrialization, people simply didn't have time to dress up and play soldier on weekends. Mill workers worked six days a week with Sunday reserved for church services and family time (kids went to mill schools), typically mandated by the mill's policy. Farmers got shafted in New England with the Year Without a Summer and many left for the west or Maine.

Even during the Revolution and War of 1812, militia troops could at best be described as an unreliable or unpredictable quantum except when commanded by exceptional officers who knew the limitations of the militia and were able to keep the militia highly motivated like John Stark and Daniel Morgan. The most effective use of militia was as light infantry skirmishers or as rangers (Church's Rangers, Roger's Rangers), although arguably the ranger units were the predecessors of SpecOps in North America. Small groups of militia could take on small opponents, like say the ranger groups, the Battle of Bennington, and at King's Mountain, but militia couldn't be relied on as the front line combat force, which is why they eventually became a support unit in relation to the Continentals.

The Jeffersonian dream of an army of the people, the nation under arms, came to being under Napoleon and subsequent European national conscription models like Prussia in its heyday. Rather than have each town have a militia force, there was national conscription. The people of France under Napoleon exported revolution by force of arms to the rest of Europe. Obviously where Jefferson and Napoleon differ is to the role of the citizen after the war (Jefferson: farmer-militia; Napoleon: citizen of the empire) and in regards to centralization versus decentralization of the state.

Its important to keep in mind that both Jefferson and Madison seriously lacked military experience in comparison to the other big name Founders. Even John Adams had more hands-on experience with the military because Adams was part of the naval committee of the Continental Congress and learned a lot from Stephen Hopkins, part-time privateer, part-time merchantman, and part-time cannon foundry owner. Washington had experience in the French and Indian War before being C-in-C during the Revolution. Franklin commanded troops as PA's colonial governor at one point. But Jefferson and Madison were primarily lawyers and politicians without any serious combat experience or military training. The two had some brilliant ideas like the Second Amendment but they should be taken simply as men who... might not always be right in regards to what they thought.

Does this still exist? I thought Baker got rid of it.

Per the posted Wiki page, he didn't re-up their authorization when he was elected in 2016. On the one hand its good to have some state defense force that can respond to say natural disasters or emergencies, but on the other, the state has to pay for a 99.9% purposeless force considering the military threat to Massachusetts is a little bit shy north of nil. A state defense force isn't trained or equipped as a counter-terrorist force, which is a real threat for Mass, but is instead designed to be a reserve force in the event of invasion or if there's a need to be offensive locally (like say with John Stark at Bennington). That ain't happening in the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future.
 
You could always move to Michigan.

Although 25 years after their peak I doubt there is more than a couple hundred geezers left anymore.

But they have a cool logo and that's half the battle right there, isn't it?

Michigan Militia Corps, Wolverines MMCW

chJh11E.jpg


:emoji_tiger:
 
Last edited:
The problem with Madison and Jefferson's idea about an army of the people is that the people have, in their minds, better things to be doing besides training for the next time the British come down from Canada or across the pond. By like 1820-1840, the town militia day in New England was more like the aforementioned drunken BBQ rather than a day of serious military preparation. There were border clashes around here during the Aroostook War and the Republic of Indian Stream period up in Pittsburg, but there wasn't much likelihood of Boston or Providence or New London being burned again. Combined with agricultural struggles and industrialization, people simply didn't have time to dress up and play soldier on weekends. Mill workers worked six days a week with Sunday reserved for church services and family time (kids went to mill schools), typically mandated by the mill's policy. Farmers got shafted in New England with the Year Without a Summer and many left for the west or Maine.

Even during the Revolution and War of 1812, militia troops could at best be described as an unreliable or unpredictable quantum except when commanded by exceptional officers who knew the limitations of the militia and were able to keep the militia highly motivated like John Stark and Daniel Morgan. The most effective use of militia was as light infantry skirmishers or as rangers (Church's Rangers, Roger's Rangers), although arguably the ranger units were the predecessors of SpecOps in North America. Small groups of militia could take on small opponents, like say the ranger groups, the Battle of Bennington, and at King's Mountain, but militia couldn't be relied on as the front line combat force, which is why they eventually became a support unit in relation to the Continentals.

The Jeffersonian dream of an army of the people, the nation under arms, came to being under Napoleon and subsequent European national conscription models like Prussia in its heyday. Rather than have each town have a militia force, there was national conscription. The people of France under Napoleon exported revolution by force of arms to the rest of Europe. Obviously where Jefferson and Napoleon differ is to the role of the citizen after the war (Jefferson: farmer-militia; Napoleon: citizen of the empire) and in regards to centralization versus decentralization of the state.

Its important to keep in mind that both Jefferson and Madison seriously lacked military experience in comparison to the other big name Founders. Even John Adams had more hands-on experience with the military because Adams was part of the naval committee of the Continental Congress and learned a lot from Stephen Hopkins, part-time privateer, part-time merchantman, and part-time cannon foundry owner. Washington had experience in the French and Indian War before being C-in-C during the Revolution. Franklin commanded troops as PA's colonial governor at one point. But Jefferson and Madison were primarily lawyers and politicians without any serious combat experience or military training. The two had some brilliant ideas like the Second Amendment but they should be taken simply as men who... might not always be right in regards to what they thought.

That was a tour de force. Did you write that extemporaneously? What are you?
 
That was a tour de force. Did you write that extemporaneously? What are you?

I'm a law student. We're trained to do brain-dumps on various esoteric topics like constitutional law within say two and a half to four hour exams. Military history, constitutional law, and the Founding era are what tickle my fancy, so I know this shit.

There's also room for discussion about the Jeffersonian Democratic ideal society, however, that goes beyond the scope of this thread. We're just discussing one diatribe in regards to militias.
 
OP, as soon as youre "organized and known to the public" half your membership is gonna be FBI/ATF. We'd be better off with thousands of 4-6 man groups than 1 group with a bunch of guys. Just the fact that youre calling it a militia is already heading down the wrong road imo.

That was the point of my snarky response. Any organized militia is going to full of feds and/or their informants.
 
There's also room for discussion about the Jeffersonian Democratic ideal society....

I once read (on the internet) a diary of a British soldier on Long Island (IIRC) from the war of 1812 (might have been the Revolutionary War). The soldier marveled at the tranquility of the landscape with one well-tended farm giving way to another and the abundance of the food with fruit and butter and honey around every corner.

To my chagrin I have not been able to find that passage again though I have often looked.

I would like to know if the decades after the Revolutionary War really were Jefferson's ideal agrarian society. Was that the best time in this country's history?
 
I once read (on the internet) a diary of a British soldier on Long Island (IIRC) from the war of 1812 (might have been the Revolutionary War). The soldier marveled at the tranquility of the landscape with one well-tended farm giving way to another and the abundance of the food with fruit and butter and honey around every corner.

To my chagrin I have not been able to find that passage again though I have often looked.

I would like to know if the decades after the Revolutionary War really were Jefferson's ideal agrarian society. Was that the best time in this country's history?

Well a few things.

First off, the Limeys have always been malnourished in comparison to the natural bounty we have. Particularly the British working class, and the British Army during the Revolution and War of 1812 was largely composed of the dregs of British society. Not to discount the achievements of early American farmers, obviously.

The ideal period for Jeffersonian Democracy, outside of New England which still held onto some Federalist or "conservative" values, was the Era of Good Feelings. The national Federalist Party was dead after the War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention, so America was a one-party state under James Monroe and the Democratic Republican Party. Monroe pushed an internal policy of reconcilliation between the Virginian and Southern establishment, the New England proto-industrialists, and the western settlers and burgeoning power players like Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson. This was also a time of relatively peaceful settler expansion into places like Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, but with more militant expansion into places like Florida (First Seminole War).

New England suffered heavily from the War of 1812 and the Year Without a Summer (1816). Before the war, New England merchantmen had to deal with impressment: New England was the big player in American foreign commerce with a proto-industrial or early industrial economy, exporting textiles, basic machinery (clocks, for instance), iron goods like guns, etc. Jefferson's policy of a trade embargo against Britain and France removed the No. 1 and 2 markets for New Englanders. Then the war resulted in destruction in Maine and a few other places and again, damage to the merchant marine. 1816 didn't help when it snowed in July, killing most crops and livestock except flint corn. This caused New England farmers to move away. This also caused Mainers to question their loyalty to Boston and triggered Maine's statehood in 1820.

Rhode Island had an interesting time during the Jeffersonian period (Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) because it still operated under the Royal Charter of 1663 and was thus dominated in the legislature (the most important branch of government at that time and still to this day) by conservative landowners from the rural areas of the state, which in modern terms would be the state outside I295 and Newport and Bristol counties. Jeffersonian Democracy never occurred in Rhode Island. The idea of one man, one vote didn't happen until the 1880s and 1890s and the conservative elite didn't give up power until the Bloodless Revolution of 1935. Arguably, they still haven't, as Nick Matiello trends centrist-right.

Each era has its pros and cons. While the Roaring '20s were a great time for the average middle class consumer family, they sucked hard for farmers or people who wanted a legal drink. The Old West (1865-1914ish) was great if you were white but had lethal consequences if you were native or Mexican. The '50s has this nostalgic veneer of Ike, conservatism, and prosperity, but there was a recession at the end of Ike's presidency and arguably our current interventionist, brush fire foreign policy originated in the 50s with Korea (we had been bombed at Pearl Harbor and Germany and Italy declared war).

But I think the Era of Good Feelings was the best time for the people of America outside of New England. Inside New England, I think the best times would've been the lead-up to the Civil War (1825-1860) and the Progressive Era (1890-1910). Both periods marked tranquil expansion of New England's economy and population, and most exemplified what New England is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A state defense force isn't trained or equipped as a counter-terrorist force, which is a real threat for Mass, but is instead designed to be a reserve force in the event of invasion or if there's a need to be offensive locally (like say with John Stark at Bennington). That ain't happening in the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future.

Terrorism is a real threat? What? Where?
 
Does this still exist? I thought Baker got rid of it.
Its not permanently gone. Every governor decides if they want the defense force or not. The "general" of the defense force is traditionally a newly retired adjutant of the mass national guard....and most of the members are retired mass national guard. Their loyalty would be to the governor of course.
 
i'm thinking of that film "the russians are coming, the russians are coming." i can also visualize half of our crack nes militia converging on watertown looking for the culprit. the other half...
- i gotta work
- i'll be on vacation
- wife sez i gotta put in the air conditioners
- putting down fertilizer
- can't, kids soccer game
- waiting on a furniture delivery
- in-laws are in town
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.

just teasing guys!
 
Its happened before, it can happen again. Especially with more and more members of "certain demographics" moving into the state.

One ultra high profile attack does not equal "real threat."

And if it does, virtually everything around is is a real threat, and that term is now meaningless.

Terrorism is not significant statistical threat in MA. Emotional? Eleventy billion percent. Those darn emotions have put us in some real lame legal places, so lets not pretend that things are worse than they are. The TSA is a thing for reason and we don't need anymore shit like that being justified.
 
i'm thinking of that film "the russians are coming, the russians are coming." i can also visualize half of our crack nes militia converging on watertown looking for the culprit. the other half...
- i gotta work
- i'll be on vacation
- wife sez i gotta put in the air conditioners
- putting down fertilizer
- can't, kids soccer game
- waiting on a furniture delivery
- in-laws are in town
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.

just teasing guys!
HEY! I resemble that remark.
 
i'm thinking of that film "the russians are coming, the russians are coming." i can also visualize half of our crack nes militia converging on watertown looking for the culprit. the other half...
- i gotta work
- i'll be on vacation
- wife sez i gotta put in the air conditioners
- putting down fertilizer
- can't, kids soccer game
- waiting on a furniture delivery
- in-laws are in town
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.

just teasing guys!

I love that movie.
 
i'm thinking of that film "the russians are coming, the russians are coming." i can also visualize half of our crack nes militia converging on watertown looking for the culprit. the other half...
- i gotta work
- i'll be on vacation
- wife sez i gotta put in the air conditioners
- putting down fertilizer
- can't, kids soccer game
- waiting on a furniture delivery
- in-laws are in town
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.

just teasing guys!

Personally, I'll be making then eating popcorn. [popcorn]

Actually, if the Russians are coming I'll be firing up the BBQ for them. Soviet times are gone- lefty commies are a small minority party that for the most part don't make waves over there. In fact, some Russian friends have bitched to me about lefty crap coming from here and starting to take root over there- like the overkill of #me too! It's like the world turned upside down.

-
 
Dang, you got me. 10 years and 2k posts down the drain. Guess I’ll start over now.
200 posts per year. Roughly 260 workdays per year. So less than one post per day. Leaves plenty of time for planning dirty AG tricks with your jack-booted thug friends. ;)
 
Pretty sure that there are a few around the country that may be comprised entirely of undercover feds.
It would be pretty funny if a militia group somewhere was found to be made up entirely of undercover agents of various agencies, each doing their own separate investigations.

I have read more than one story where this has happened--agencies working independently have unknowingly crafted "militias" comprised entirely of undercover agents reporting on one another to their own organizations.
 
I have read more than one story where this has happened--agencies working independently have unknowingly crafted "militias" comprised entirely of undercover agents reporting on one another to their own organizations.
Lol, I believe it. One agency starts a militia to draw in the "crazies". Another hears about XYZ militia and sends in guys to infiltrate. No one is disclosing theyre LE of course so no one knows any better. It could carry on indefinitely due to the fact that because theyre all LE, nothing of any real interest is going on. Reminds me of a vid I saw where there were two groups of cops involved in a drug bust. One group were the dealers looking to bust the buyers and the other was the buyers looking to bust traffickers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom