Friday, May 26, 2023

Lexington and Concord: A well regulated militia

A musket in one hand. A plow by his side.
New England "Minuteman"
There is a history to militias and the right to bear arms.

Journalist Tam Moore visited the Boston area to witness the college graduation of his grandson on Monday. The Ukrainian ambassador was the speaker at the Boston College commencement. Moore made a history-themed vacation out of this trip and went on a Boston-area excursion every day. I published an "Easy Sunday" Guest Post last weekend, where he described some of the places he had seen on the Freedom Trail. The next days he visited Harvard and the JFK library.  

Today he describes the history of Minutemen. Colonial "irregulars," i.e. settlers out of uniform fighting under the command of local officers, skirmished with the British at Lexington and Concord. They fired from cover at the British soldiers as the Redcoats took casualties as they marched back to Boston. The Minutemen were breaking that era's rules of regular-order warfare. They were citizen soldiers, the militia.

Tam Moore has been doing journalism for 65 years, going back to his time as a reporter for the Oregon State University newspaper. He was a TV journalist for KOBI, a Jackson County Commissioner, and a print reporter for the Capital Press.


Guest Post by Tam Moore



For decades I’ve ignored the tension between the two clauses in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This past week as I toured the North Bridge historic site in the Town of Concord, Massachusetts, the tension came into focus, aided by an impromptu bit of commentary from Charlie Bahne, our tour guide.

Bahne is an historian, author, and since he graduated from MIT decades ago, a professional tour guide in the Greater Boston area. For a refresher in U.S. History, the North Bridge over the Concord River is where at about 9:30 a.m. on April 19, 1775, British Regulars and local militiamen shot at each other for the second time in a day. The first shots came about 5 a.m. at Lexington Green, 10 miles away on the road from Boston to Concord. Eight colonials, called to the green by peeling of church bells, died in a volley fired by the British.

Both sides in this run-up to the Revolutionary War regrouped after exchanging shots. They kept their cool. Then British troops, on a mission to seize gunpowder and weapons stockpiled by the colonial militia, marched west toward the Concord targets identified by their spies. When shots were exchanged at the Concord River, the shooting continued. That day, and for over seven years after.

Militiamen by the thousands took potshots at the retreating British for much of 17 miles back to the safety of Boston. War continued until the Treaty of Paris in 1783 birthed the United States. The Second Amendment says “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Bahne

Bahne, our tour guide, was standing beneath the famed statue of the colonial minuteman at Concord Bridge. He told us that Massachusetts Colony had a tradition dating back to the Pilgrims of 1620. Every male from 16 to 60 years old was to have a firearm and be part of the militia which defended their settlement. It worked as the colony expanded inland on land that was home to Native Americans. It worked on a larger scale when militia from several colonies were mobilized during the near-decade-long French and Indian War. Militias fought with the British against the French and their native allies.
In the unrest following Britain’s efforts to get the Colonies to pay part of the costs for that war, Bahne said some New England towns formed an elite unit of their militias – the Minutemen. They pledged to drill weekly, keep muskets handy and hurry to a pre-determined rallying point if the town alarm sounded. At Concord that morning, Minutemen rallied on a hill above North Bridge. They saw smoke coming from the town center, where in the main street British troops burned seized supplies. The Minuteman commander ordered his company to the town they thought was afire. From 96 to 120 British troops – the record is fuzzy on the number—guarded the North Bridge the Minutemen had to cross to reach the town center. Two Minutemen died as the British shot, and the Minuteman’s commander ordered his men to return fire.

Charlie Bahne describes the Minuteman commitment. That was a well-regulated militia at work. Casualties for both sides are estimated at 120 killed, 400 wounded. By the time the British troops reached Boston that evening, an estimated 4,000 colonial militiamen were on the scene. Within days, the “New England Army,” as they called themselves, numbered 10,000 men from a half-dozen colonies. The British were trapped in Boston by the well-regulated militia pledged to defend colonial rights to self-government.

On the tour bus taking us back to Boston that afternoon, Bahne was recounting capabilities of the basic infantry muskets used by both sides.

Trained soldiers who made up cartridges of shot and gunpowder beforehand could fire perhaps once every 20 seconds. Militiamen who hadn’t made up cartridges would fire once, then run into the woods, reload and jog to a new firing position. “When you think about the Second Amendment (to keep and bear arms) that’s the kind of weapons they were thinking about...technology of weapons has changed a lot since that time.”

Warren Burger, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, kicked up a public fuss about present-day gun control in 1991, saying on television “The gun lobby interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat fraud, on the American people by special interest groups
that I have seen in my lifetime.” He likened government regulation of cars and boats – and their operators – to legislation needed. “Sale and use of guns should be regulated, just as driving a car is regulated. . . .”

When the contemporary Supreme Court again took up gun control (District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 [2008]), a 5-4 decision found that D.C. could not lawfully ban a homeowner from having a handgun. The court went further, finding a person doesn’t have to be a militia member to own a weapon. Just last year the high court, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, found that governments can’t require concealed weapons permits because “prudent ordinary citizens” need a means of self-defense (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.).

For legal “originalists” who say they interpret the Constitution on how they perceive framers of that document thought at the time particular language was adopted, it appears the tension between need for a well-regulated militia and a right to bear arms has been forgotten – in favor of bearing arms regardless of the consequences.



[Note: to subscribe to the blog and get it delivered by email every day go to: https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]




15 comments:

Mike Steely said...

Warren Burger was right. At the time the Second Amendment was written, the U.S. had no standing army or repeating rifles and pistols. Things have changed.

Many Republicans, such as Supreme Court Justice Alito, proclaim themselves to be “Constitutional Originalists” who supposedly go by the intent of the Founding Fathers. If that were really the case, the only arms they’d allow would be muskets. By no stretch of the imagination could the Founding Fathers be accused of intending for all civilians to bear today’s rapid-firing assault weapons with high-capacity magazines, especially now that we have a standing army. It's an open invitation to mass murder.

M2inFLA said...

RE: Trained soldiers who made up cartridges of shot and gunpowder beforehand could fire perhaps once every 20 seconds. Militiamen who hadn’t made up cartridges would fire once, then run into the woods, reload and jog to a new firing position. “When you think about the Second Amendment (to keep and bear arms) that’s the kind of weapons they were thinking about...technology of weapons has changed a lot since that time.”

Yes, even then the technology changed - the better militiamen learned how to fire their muskets faster.

In later years, there was the revolver and premade bullets with shot and gunpowder, perhaps the first semi-automatic weapon. And the bolt-action rifle with a clip of bullets. Then the Gatling gun, and so on.

Each decade saw improvements, and surely the enemy opposition likely complained and/or adapted.

I recall a scene from the movie, The Patriot. The British general complained how the revolutionaries weren't following the conventional rules of war.

Yes, today we have automatic and semi-automatic weapons, thought the former are restricted to the public. The latter are certainly popular.

I myself have fired and trained people to use all type of weapons - handheld, semi and automatic, to anti-tank and artillery. Yes, I'm a veteran.

I own no weapons today, other than a handy baseball bat under the bed.

We have a societal issue these days, with people taking violent action with whatever weapon they choose - poison, knives, axes, spears, arrows, guns, and many, many more. Until we resolve some of the societal issues, we will continue to have problems. And even when many of these things might be restricted further, or completely banned, we will still have problems until the societal issues are addressed.

Sorry, I don't have the solution, but he issues start at birth. How we raise and educate our children is the starting point.

PS Innovation and improvement continues, too. Some have figured out how to make their own weapons of destruction; ie 3D plastic modeling tools creating ghost guns.

Mike Steely said...

Thank you, M2inFLA, for making my point. Yes, firearms have become far more lethal since the days of the revolution. All the more reason to restrict regulate them.

Anonymous said...

If the SCOTUS Majority really believed that Originalst horehockey, Clarence would only have 3/5 of a vote.

Billie said...

A majority of Americans believe President Joe Biden’s reelection would represent a “setback” or a disaster” for the nation, a CNN poll found Thursday.

The poll, focused on Biden’s 2024 reelection hopes among Democrat primary contenders, found that 66 percent of Americans believe Biden’s potential 2024 “victory would either be a setback or a disaster for the country.”

Only 33 percent believe a Biden second term “would be a step forward or a triumph for the country.”

“Convincing the overall public that he deserves a second term could prove a challenge,” the CNN poll said.

Despite the data, Biden only has two Democrat primary challengers, who are polling among Democrats well below Biden at 60 percent: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (20 percent) and Marianne Williamson (8 percent). Another 8 percent said they would support an unnamed person.

Michael Trigoboff said...

The meaning of the term “ghost gun” seems to be drifting.

The original meaning had to do with the “receiver“ of a gun. This is the part that is required by law to have a serial number. None of the other parts are serialized. If you make your own receiver, you can buy all the other parts and put together a “ghost gun” with no serial number. Selling receiver kits has become a significant phenomenon.

It has now become possible to make relatively impractical guns entirely out of 3D printed plastic, and some people are calling those “ghost guns”. It is becoming possible to 3D print metal objects, and this may make 3D printed guns a lot more practical.

The one term is starting to have two different meanings.

Michael Trigoboff said...

There are different opinions about the meaning of the phrase “well-regulated militia”. Some say it meant a government-controlled military organization; others say it meant a citizen-based militia that was competent in its use of firearms.

In that context, what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase is quite relevant. The Supreme Court is in the process of coming up with answers to that question.

John said...

Happiness is a warm gun (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, momma (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
When I hold you in my arms (ooh, oh, yeah)
And I feel my finger on your trigger (ooh, oh, yeah)
I know nobody can do me no harm (ooh, oh, yeah)
Because
Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun (happiness, bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Well, don't you know that happiness is a warm gun momma?
(Happiness is a warm gun, yeah)

M2inFLA said...

Michael Steely, as to helping to make your pint, no problem.

The new weapons deliver those rounds more quickly. Both old and new can kill, wound, or scare.

Even if we outlawed all guns tomorrow, we'd still have a big problem. It's already illegal to threaten, wound, or kill someone with a gun. Not sure any of us know how to confiscate all weapons or how to make them harmless.

Hence my comment about societal norms.

Mike Steely said...

They're called 'ghost guns' because they aren't traceable. The kits used to make them are called 'unfinished receivers.' As if to demonstrate how gun-crazy Americans are, these unfinished receivers are legal to sell in most states and are widely available online and at gun shows. People who buy unfinished receivers or kits to make ghost guns aren't subject to traditional background checks and aren't restricted by criminal or mental health history.

Anonymous said...

The Virginia state constitution, at the time of the creation of the U.S. Constitution, included a clause upholding a citizen's right to be armed for self-defense. That phrase was deliberately excluded from the U.S. Constitution.

But you know, I don't look to the Constitution for much by way of logic and correctness. For starters, it was once Constitutional to own Blacks as personal property but unconstitutional to drink Bud Light. Makes perfect sense.

As to the comment about Thomas's 3/5th vote? Sorry, it's 0 vote for Thomas. The 3/5th rule referred to how much more voting White Men would be entitled to, based on the population of Blacks. So, true lefties should have pushed for 0 on that; no extra voting power for the Slave Power.

Anonymous said...

We don’t have a gun problem, we have a male problem. What percent of gun related violence and death is caused by women? Solve the real problem by figuring out what’s wrong with males in our society.

Malcolm said...

Male problem? Overgeneralization much?

Anonymous said...

According to Statistica.com, Between 1982 and April 2023, 136 mass shootings (defined as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed) were carried out by men. Only 4 were carried out by women. We are ignoring this important piece of the puzzle that might help solve this problem.

Malcolm said...

Anon, that general stat is very well known. And don’t you know what overgeneralization means?