On the Need for Citizen Militias

A Force for Preservation, Not Revolution

A confluence of events over the past few decades has many American citizens asking, what can I do to defend myself and my family and preserve my community against the official government policies, corrosive trends, and hostile persons who would like to destroy them? From “free trade,” deindustrialization, and offshoring of American jobs; to lax immigration policies that treasonously displace and colonize Americans in their own land; to violent BLM riots, racial antagonisms, and Antifa antics; to the legalization of homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” LGBTQ “rights,” Drag Queen Story Hour, and transgender ideology and hormonal therapy and sex-change operations; to the growth of the terrorist sleeper cells, the increase in drug cartels, South American gang violence, and sex trafficking; to the jump in assault, rape, grooming gangs, and homicide by illegal aliens; to the inability of younger generations to get married, have kids, and pay off staggering student loans, all while being priced out of good jobs and affordable homes—American society seems more unstable than ever before.

These worries are compounded by an American political class and bureaucratic policies explicitly hostile to the American people who resist globalization and the dilution of their historic rights and liberties. What can one do when one’s own government—instituted for the very purpose of providing security and protection—turns against and assaults you with prejudicial accusations, censorship, reeducation, and, eventually, replacement? The first recourse must always be peaceful protest and effort at political reform, which the most recent election of Donald Trump proves is still possible in America. Yet the last recourse—self-defense—can never be eliminated nor neglected. To this end, Americans should consider the role and value of citizen militias in this country as an expression of the once highly venerated but now strangely foreign American tradition of local self-reliance and self-government within our federalist polity. 

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed regarding New England townships, “the whole number of citizens” participated in electing their officials. Connected, perhaps inseparable from this, was participation, from the age of sixteen, in defense of the township by enlistment in the local militia. These things were essential expressions of the “life and mainspring of American liberty,” namely, “township independence,” which had, indeed, formed America long before the Union came into being. As Tocqueville concludes, 

“The political existence of the majority of the nations of Europe commenced in the superior ranks of society, and was gradually and imperfectly communicated to the different members of the social body. In America, on the other hand, it may be said that the township was organized before the county, the county before the State, the State before the Union.”

Citizen Militias in America

America has had citizen militias since the colonial period. All of the colonies, except Pennsylvania (due to its pacifist Quaker assembly), had citizen militias. Every able-bodied male between the ages of sixteen and sixty was enrolled, and citizens had to furnish their own arms and ammunition, as well as assemble for regularly scheduled training. Thus, early service in the militia was not voluntary but was required as a necessity to protect the colony. Even so, alongside the legal militia existed private, voluntary militias, such as the Ancient and Honourable Artillery Company of Boston, organized in 1636. Voluntary militias like these often provided auxiliary units, such as artillery, cavalry, and elite infantry units that would supplement colonial militias. At first, these private militias acted independently of the colonial military but later were officially integrated into states’ general defense.

The colonial militias in America had roots in English Common Law, yet at the same time, they developed independently due to the unique experience of New World colonial life. One such unique aspect can be seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The original Massachusetts charter empowered the governor and company to provide for the “defense and safety” of the colony by “force of arms, as well by sea as by lande.” The Puritans believed that defense of one’s life, family and neighbors, and inheritance was a form of religious piety. The 1643 militia law stated that “as piety cannot bee maintained without church ordinances & officers, nor justice without lawes & magistracy, no more can our safety & peace be preserved without military orders & officers.” As a result, service in the militia became interwoven into the covenant community, exemplified by the selection of officers by their own infantrymen. Freemen, who were both church members and citizens with political rights, were volunteers in the militia; they, in turn, would select their leadership. As John Winthrop detailed it in his history, in 1632 “a proposition was made by the people, that every company of trained men might choose their own captain and officers.” While this development took time to be implemented, eventually, Massachusetts had a voluntary militia of self-governing free men and their elected military leaders willing to fight Indians and Englishmen alike for the preservation of themselves and their people.

Each colony has a unique story of its own militia. Yet there were also many commonalities. John Adams, in a famous 1783 letter to the Abbé de Mably, argued that one could not understand the American Revolution and what led up to it without carefully studying four American institutions: the towns or districts, the congregations, the schools, and the militias. As to the latter, Adams’ expounded, saying,

The militia comprehends the whole people. By virtue of the laws of the country, every male inhabitant between sixteen and sixty years of age, is enrolled in a company, and a regiment of militia completely organized with all its officers. He is enjoined to keep always in his house, and at his own expense, a firelock in good order, a powder horn, a pound of powder, twelve flints, four-and-twenty balls of lead, a cartridge box, and a knapsack; so that the whole country is ready to march for its own defence upon the first signal of alarm. These companies and regiments are obliged to assemble at certain times in every year, under the orders of their officers, for the inspection of their arms and ammunition, and to perform their exercises and maneuvers.

In part due to the prevalence of such militias throughout the states in the late eighteenth century, this period saw the highest per capita gun ownership in American history. Americans, it turns out, have always been armed and dangerous, not due to a fetish with violence or “gun culture,” but precisely because of the demands that communal life made upon the individual and family. To be a good citizen was to be willing to defend one’s own against foes and dangers of all kinds—and thus to be physically fit, capable of responsibly and nimbly handling a firearm, able to work in close cooperation with one’s friends and neighbors under high-stress life-and-death scenarios, and always endowed with a manly and martial spirit directed by patriotic fervor.

The Debate over Standing Armies

During the Revolutionary and Constitution-making period (1775-1791), the American colonists were split on the need and wisdom of a standing army. Resistance to standing armies had deep roots in English history. King Henry II’s 1181 proclamation, the Assize of Arms, required that all English freemen equip themselves with “a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance,” and swear allegiance to the King. Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) did not have a standing army but relied upon a well-organized militia to defend her realm. It wasn’t until Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army of 50,000 Parliamentarians during the English Civil War (disbanded in 1660) that England first experienced a professionally-trained, standing army.

The American opposition to a standing army in favor of a citizen militia is seen in some state constitutions. For example, New Hampshire’s 1784 constitution states the following in Articles XXIV-XXVI of its Bill of Rights:

A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature. In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

This was the position of the Anti-federalists who opposed the U.S. Constitution. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton took up his pen in favor of a limited standing army and against the Anti-federalists, who were afraid of standing armies in peacetime under the control of the executive branch. Hamilton argued that a standing army and navy were necessary for the proper defense of a nation and that while state militias were adequate for state defense, they were difficult to train, coordinate, and rely upon for national emergencies. Given the fact that the separation of powers in the Constitution would prevent the President from becoming a future Napoleon, the worry about abuses from a standing army was overwrought. Hamilton emphasized in Federalist no. 28 that if the national legislature and its control over the Army and Navy were to become corrupt and used to oppress the people, then the people must have recourse to self-defense: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Publius wrote in defense of the U.S. Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to “raise and support Armies,” as well as to “provide and maintain a Navy,” with the proviso that military appropriations were limited to two years at a time (renewable) (Art. I, Sec. 8.12-15). In addition, Congress could “provide for calling forth the Militia [of the states] to execute the Laws of the Union, [and to] suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” While it is true that the President was christened as Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militia (Art. II, Sec. 2.1), this was strictly a civilian force under the direction of the national legislature. In this way, the Constitution followed the 1689 English Bill of Rights that prohibited a standing army in peacetime, “unless it be with [the] consent of Parliament.” 

The tradition of subordinating military power to the civil government long pre-dated America. Reforms during Elizabethan England brought the office of Lord Lieutenant under the services of the Crown, reducing the possibility that mighty nobles might militarily challenge royal power. In colonial Massachusetts, John Winthrop tells us that in 1638 some gentlemen of the colony wanted to form a military company into an official corporation, but “the council, considering (from the example of the Praetorian band among the Romans, and the Templars in Europe) how dangerous it might be to erect a standing authority of military men, which might easily, in time, overthrow the civil power, thought fit to stop it betimes. Yet they were allowed to be a company, but subordinate to all authority” (Monday, February 12, 1638).

This became a long-standing American tradition until the growth of the “military-industrial” complex in the mid-twentieth century eventually led to the usurpation of civil affairs by a conflagration of military brass, intelligence agencies, and defense industry interests. Today, Congress is the slave of the military-industrial-intelligence community syndicate that essentially runs the country without the people’s consent and often against the wishes of the President, taking us to war without a declaration by Congress.

The original balance between state-based militias and a limited standing army eventually gave way to the organization of a large, domestic, peace-time, professional army. This was a necessity given the expansive frontier and continual conflict with the Indian tribes, war with the British and then Mexico, and eventually the Civil War. Even so, two things stand out about the American military historically: first, the Army was made up of voluntary citizen soldiers (except in times of national exigency), who, despite being professionally trained, were citizens first and soldiers second; and additionally, the states retained their own National Guard as a military force and reserve for the U.S. Army.

In all cases, the vision of a citizen-based fighting force has characterized America’s military development and strategy. The state militias were transformed into the National Guard, and Americans have never relinquished their arms nor shied away from defending their homes, communities, and states.

Sufficient Communities and Citizen Militias Today

To speak of citizen militias today is often viewed with suspicion as if a precursor for revolutionary extremism or a call for subversion and treason. In the wake of the January 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol over the 2020 Presidential election results—a protest which has been relentlessly and purposely mischaracterized as an “insurrection” for mischievous political and legal purposes—talk of “extremist groups” and “domestic terrorism” has skyrocketed. While current state law prohibits private militias, states could reform their laws to allow counties and communities to more robustly defend themselves. As we’ve seen above, the existence of local militias has nothing to do with insurrection or revolution but everything to do with America’s early founding and tradition of thick, politically active communities. You will notice that the same people who claim to love democracy so much are most suspicious of its constitutive parts.  

Citizens who volunteer to defend their families, homes, and communities on a part-time basis are part of the local and self-governing ethos so naturally associated with America. This is not revolutionary but preservative. Nor are national and local governance mutually exclusive. Rather, our constitutional order presupposes a certain local assertiveness and sovereignty. In favorable jurisdictions like Florida, for example, cooperation is most on display between federal, state, and local authorities under the direction of Governor DeSantis. Just today, DeSantis signaled that he would ensure the cooperation of all local and state authorities with President Trump’s immigration policies. Florida will be an anti-sanctuary state.   

One need not cite Tocqueville to be familiar with the history and phenomenon of American communities organizing themselves socially, politically, militarily, and religiously to create secure and prosperous lives for themselves and their posterity. In many ways, despite modernization and rapid global and technological changes, the localist impulse continues throughout much of the country. Volunteer police and firefighting units are found sprinkled throughout rural communities, and even professional police, sheriff, and fire departments are drawn from citizens determined to serve their communities—sometimes by making the ultimate sacrifice. Where these still exist, it is the endurance of the “positive Passion for the public good” that John Adams said was essential to republican liberty. 

In an age where anarchy and tyranny simultaneously threaten, where economic and financial destabilizations, uncontrolled immigration and the dissolution of traditional ways of life, and digital mobility and deracination all lead to the breakdown of civil order and harmony, a revival of local, citizen militias might not be far off. Working in tandem with county police or sheriff departments, as well as the state National Guard, a thick network of militias could provide besieged communities with the security and self-reliance they need against harassment, terrorist attacks, gang violence, sex and drug trafficking, and the generally unwanted invasion of illegal immigrants. 

---

Image Credit: Unsplash

Share This