To say that there was racial tension in the former Confederate states would be an understatement. Not only was the South under continued military occupation, but they were also being occupied by their former slaves, now armed by what was until very recently a foreign power.
Knights of the White Camillia
Credit: ammo.com
The War Between the States (1861-1865) was nothing less than a revolutionary reorganization of American government, society, and economics. It claimed almost as many lives as every other U.S. conflict combined and, by war’s bloody logic, forged the nation which the Founding Fathers could not by settling once and for all lingering national questions about state sovereignty and slavery.
The postwar period, however, was one of arguably greater turmoil than the war itself. This is because many men in the South did not, in fact, lay down their arms at the end of the War. What’s more, freedmen, former slaves that were now American citizens, had to take defensive measures against pro-Democratic Party partisans, the most famous of whom were the Ku Klux Klan.
America’s militia has existed for a number of purposes and has exercised a surprising number of roles over the years. But at its core, it’s a bulwark of the power of the country against the power of the state. In Early American Militias: The Forgotten History of Freedmen Militias from 1776 until the Civil War, we covered the historical roots of the milita. Below is the modern history of the militia following the Civil War, and how unforeseen changes which started during Reconstruction have set the stage for the contemporary movement of Constitutional citizens militias.
Citizens Militias During the Reconstruction Era
The Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) is one of the most fascinating – and violent – periods of American history. After the defeat of the Confederate States, the United States Army took direct control of the quelled rebel states. Elections were eventually held and Republicans won every state, with the exception of Virginia. The state governments then organized militias, which were comprised of a majority of black men.
To say that there was racial tension in the former Confederate states would be an understatement. Not only was the South under continued military occupation, but they were also being occupied by their former slaves, now armed by what was until very recently a foreign power. The white population of the South responded to what they considered to be an attack on them and their rights by organizing militias of their own, despite the fact that this was prohibited by law. In fact, postbellum laws on militia organization prohibited drilling, parading, or organizing.
White Militias and the Black Codes
Fears among Southern whites were not unfounded, nor without precedent. The 35th United States Colored Troops went house to house in Charleston confiscating firearms. Black troops were known for looting and rioting during the final days of the war. The 52nd United States Colored Infantry sacked the Vicksburg plantation belonging to Jared and Minerva Cook, where it is believed some of them had been slaves. They confiscated the plantation’s guns at the point of a revolver, shooting both Cooks, killing Minerva and seriously wounding Jared.
A correspondent writing at the time spoke of the palpable fear of the white population: He believed that a massacre of the entire white population was impending. This anxiety is what led to the so-called “Black Codes” of the postwar era, which included tight restrictions on the weapons that could be owned by free blacks – if any at all. Some laws even restricted blacks from owning knives.
It’s worth noting that black veterans of the time were armed quite well. Not only did many keep their service weapons after the war was over, but they were also in possession of weapons claimed as war prizes. The average black citizen of the time, however, wanted only arms for self defense. Indeed, the mutual feeling of uneasiness in the postwar South seems to have a solid foundation for each group. How comfortable would most people feel with an occupying army of hostile former slaves? And how comfortable would most former slaves feel surrounded by recent insurgents?
These independent white militias were effectively a form of guerilla resistance against reasserted Union control in the South. Activity on either side tended to peak around the time of elections, suggesting that each was engaged in a campaign of intimidation against the other.
Some of the first anti-gun control movements in the United States were among freed blacks seeking to keep and bear arms for their own protection against the white independent militias. The names are familiar to most Americans: The Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camelia, The Red Shirts, The White League, The White Brotherhood. These white independent militias have been called by George C. Rable the “military arm of the Democratic Party.” Many blacks who had no intention of firing a shot in anger wanted a weapon simply to keep themselves and their families secure in the face of armed terrorist gangs seeking to circumvent the Reconstruction.
The End of Reconstruction
However, winners, as they say, write the history books. The Southern side of the argument is that the Union League, a Northern organization dedicated to patriotism, unionism and opposition to “Copperhead” Peace Democrats was, by the end of the war, organizing in the South. While less known than the above-mentioned groups, the Union League (also known as the Loyal League) was certainly not innocent of violent assaults, murder and rape. This made the most innocent of Union League members a target for Southern, pro-Democratic groups.
In the battle between the largely black, pro-Federal and Republican groups and the overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) white, pro-Southern and Democratic groups, the latter ultimately won the day. Reconstruction was ended as part of a bargain to secure Republican Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency in 1876. The North in general, and the Republican Party in particular, was tired of dealing with the Southern issue. Northern sympathies for black troubles were tepid to nonexistent a decade after President Andrew Johnson declared a formal end to hostilities.
Beyond the national political loss of will to continue Reconstruction, there are other, more intangible factors in play. White independent organization was stronger than the black, federally backed organizations. What’s more, while the black population was afraid, the white population was mad with desperation. Blacks in government, armed with the backing of federal power seemed to them no less than an inversion of nature and an existential threat to all white Southerners.
With federal troops and backing withdrawn from Reconstruction, the stage was set for Jim Crow and a rollback of many of the social gains blacks enjoyed during this era.
While the popular vision of the post-Reconstruction Era is one of constant terror from pro-Democratic paramilitary groups such as the KKK, this is inaccurate. The Knights of the White Camelia, an upper-crust organization, had largely ceased to exist by 1870. Nathaniel Bedford Forrest ordered the Klan disbanded in 1869, increasingly concerned with their lawless behavior and his inability to control it. President Grant’s Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 were squarely designed toward dismantling what remained of the Original Klan. The White League, perhaps the most militant of the group, disbanded in 1876, seeing their aims as largely accomplished. The Red Shirts lingered on until 1900, but their efforts were primarily around voter intimidation at election time, rather than a constant campaign of harassment, terror and intimidation.
The point is not to soft pedal or minimize the attacks against blameless black civilians during and after the Reconstruction Era. However, the white paramilitary groups were largely inactive for the simple reason that the Democratic Party state governments were accomplishing most of their goals through the rule of law.
…since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter…
Early American Militias: The Forgotten History of Freedmen Militias from 1776 until the Civil War
Credit: ammo.com
The United States militia is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. And while the militia movement of today is widely known, its history – and the history of independent Constitutional militias stretching back to the dawn of the republic – is far less well known.
Why does this matter nowadays? Because understanding the historical roots of America’s militias helps modern-day members appreciate the role they play in our federal system of government. Because since inception, militias have been tasked with stopping those who hold public office from exceeding their authority or those seeking to enact legislation outside of their operating charter – a crucial check against incremental encroachment by the state, as James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers on January 29, 1788:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
The militia is the final means of recourse in this cycle of self-government – and arguably the most important. Thus this is the first in a two-part historical series on America’s militias. The second part, American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond, looks at additional changes this American institution underwent from Reconstruction onwards.
The Colonial Origins of the United States Militia
The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.
A militia is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, prior to the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 8, drafted around the same time as the founding of the Springfield Armory (ground zero for American ammunition manufacturing), mentions it three times alone:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II, Section 2 designates the President of the United States as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”
While the 1903 Militia Act is a relatively recent innovation to the world of the American militia, it is worth referencing, even if briefly, as we dive into our long history. The Militia Act of 1903 separates the militia into two groups:
Organized Militia: These are the forces that comprise the National Guard, which are the organized militia forces of each state. It is not synonymous with the National Guard of the United States, which is a reserve military force under joint control of the federal and state governments.
Unorganized Militia: This is virtually every other man in the United States. Men are not part of the unorganized militia if they are part of the organized militia. All other able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are considered part of the militia. This is an important concept to remember, even as we work through the part of militia history predating this Act.
In the pre-1903 Militia Act era, the line between the two is not so clearly defined. Many of the militias discussed below are organized and subject to statute, but not “organized” in the sense that they have official membership rolls, uniforms, or even significant involvement from their respective state and territorial governments. Much like the later independent or “Constitutional militia” movement, there is a rank, structure and a chain of command, but the organization is not necessarily subject to government oversight – other than having to comply with all relevant statutes. In the case of the militias of the Revolutionary War period, this is very fuzzy.
The militia is an outgrowth of an English common law institution. The word itself dates back to 1590. Originally, the word simply meant soldiers in the service of the state. By the mid-17th Century, however, it had taken on connotations of a civilian military force. It carried additional connotations in terms of a military raised in temporary service to respond to some kind of an emergency.
The early militias, on both sides of the Atlantic, served the purpose of both security and defense. These were particularly important in the New World, where attacks from hostile Indian tribes were a constant threat. Indeed, these militias played a key role in the French and Indian Wars, including the primary one taking place concurrently with the Seven Years War between the years 1754 and 1763.
During these periods, militias organized by towns were also the pool from which the Provincial Forces were drafted. This was, in fact, a rare occurrence. The Provincial Forces were one of the best-paying wage labor opportunities available to American colonists, so their ranks were rarely short.
While the Provincial Forces were very professional and disciplined, the militias were not. Indeed, no less an authority than George Washington (at that time the adjutant-general of the Virginia militia) noted that the militia was largely disorganized. He considered the militia fit for times of peace, but ill-equipped for times of war. Even during peace, the bulk of the colonial military were what are today Army Rangers – well paid, professional, highly disciplined, and accomplished.
Militias During the American Revolution
The militias, however, played a central role in the American Revolution. The famous “Minutemen” – figures as iconic as the cowboy in American mythology – are, in fact, personifications and embodiments of the militia as it existed during the time of the American Revolution.
The history of the American militia cannot be discussed without talking about the Minutemen. These were effectively partisans in the war against the British, for which there is a subtle irony: The Minutemen harked back to the earliest traditions of the English countryside militia – ready on a moment’s notice.
Indeed, the militia is perhaps the British institution that most shaped the United States and its culture.
The British did not represent the entire militia, but the most disciplined and committed elements of it. They were, as the name implies, ready to go at a minute’s notice. They represented approximately a quarter of the entire force, and skewed toward the younger and more radical members of the revolutionary movement.
The roots of the Minutemen (and of the militia in general) lie in the old British colonial militia. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were obligated to serve in the militia. By 1645, possibly earlier, there were men selected specially for rapid deployment segments of the militia, known as “training bands.” The term “Minutemen” was even used during this period. These were organized on a town-by-town basis, with some towns, notably Lexington, not having special rapid response units.
During this period, Minutemen could not be over 30 years old. Officers were elected by rank and file, as was generally common throughout the colonial militias. Fowling pieces were the most common weapon. Uniforms were nonexistent, with hunting gear being the most common form of clothing. The French and Indian War provided the irregular forces with training in proto-guerilla warfare that European troops were not familiar with.
On the eve of the Revolutionary War, the Minutemen became something distinct from the rest of the militia, not simply its most committed segment. The Powder Alarm of 1774 underscored the need for a sleeker, more committed and more rapidly responding segment of the militia – the regular militia simply did not deploy quickly enough to prevent the British military from seizing materiel from the local ammunition stores and armories.
The British feared the power of the militias and the Minutemen prior to the Revolution. One of the strategic aims of the Intolerable Acts was to significantly decrease the power of town government. When General Thomas Gage, Governor of Massachusetts under the Intolerable Acts, attempted to seat his hand-picked court in Worcester, 2,000 militiamen prevented him from doing so. In response, Gage set out to confiscate provincial munitions. The militia responded in kind by assembling 4,000 men to the Cambridge common.
From the very beginning of the revolution, the militias played a pivotal role, despite the fact that they were of limited utility. The Battles of Lexington and Concord started as a confrontation between the local militias and the colonial authorities. On April 19, 1775, 800 British troops marched out of Boston to Concord. They were unable to locate their target, the colonists’ arms and ammunition, which they were to confiscate. It was at 5 a.m. that they encountered 70 militiamen in Concord. They ordered the militiamen to disperse, but the militiamen refused. This is what led to “the shot heard round the world,” but to this day historians are unsure who fired first.
While the militias themselves were primarily used for disrupting supply lines and harrassing, skirmishing type attacks, many of the senior officers were those who had cut their teeth bush fighting during the French and Indian Wars. On the other hand, the British senior officers had no experience with this kind of fighting and had to learn it on the fly.
On their way back to the city after being unable to find the arms and ammunition, the British were stalked and sniped by militiamen. The company was routed, and 900 additional troops were required to save them from the clandestine attacks of the Patriot militias.
Throughout the Revolutionary War, the Minutemen model increasingly became the standard for irregular militia fighters. This provided the Continental Army with swelled numbers on short notice. While the Minutemen weren’t known as great marksmen, the psychological impact and distraction of their presence certainly helped win the Patriots’ cause. Scores of militias were culled from each of the newly independent 13 states, as well as Vermont, which was at that time its own independent republic and not one of the United States.
While the revolutionary fervor was felt most strongly in the militias at the beginning of the war, this waned over time. After all, the Revolutionary War lasted eight years – a long time to maintain that level of enthusiasm. The militias elected their own officers and often used this to ensure that they would not have to serve outside of their home state. Often times, militia members hired replacements, and in extreme cases, exorbitant bribes were required to get the men to perform their militia duties. The currency became inflated over the course of the war, requiring land grants and promises of slaves at the war’s end.
The militia was a hugely popular public institution at the end of the Revolutionary War. It was seen as the national defense of a free people, as opposed to a standing army. Most experts, however, did not feel that the militia had much in the way of actual military value in the event of a foreign invasion. Still, figures like George Washington were forced to support the militia publicly, while speaking of its limitations more privately.
Militias in Service of the State: The Post-Revolutionary Period
During Shays’ Rebellion, the role of the militia was transformed. This time, a militia was used to defeat a rebellion, rather than to fight the dominant power. There is a deep irony in the role exercised by the militia during Shays’ Rebellion, which was one of the factors in scrapping the Articles of the Confederation and replacing them with the Constitution. During the Constitutional debates, figures such as James Madison stated that the militia could be a check on the power of a standing army. However, in the case of Shays’ Rebellion, the militia acted as an instrument of centralized power and taxation.
Militias in the service of federal power did not end with Shays’ Rebellion. President George Washington personally led a militia of 13,000 for the specific purpose of putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Much of the military forces that fought the British during the War of 1812 were militia forces. This is part of why the United States exhibited such a dismal performance on the battlefield. While they were effective at battles in Plattsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans, this was largely due to the entrenchment of the forces rather than their military abilities in their own right. It was after American defeat in the War of 1812 that the militia effectively ceased to be the primary means of defense, supplanted by the Regular Army.
Slave Patrols
During the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, the state militias of the Southern states took on a new function: slave patrols. When slaves would run away, militias were raised out of the general population to look for them. This was effectively another form of forced labor, though militia service did come with pay. In the case of North Carolina, militiamen made 46.5 cents per day of service in 1826.
Mormons and the State of Missouri
In Missouri, the militias served another purpose – that of public order. Tensions between the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and the rest of the community around the State of Missouri ran high. So much so that there were anti-Mormon vigilante squads roaming the country, looking for Mormons to target. In 1838, General David R. Atchison ordered the state militia to “prevent, if possible, any invasion of Ray County by persons in arms whatever.” This led to the disarming and expulsion of Mormons in Northwestern Missouri. In response, the Caldwell County militia (a Mormon-heavy area) rescued Mormons expelled from these areas.
The two state militias came into conflict with one another in what is known as the Battle of Crooked River. As funny as it might sound to us today, the State of Missouri took several precautions and preparations for a Mormon invasion of the state. This and other tensions led to the battle, which prompted an Executive Order expelling all Mormons from the State of Missouri. The Mormon community of the state then relocated to Illinois, before ultimately settling in Utah.
For their part, the Mormons organized their own militia, which fought against the United States government in the little-known Utah War. The matter was eventually defused by negotiations, but not until 150 people died. This might not sound like a lot, but the Utah War lasted one year and the number of deaths was equal to the full seven years of “Bleeding Kansas” – which was likewise patrolled by militias in a sometimes fruitful attempt to keep the peace between pro-slavery and pro-free state forces.
John Brown’s Attack on Harpers Ferry
Another famous battle in the years leading up to the Civil War is John Brown’s uprising and attack on Harpers Ferry. Every village and town in a 30-mile radius around Harpers Ferry had their militia activated. For his part, Brown did not think much of the capabilities of the state militias of Virginia and Maryland (nor, for that matter, of the Regular Army forces that might be dispatched against him). This factored into his planning of the uprising that ultimately resulted in nearly 20 deaths and precisely zero freed slaves. The final capture of John Brown was executed by a detachment of 88 United States Marines, however, the local militias played a key role in pinning down his forces.
A Militia Divided: The War Between the States
The War Between the States found each side ill prepared for the challenges that it faced. 75,000 militiamen were called up by President Abraham Lincoln to retake Fort Sumter. Lincoln considered the strength available to him far below what he actually needed. The problems with the militia system were not limited to the rank and file. The officers had no idea how to command a unit of this size, having never done so before.
The Western states and territories largely used militias as a form of common defense and security. It’s worth noting that in the Western states, Americans had to deal with much larger Indian populations who were also much more hostile, particularly in the Plains. Later on, during the Civil War, many of these militias were organized into groups of Regular Army volunteers. However, in territories like Colorado and other free states, militias were organized not only to repulse invasions from Confederate forces, but also to prevent an uprising from pro-Confederate forces that might exist in the state.
Some of the state militias had their moments of glory during the War Between the States. The Colorado Volunteers, for example, turned back a Confederate invasion of the New Mexico Territory. They later achieved further notoriety (and some infamy) for the Colorado War against the Plains Indians, which included the Sand Creek Massacre. The California Column were responsible for expelling the Confederate Army from the Southern regions or Arizona and New Mexico, as well as West Texas. They also kept the Mormon population of Utah under observation, as it was widely feared that the Mormons would use the opportunity of the Civil War to rebel and start their own independent nation.
Quantrill’s Raiders
The Union was not the only side with militias during the Civil War. Perhaps the most famous of the Confederate militias were Quantrill’s Raiders. William Quantrill (referenced in the film True Grit as “Captain Quantrill”) led the group, which included Jesse James and Frank James, later of James Gang fame. The organization had its roots in the pre-Civil War fighting of “Bleeding Kansas.”
The reference to “Captain” Quantrill during the True Grit film are not without historical basis. Quantrill was given a field commission by the Confederate Army for his work as a guerilla fighter. This backfired when the Quantrill gang engaged in the Lawrence Massacre. Lawrence was the center of an abolitionist and Unionist organization. As such, it was a common target for Quantrill’s men, who numbered about 400. Frustrated by the constant raids, the Union authorities began imprisoning the wives of Quantrill’s men with an eye toward deporting them from the area.
This is what led to the Lawrence Massacre. Quantrill’s men burned down a quarter of the buildings in the town in a coordinated attack. At least 150 men and boys were killed in the attack. One of the main targets of the Massacre, Senator Jim Lane, escaped by fleeting into nearby corn fields. The Confederate leadership could not abide such an attack and withdrew any support they had given to Quantrill and his men.
Quantrill’s Raiders fled into Texan territory, massacring 100 Union soldiers at Baxter Springs along the way. He still enjoyed some support among the officer corps of the Confederate military, such as from General Joseph O. Shelby, “The Undefeated” who withdrew his troops into Mexico rather than surrender to the Union Army. In 1864, one of the Raiders was killed in a gunfight with a Texas Posse and lynched a sheriff in retaliation.
The Raiders began returning home in 1864, none of them led by Quantrill. Curiously, one of Quantrill’s men was a freeman, John Noland, who was described by other Raiders as “a man among men.”
Quantrill’s Raiders were a product of the Partisan Ranger Act. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Confederacy. In effect, the law meant that partisan guerillas would have the same pay and command structure as the Confederate Army, but be able to act with broad leeway that was not afforded to the Regular Army. The law was repealed in 1864 under pressure from, among other officers, Robert E. Lee. While the strategy was largely effective, Lee and others were concerned about the effect of having many armed men without much central control.
Two militias were allowed to continue after the repeal of the Act: McNeil’s Rangers and Mosby’s Raiders. These groups of guerilla fighters were distinguished by their discipline and adherence to the accepted rules of warfare.
The history of militias in the United States continues after the Civil War in American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond, when it becomes a whole other ballgame.
I was still in high school when I read a sci-fi novel Earth Abides by George Stewart (IIRC). The premise of the novel was that a pandemic had come through and wiped out well over 99% of the population leaving little pockets of survivors here and there. The novel chronicles one little pocket’s efforts to reestablish a form of primitive civilization that was sustainable.
The Primary Kill was the pandemic. The Secondary Kill was of survivors of the Primary who could not see life worth living so laid down and died or did nothing to ensure their survival as local resources were used up.
Thus, that moment a person realized they would never eat chocolate again, combined with everything else that had happened, could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. (Metaphor there.).
If you can get through the initial shock of realization, the pain eventually goes away.
Part of avoiding the Secondary Kill is knowing what your alternatives are, and how to best make use of them.
This or something similar has been written about the NAZI death camps. When prisoners concluded there was no hope in ending the pain often they would lay down and give up their life. One prisoner was said to have written that when observing someone giving up their life there was only one action that some times brought them back. If you would yell at and beat on the prisoner and made them angry enough they would get up to fight with you.
Knowledge and your faith are two things that nobody else can take away from you, and are the most powerful tools in your arsenal of weapons against changes in life that don’t work in your favor. With correct application both, prove VERY beneficial to the user.
The spiritual seekers and indigenous content themselves with such as a cool breeze on a hot day, a good harvest following a diligent growing season, a beautiful view from a lofty peak……and they learn, early on, that when these are lacking, patience will carry them through to the next of life’s small blessings.
A spoiled society is not so invulnerable to calamity.
In the real world, there are no guarantees.
Learn to be content with the air you breathe.
Sophistication is apparently the greatest enemy of the institutionalized.
I had an old wise woman tell me once many years ago- You have a choice in life: You can be Crystal and shatter on life’s Wheel. Or, you can be Willow, and bend to adapt to its Changes. I have tried to live this and it is not easy but it can be done.
It has been over 150 years since the United States has had serious internal distension. The closest to a revolt was the Civil Rights Movement, but the blacks were easily bought off after some protests and riots. America seems due for a violent adjustment.
A
prevailing assumption in all of outsider politics, both Left and Right, is that
America is headed for a civil war. The details are not all that clear, but that
is the assumption. Even the mainstream political types think it is possible. A
regular part of Tucker Carlson’s act is to warn his fellow political elites
that they better shape up or the else. From time to time polls are done that
show Americans are increasingly sure that a civil war is the most probable
outcome for the turmoil and conflict of the current year.
At
first blush, it is not a silly assumption. After all, empires tend to end in
violence, either they are conquered or break apart. Even if you think America
is some sort of exception when it comes to being an empire, every society is
racked with conflict. It has been over 150 years since the United States has
had serious internal distension. The closest to a revolt was the Civil Rights
Movement, but the blacks were easily bought off after some protests and riots.
America seems due for a violent adjustment.
Further,
the far Left assumes they will win such a conflict. How is never explained, as
most are noodle armed sissies, but they probably think they will have the full
support of the police, like they see at their protests. Maybe the cops will
side with the far Left in an armed conflict. If it means keeping their pensions
and benefit packages, that’s probably a safe bet. On the other hand, history
says police forces tend to scatter quickly when order falters to the point
where there is fighting in the streets.
Many
on the far Right make the same assumption as the Left, with regards to the
outcome, owing to the fact that most of the guns are owned by whites. Those
noodle armed Antifa sissies and their mouthy women would not last long in a
fair fight, much less an armed fight. That’s certainly true, but if they did
have the cops fighting for them that would be different. Then there is the fact
that the same people controlling Antifa also run the military, so the gun
disparity would change quickly.
The
main trouble with the civic war bogeyman is no one bothers to imagine how it
would be conjured in the first place. Civil wars are fights between two or more
factions, led by members of the elite. The American Civil War was a fight
between New England elites and Southern elites. Modern elites, not just in
America, but across the West are in lockstep on every important topic. It is
inconceivable that they would take up arms against one another. If anything,
they will take up arms against the people.
That
leaves open the other option for a social war. An armed rebellion of some sort,
maybe due to divisions within society that the elites can no longer contain.
The Antifa media, for example, harasses the wrong people and the result is
organized white terrorism against Progressive targets. Alternatively, the media
agitation results in some left-wing street protesters moving from theater to
violence. The media did convince that guy to shoot up the Republican softball
game a few years back.
The
trouble with the rebellion scenario is that a decent rebellion has to be led by
people capable of organizing a lot of people. The structure of the Left
precludes a rebellion from that side of politics. They control the institutions
and the rank and file lack the will and brainpower to go it alone. The Left is
not going to revolt against itself, so they will continue to ratchet up their
terrorism against everyone else. Red flag laws, for example, will be used to
jail dissidents in the near future.
Outside of left-wing circles, organizing a rebellion seems less likely. Blacks have rioted in the past and they have some reason to rebel against the prevailing order. History says they will just burn down their own neighborhoods and loots some local stores. Hispanics seem to be the most passive group in America. As long as they have cheap food and cheap entertainment, they are not rebelling. The squalor of America beats the squalor of back home, so getting them angry enough to rebel seems implausible.
If there is to be a rebellion, it will be among whites, but whites are far from being a monolithic group. There are regional divides, as well as class divides, which are easily exploited by the people in charge. Ruling class whites, for example, hate all lower class whites. That’s part of what motivated the FBI to spy on the Trump people in the last election. It’s why the IRS harassed white people in the 2012 election. Ruling class whites have a deep loathing for the rest of white America.
At
the other end, the working classes have had plenty of reasons to revolt since
the 1970’s, when the usual suspects began auctioning off the manufacturing
base. In coal country, for example, where you will find the most rebellious
whites in America, an all-out war on their way of life has not resulted in much
resistance. The semi-urban white working class has continued to support a
system that shows every sign of trying to snuff out the white working class.
There’s no rebellion in that group.
That
leaves the white suburban middle-class, who are certainly the angriest cohort
in the country, but they are the most docile too. Perhaps if they fear a real
threat to their economic position, they will become less docile, but
middle-class revolution remains an oxymoron at this stage. For now, they will
remain committed to the system, taking out their anger on politicians at the
ballot box. Even though voting has had no impact on the trajectory of American
society, it seems to be enough for this class.
Even if you can conjure a scenario in which a group revolts or the ruling class splits, resulting in a civil war of some type, it’s hard to imagine it being violent. For starters, rebelling against the local police department, much less the military is laughably implausible, given the disparity in firepower. Even small town cops these days have been militarized. They have assault units, armored vehicles, drones and electronic surveillance equipment. America is literally a police state now.
Rebellion
would have to be guerrilla war, turning the weight of the surveillance state
against itself. Instead of blowing stuff up, the rebellion of the future will
be placing racist material in strategic locations, forcing the police to spend
hundreds of man hours looking for invisible Nazis. More sophisticated tactics
will require infiltration of ruling class assets, so rebels can easily and
surreptitiously throw sand in the gears of the custodial state. The war will be
fought in cubicles, not the streets.
Now, this may seem depressing at first blush, but civil wars and rebellion never encompass the whole of the society. The American Revolution directly involved less than five percent of the population. The American Left radicalized the country with less than 20% support among whites. For those hoping to see the next American civil war, it will not take much of a change in the above dynamics to get the conditions for it. A serious economic catastrophe or a major foreign policy setback could be enough.
There’s
also the fact that the nature of rebellion changes with the times. The rebels
of the agrarian age faced men with bayonets and muskets. Men with muskets and
rifles hiding in the woods could do real damage to their rulers. In the
industrial age, general strikes and urban riots were enough to counter state
power. In the information age, the rebellion will be about sapping the strength
of the rulers, with regards to their ability to control data. Unplugging a data
center will be the new terrorism.
When you start to puzzle through it, the probability of an old fashioned civil war is close to zero, while armed rebellion is in the single digits. Things will have to change a lot for the conditions to be right. On the other hand, a new type of rebellion, one suited for the age and the sorts of people unhappy with the system, is increasingly likely. Middle-class mom giving company passwords to rebel hackers is a likely scenario. The revolution of the future will be low-grade and mostly non-violent.
“I just need to obey the rules and look after my own business and all will be fine.”
Actually yes, this is true. But it is hard to obey rules when those rules actually take all of your freedoms.
Let’s talk about
martial law. This is when the normal law of the land is suspended and the
authority comes from the military or federal government.
One recent example
of undeclared martial law in the US was when the police were looking for the
suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing and went door to door, forcing innocent
people to come outside with their hands on their heads at gunpoint, while their
homes were searched without warrants.
It turns out that many of us have some serious misconceptions of what it’s really like to live through a martial law situation. I asked a survivor of the Bosnian war, who has personally been through it, to clear up the myths and tell us what it’s actually like. You can count on him for the unvarnished truth, and that’s what we need to be prepared to survive extreme situations.
During Yugoslav wars, in different regions (states)
based on particular timing and events you can say that martial law was in
place, or “state of direct war threat” as some call it here.
There were different “stages” or even levels of it,
but one common fact is that during that all normal civil rights and laws were
completely and absolutely a matter of the will of the “war government.” (Or
“military council” or “war headquarters”.)
The names were different for different regions, even
cities, but the results were the same.
In the case of my city in that particular time, it
was “war government” that had little influence on ordinary citizen simply
because there were too many factions.
But prior to that time and after that year I experienced and went through something that looks more like real “martial law” as your readership imagines it.
Many people in the prepper community think they’ll be
able to take on the militarized police or army rather than bending to the new
rules. How do you think that will go? Can you give any examples of people
attempting to defy the military?
Yes, I am aware that lot of preppers imagine martial
law to be like some black and white situation (with clear causes, solutions,
and views). In reality, it is quite different.
It is a situation where all stakes are much higher,
and solutions-actions that the government ( ruling party, military
leaders or whoever in your case) wants to achieve will be attempted with all
means. That can include some new rules where what you think about it usually
does not mean anything.
A lot of preppers think about “martial law” but in
reality, they think about it still in normal terms, with rights, law,
constitution, and rules…
You cannot defy military, at least not openly,
because they will deal with you fast and efficiently. In times like that it is
so easy to get labeled that you are dangerous, an enemy of the state, a
terrorist or anything similar, and most probably you will not have any help.
Forget about the movie illusions of openly being a
freedom fighter.
No matter how well-organized you are, those who impose martial law have better organization than you. Remember that martial law usually means an information blackout. “They” will own information and present it to the public the way that they want to present it.
In my opinion here are a few really widespread myths
in prepper movement about martial law:
“The UN will somehow “occupy” my land, impose martial
law.”
When it comes to martial law I would choose to be
worried about my own government first when times get really hard. That’s
because most probably your freedom will be taken by those people through the
martial law so they can achieve they own goals, or in order to stay in power
when all goes to s..t.
It is not about who lives where, and what kind of
system you have, and how much you love your country. It is about powerful
people staying in power when times get really hard, even if that means taking
all your rights and eliminating all possible threats from the common folks.
Patriotism does not have anything to do with that.
While you are looking for some outside “exotic”
threat, the danger may be next to you all the time.
“I will recognize the threat (coming martial law,
repression etc), and fight against it.”
Most probably you won’t because it will be arranged
into something easily “digestible.”
For example, it will be a fight against terrorism,
foreign threat, patriotism euphoria, or something similar, and then one day
you’ll realize you are living in the middle of “no more rights” situation.
Maybe even you’ll even be labeled as an enemy of the state simply because you
have a weapon, or an off-grid retreat or similar.
Do not expect to see one day a big neon sign that says
“martial law is coming”,
because it will be smartly packaged into
something reasonable and understandable. And most probably it will not be
called martial law.
It will be packaged in a way that most people will
actually welcome it, because they will not recognize what is actually, and
those who openly recognize it and call it by its real name will be the first in
danger.
The majority of people will look for it and ask for
it, because they will think it will resolve a hard situation.
If you are going to be able to fight it, most
probably you’ll have to fight it in a silent way, like a real underground
resistance movement.
“I just need to obey the rules and look after my own
business and all will be fine.”
Actually yes, this is true. But it is hard to obey
rules when those rules actually take all of your freedoms.
One of the first actions in martial law situations is
to eliminate possible threats – or let’s say “subversive elements”.
It can be done in a soft way by shutting down free press. for example. Or making you obedient (docile) by taking away your resources, and making you dependent on resources that they will give you. Or it can be done the hard way by making “problematic” people “disappear” after raids for example.
You can be that problematic man if you are openly
opposed to them taking your rights, if you have other political opinions, are
in the prepper movement, or similar.
Maybe you are already on some list of “emergency
detention people” in case of an event.
Run away, or obey publicly while you are silently
working whatever you can against it.
