--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To historically prove our Duty, Responsibility and Obligation to the
"Right to Keep & Bear Arms" as per the Bill of Rights, II Amendment.
... all thru âNatural Law, Common Law and Pre-Constitutionalâ analysis along with thorough presentation of accompanying historical facts. With research back through Medieval Times in both Natural and Common Laws supported by historical facts and events that have come forward throughout the history leading to modern man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In medieval times it was a matter of law that common folk must purchase at their own expense and keep ready in their homes some basic weapons to serve and protect their king and state ... ... The fancy uniforms and European battle formations may have served the British well in wars in the old world, but they were ill suited for backwoods America . . .
It has become popular to say that the militia system developed in the New World because the colonies were too poor to be able to devote a significant portion of the able-bodied manpower to a permanent military establishment ... ... Nowhere was the militia system as well organized as in Puritan New England ... ... Within ten years after the Puritans initially landed those at Boston had formed a mighty militia system . . .
We may think of the Albany Plan as the first attempt to create a politico- military union among the colonies, but before the Albany Plan was proposed there were several schemes for colonial union proposed between 1643 and 1754 ... ... There would be no standing armies within the colonies . . .
It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows . . .
British officers had little, if any, regard for their provincial brethren, although many other foreign observers had nothing but the highest regard for the American militias. The English could counter that the others did not have to work with the provincials, but if they did, their opinions would change dramatically. The British officers in North America almost universally regarded Americans as cowards who were ill-disciplined, given to following individual preferences over the good of the whole body, and more interested in enforcing their supposed legal rights than in carrying out their obligations to the Crown . . .
Militia discipline was never as severe in the colonies as it was in the British army. In New England the emphasis was on correction rather than punishment ... Fornication, adultery, blasphemy (which included profane and obscene language), homosexuality, bestiality, and indulgence in any "unnatural abuses" invited brutal discipline. Blasphemers could have a hole bored through their tongues with a red hot iron . . .
The New England colonies maintained a politically stable militia system during the pre-Revolutionary War years. There was virtually no standing army but all the provincial governments were able to provide large numbers of militiamen when and where they were needed simply by drafting them out of the town militias. The New England colonies lost some territory and many men during the last quarter of the seventeenth century, but the political authorities never lost administrative control . . .
Each colony in New England set aside one or more days for training and disciplining the citizen-soldiers ... ... A chaplin opened and closed the day with a prayer and occasionally with a sermon ... ... During the French and Indian War a New York correspondent of the London-based Public Advertiser praised the moral character of the New England militiamen . . .
Arms figured prominently in the development of America from the earliest years. Guns were important for hunting, but indispensable for warfare ... ... The weapons of the colonists had changed remarkably in the two centuries which preceded the colonization of America ... ... Until well after the War of 1812 no enemy might be expected to have weapons of superior nature or firepower, at least in quantity ... ... These
arms weighed about ten pounds ... (a Constitutional
definition of Arms? ... that which could be effectively transported and deployed by the individual man, citizen-soldier?)
The militias of Colonial America worked best when they were given limited assignments of short duration within the province from which the men were drawn. ... ... In most cases, the legislative calls issued to the militias were specific as to unit (usually based in a town or district), number of men required, and duration of service. ... ... British recruiters often enlisted the men for life, in standard British practice. Few Americans, especially illiterate backwoodsmen, seemed to have understood that they had signed for such a term of service . . .
In mid-seventeenth century the entire white population of Canada probably did not exceed 3000 adults. Although the French king had about 100,000 men in arms, he was loathe to send more than 2000 to Canada... ...The French countered the New England militia with Canadian militia of their own ... ... By 1 January 1758 the French had activated all reserve and active militia and were able to report only 2108 men in arms under Marquis de Vaudreuil . . .
When the American War for Independence began, the patriot (or Whig) cause was not supported by everyone in the thirteen colonies. Two classes stand out: the loyalists, also called Tories or United Empire Loyalists; and the pacifists, primarily Dunkards, Moravians and Quakers, or members of the Society of Friends ... ... The patriot response to the real and presumed Tory activities was brutal and direct ... ... Patriots loathed the Tories. They confiscated their land, homes, estates and even their working tools and condemned them by bill of attainder. Patriots considered them traitors and subjected them to all forms of discrimination and persecution. Radical patriots were generally more successful than Tories in recruiting among the undecided faction. As the flames of revolution grew many neutrals chose to follow the new course . . .
The British authorities expected to obtain little support in New England, especially among the Calvinist Protestants, but entertained somewhat more optimistic concerning New York ... ... New York thus had the highest percentage of loyalist claims of any colony, suggesting a large loyalist population. The state supplied approximately 23,500 men for loyalist militias and the British army, the largest number by far of all the colonies . . .
The middle colonies had a substantial loyalist population. Several prominent loyalists, including Daniel Leonard, drew up a plan for establishing a loyalist stronghold on the eastern seaboard. Leonard was a prominent, if aristocratic, Boston lawyer and was one of the most able and literate of the loyalists ... ... There were about 5000 tories in New Jersey during the Revolution, of which about 1200 were determined to have openly aided, or fought for, the enemy ... ... Governor William Franklin, natural son of Benjamin Franklin, became irrevocably alienated from his father over the issue of independence. Franklin's addresses of 3 and 13 February 1775 renewed the stateâs oath of loyalty to the crown . . .
Incidents of tory activity in Pennsylvania were highest in the backwoods where loyalists were uncommonly successful in enlisting the assistance of several Indian traders and general renegades; ... ... On the other hand, the long tradition of religious freedom and ethnic diversity, especially including Germans of Calvinist orientation, worked against toryism ... ... Loyalism in urban Pennsylvania was, as a general rule, more intellectual than practical. The state produced some of the best and most subtle loyalist minds of the period . . .
English troops occupied none of the cities in Virginia, Delaware or Maryland, so loyalists could find no protection and little encouragement from the mother nation or its troops ... ... Delaware had a substantial loyalist population, reliably estimated at about half the population. Most of Delaware's population had been moderate in its politics in the pre-Revolutionary era. The pre-war legislature remained loyal but was circumscribed by a larger patriot climate of opinion. There are strong claims that as many as half of the people were loyal to the crown . . .
After 1778 the British command decided to concentrate its major efforts to the American south, largely because of the resurgence of loyalism in those states. Southern campaigns had only half-heartedly been planned and executed before 1778. Anticipating substantial help on every front and in every way, the British commanders thought to ease the burden on the hard pressed army ... ... The home government's plan, as devised on 8 March 1778, was relatively simple. The British army would first liberate Georgia, move north against South Carolina, secure Charleston, and give encouragement to the planters who they believed were the mainstay of loyalism in the south . . .
Throughout history, and in virtually every civilized nation, there have been those who objected to serving in any kind of military organization because of religious convictions. America attracted more than its share because the colonies became the refuge to various religious dissenters from all over Europe ... ... The authorities believed that one did God's work by fighting not by refusing to bear arms. If a war was truly holy it was the Devil's work to be a pacifist. Kings alone cannot be blamed because the churches often agreed and worked in close support of the political authorities in waging holy wars . . .
The idea of some sort of national militia, or at least national control over the provincial militias, had been advanced in the several early plans for military alliance or union discussed at length ... ... Such a sturdy and virtuous force could carry any war against any opposition, the best standing armies included ... ... Several authorities have pointed out that the primary role played by militia lay in securing land and population, denying them to the oncoming British and Tory forces. They have also noted that the Revolution, in effect, was won before it had begun because its leaders, with the assistance of the militia, had secured control of the instruments of coercion and authority. These leaders controlled the militia which acted as agents of government, to a degree as posse comitas, to maintain that vital political control throughout the entire war . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
