This is Charles Henry Granger’s Muster Day which is in the National Gallery in Washington, DC.
There is another version of this at the located at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia called Militia Training by James G. Clonney (1812 – 1867).
While able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were considered members of the militia under the militia act of 1792, The annual muster day was how they accomplished the actual enrollment of the members into their units. The Militia Act stated:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment,There's that nasty word, enrollment, which is what one needed to do to actively be a member in a militia unit. And as any person with serious knowledge of the militia system will ell you that service was compulsory.
Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment’s muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.
“Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’” –Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834Exemptions to Militia service were:
Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states”notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.”Or as the quote goes: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).
So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. This was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.
Now,people are demand the right without the obligation incumbent to that right.
Except that the Second Amendment doesn't require enrollment in the militia, and the Militia Act came after the Constitution. In fact, it was in response to a defeat that U.S. forces suffered in a battle with tribes in the Northwest Territories.
ReplyDeleteMost of our laws were written after the Constitution. Does that mean no one has to follow a law, except for what was written in the Constitution? Militia was mandatory.
DeleteThe point is that the Constitution recognizes a right that already existed. The militia is named simply as one important aspect of gun ownership.
DeleteMore lies from the site lying criminal. There is no legal right unless it is stated in the law. The 2nd amend. starts with the militia clause, not the individual clause, it defines the individual clause.
DeleteIt's so easy for some to forget the most important words in the english language "The Right of the People".
DeleteYou cannot claim anything as a right. It has to be enumerated by law. Law written by the representatives elected by the people. Law confirmed by a judicial process. Abortions were illegal until the court decided they were not illegal. Women were arrested for getting an abortion before Roe/Wade became law.
DeleteBut Anonymous, the law specifically says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed that right.
DeleteThe Supreme Court didn't affirm it until 2008, and that was the result of the best Court money can buy.
Delete"But Anonymous, the law specifically says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has twice affirmed that right."
DeleteDon't know why you bring that up since I'm not denying you have that right. Guess it's your way of dodging the issue.
I bring it up because Laci, et al., keep saying that there is no individual right to own firearms, even though they keep asserting that the courts grant us our rights via the Constitution.
DeleteGiven you history of proven lies, I'll believe them.
DeleteA better way to look at the bill of rights it to think of it as a list of limitations on government.
ReplyDeletehe Bill of Rights proclaimed in writing and for legal court purposes. It states what was legal for citizens that the government could not deny.
DeleteExactly. The Bill of Rights names specific rights that the Founders considered most in danger from a government. Or basic right to be armed is one of those.
DeleteYes, the Bill of Rights gave people rights, but they were not free of government constraints. None of our rights are free from government restraints, and without the Bill of Rights, we would not have those rights.
DeleteThe Constitution recognizes rights that already existed. It does not give rights. But how about you name a right you care about, so we can discuss limits we'll impose on you.
DeleteA right does not exist in law unless the law states that right exists. You get the law and your emotions confused. You seem like a very confused person, or a hypocrite.
DeleteAnonymous, if that were true, the government could take away your rights, and you'd have no grounds for complaint. I won't accept that kind of tyranny.
DeleteThe reason the government cannot take away any rights, is because those rights are enumerated. Do you think gays have a right to marry, even though the laws says they don't? What is this fight about if gays already have a right to marry? The fight is to have that right written into our laws and accepted by the courts. Gays can legally be fired, for just being gay. No right exist without the force of law behind it. Yes, the government, corporations and other institutions can discriminate against gays because they have no written right in law that a judge can enforce. Without that law, gays have no right to marry. Reading your comments you don't respect the law, so it's no surprise you don't understand the law.
DeleteApparently, you can't tell the difference between rights and the law. The duty of the law is to protect rights. In the case of gays, many laws violate, rather than protect, a right that belongs to individuals. That is an injustice that we must work to correct.
DeleteThe only way to correct it, is to have laws on the books. The only way you have a right to a gun, is because it is written in law, which protects you from being denied buying a gun. You think a right is not something generated by the law. As a proven criminal, I understand your thinking that you have a right even though the law does not recognize that right.
DeleteThe 2A is obsolete and anachronistic and meaningless.
DeleteBut Mikeb, you can't just say that some part of the Constitution is obsolete. You have to get an amendment passed and ratified.
DeleteThe 3A has long been considered obsolete. No amendment is necessary. That one went onto the scrap heap naturally through the lack of use.
DeleteDon't bother digging up the exceptional mentions of the 3rd amendment to argue this point. Try to be honest enough for once to concede the obvious.
Mikeb, there's a whole lot that you regard as obvious that simply isn't so. Do you notice how the Third Amendment isn't being violated? I'd call that a success. But that doesn't mean that the amendment is obsolete.
DeleteAnd Mikeb, why don't you try for once to see that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that the person is lying?
DeleteYou are lying when you claim I said something that Laci said.
Delete