From Antietam to Fredericksburg

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members,

My understanding about militia, they are under the control of their state/commonwealth's government and it's designated commander. I further understand that the militia was limited in their scope, powers and focus--as there was an existing army, so the militia was only focused and empowered only in their respective state or commonwealth.

The Washington (DC) Militia that my father belonged to prior to World War II, was in a sense, no different from the "National Guard" of today. These militias really didn't have the 'power' behind it when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor; however; the call to arms--the militia was absorbed into the regular military or military 'reserves.' Not much different from the Civil War's mustering civilians to create the numbers. Those too old or too young remained in the militia or, were Civil Patrols and Block Wardens.

In reading the Revised Regulations of the Army of the United States, circa 1861; in spotty areas; pg 495- Article LIL-#1636--It states: Whenever volunteers and drafted militias are called into service of the United States, by any officer authorized to make such call, the requisition must be made on the Governor of the State or Territory in which the militia are to be raised, and the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates will be stated in the requisition, according to the organization prescribed by the law of the United States.
1637. Before militia are recieved in the service of the United States, they shall be mustered by an Inspector-General, or some other officer of the regular army, specifically designated to muster them.
1638 - covers medical examinations, etc.
1639 - It shall be the duty of the officer designated to muster and inspect militia, to forward muster-rolls of each company, and of the field and staff of each regiment, direct to the Adjutant-General of the Army, Washington; and he will also immeddiately forward a consolidated return by regiments and corps, of the forces received into service, for the in formation of the War Department. (might mean 'information')
1640-Mustering in - Reference will be made to the particular act or acts of Congress under which the militia are called into service. If there be no such act, then to the act May 8, 1792, ammended by the acts April 18, 1814 and April 20, 1816. Mustering officers will not muster into service a greater number of officers, or of higher rank, than the law prescribes. No officers of the general staff will be mustered or recieved into service, except such general officers, with their aides-de-camp, as they may be required to complete the organization of, brigades or divisions.

There are several more paragraphs concerning 'militias'--but; I thought I would share the "regulations" of revised 1861 US Army which would be more spot on on dealing how militias and volunteers would enter service. To resign or be mustered out is same as entering; paperwork reflecting to the Department of War and the Governor of the person's state, commonwealth and or territory.

For me the language --'requisition' is key to it's use. These militia musterings were for certain amount of time- 3 months. Then, these militia folks would have to be remustered. (I'm sure in 1861, they had no idea the war would last four years).

In peeking into the 1863 "Laws of War," - Articles of War; General Orders #100; Army Regulations issued by the US War Department; there is no change to the content about militias in a major way. Only the word 'requisition' is replaced by 'drafted.'

In looking at: The 1865 Customs of Service for Officers of the Army; A Handbook of the Duties of Each Grade - Lieutenant to Lieut.-General; the duties for "Mustering" is consistant with the 1861 and 1863 regulations. (Paperwork! Paperwork! Paperwork!)-- One reason perhaps, with the typewriter was invented. [Grins]

However, I must wonder if the 1800's; after the Revolutionary War and Independence from Britian; the Continental Army was disbursed back into a 'militia like state;' only to be raised once again into a 'regular Army.' I am thinking of the Government's lack of revenue to raise and keep a 'military.' One-forth into the 1800's - 1816 perhaps; when they realized that a regular Army would be necessary--e.g. Mexican War, Seminole Wars; when General Winfield Scott was in his prime--it seemed 'organized' in the 1840's.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf