Militia question

[JackADriscoll]

This is a silly question but I've been curious: so when I think of the militia system I think of it as their example of the modern military reserves. I know they did some infantry type training but did they ever train to logistics supply etc? Or combat arms only? My guess would be the latter

 

[major bill]

Pre Ckvil War militia varied from state to state. Some mitias were horrid. Most did. little trying other than marching. Some units practiced marksmanship, other never fired their muskets.

As far as I know, no state had any logistic type units. At state encampment the food was catered. Most militia units did not own canteens as they hired people to supply drinks.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Pre Ckvil War militia varied from state to state. Some mitias were horrid. Most did. little trying other than marching. Some units practiced marksmanship, other never fired their muskets.

As far as I know, no state had any logistic type units. At state encampment the food was catered. Most militia units did not own canteens as they hired people to supply drinks.

That makes a lot of sense. Social club. Thank you

 

[BillO]

This is a silly question but I've been curious: so when I think of the militia system I think of it as their example of the modern military reserves. I know they did some infantry type training but did they ever train to logistics supply etc? Or combat arms only? My guess would be the latter

Not silly at all. First, are you talking in a broad overview of Militias throughout our history nationally or are you interested primarily in a specific time or locale? Sorry to be answering a question with another question but the answers are so variable as to make it hard to answer.
I'm a Virginian and in our past it was very different depending on which decade and locale you are talking about. About the only real constant was the fact that they were primarily thought of as local defense forces and not normally to be used in anything like an extended campaign far from local sources.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Not silly at all. First, are you talking in a broad overview of Militias throughout our history nationally or are you interested primarily in a specific time or locale? Sorry to be answering a question with another question but the answers are so variable as to make it hard to answer.
I'm a Virginian and in our past it was very different depending on which decade and locale you are talking about. About the only real constant was the fact that they were primarily thought of as local defense forces and not normally to be used in anything like an extended campaign far from local sources.

Pre civil war

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

It really depends on the place and time. In North Carolina, all males, say between 18 and 45 (although the ages change at times) were required to serve in the state militia. It was the law. Each county was divided up into militia districts. Each district was under a captain, and the county militia companies composed a regiment. Often times, the captain of each district was the local justice of the peace/magistrate. It was these men who composed the justices that made up the court of pleas and quarter sessions which was more or less, the modern county commissioners. Each regiment had a quartermaster and commissary on the staff. And, each state level brigadier general also had quartermasters and commissaries on their staffs. How well the regimental and brigade level staff performed is a great question.

In North Carolina, at least in the 1850s, men were responsible for supplying their own weapons and gear. No "water bearers" here. That might have happened in private militias. There were a couple of private militias formed after John Brown's Raid. The militia system in North Carolina dates back pre-Revolution.

 

[RedRover]

This is a silly question but I've been curious: so when I think of the militia system I think of it as their example of the modern military reserves. I know they did some infantry type training but did they ever train to logistics supply etc? Or combat arms only? My guess would be the latter

The Militia is not an army (the Constitution, for example, distinguishes between it and "troops"). The principal quartermaster's for it were the men's wives and mothers if necessary, etc. John Taylor of Caroline, one of Thomas Jefferson's favorites, observed that it was the military force of the People of the United States... available to the State and General Governments as necessary for certain purposes.

The Governors are commanders-in-chief of the Militia of their States, and the President is their Commander-in-Chief upon calling them forth for the purposes of enforcing the laws of the Union, resisting insurrection, or repelling invasions; besides which they might be employed for the purposes of war. The Constitution gives to the President the power to call forth the Militia into actual service. And for Congress to provide for the organization, arms, discipline, and for the modes of governing them when in the service of the United States, etc. (for which the laws in force pre-1860 generally allowed them the same pay, rations, etc. as troops).

As a manpower reserve, it might be noted during the Revolution, Besides employing large numbers of militia in Militia units in short periods of active service; when voluntary enlistments in the Continental army cratered after 1776-77, the Continental Congress and the States employed militia drafts as "levies" to fill the Continental Army regiments... the drafted men ordered by their Governors (commanders-in-chief) to serve in the ranks of the Army and abide its officers for several months at a time. They not being enlisted men, they were not due the army pay, clothing, etc. that enlisted men were. Consequently, many Continental army units, at any given time, had half or more of their rank-and-file provided by militia levies. Sometimes whole Army units were composed of such levies, except for the officers, as was the case with the North Carolina brigade at Eutaw Springs, etc. etc. Given material shortages in the Army the levied men were paid commutations for providing their own musket or firelock when presented into the army, etc.

...

Some comments by some early Presidents regarding supporting the militia as a potential force of national defense...

The US Militia Acts of the 1790s directed the Militia generally to discipline by Steuben's regulations for the infantry of the United States at their musters. It was generally intended that every five company battalion of Militia would form a "light" company; preferably of the most active and suitable fellows for that purpose. From May, 1820 the US law required them to discipline by the same modes employed by the Army. The overwhelming number of common or "regular" militia units from the 1790s to 1850s, or "beat" units comprised of men (all aged 18 to 45 by most of the laws) in a given territorial bound or beat, were disciplined as "infantry."

The Volunteer militia companies etc. were generally "light infantry," rifle, cavalry or artillery companies. It was popular for these volunteer militia to wear particular uniforms, and otherwise copy some of the appearance and modes of troops, at the men's own expense, as by most State laws this was the cost of associating with such versus being enrolled in one's common beat company, where uniforms were unknown beyond the officers (maybe) and esprit de corps was meaningless as it was simply a legal obligement.

There was no pay for common militia duty/musters, etc. Only for active service to their State or the United States per the laws in effect.


There was complaint in the 1830s-40s that Scott's Army tactics were rather too prolix and complex for country militia to easily master in only a few musters. There were consequently produced various "abstracts" of basics published. Hardee's rifle and light infantry tactics of the late 1850s was considered unsuitable for regular militia, which comprised men 18-45 irrespective of their health or strength; and who might not be able to drill "at the double-quick" time, etc. But some volunteer militia corps, like Elmer Ellsworth's Chicago Zouaves, selecting only physically fit men, mastered it, and their drills were considered a popular gymnastic exhibition...

By the 1860s in a larger number of the States, the "regular" militia was rather moribund or even disorganized in spite of the laws on the books; with the "volunteer" militia instead further organized, etc. in a manner like troops, and their foremost already familiar with Hardee's tactics. Many of these volunteer militia corps, irrespective of their discipline, were mustered into Army service as volunteer "troops" in the Armies in 1861-62. The fact they already had uniforms and military equipment was handy...

When the US administration (and the CS administration during the war's first year) sent quotas for volunteer troops to the States, where the number of volunteers from a given district were wanting (each company and regiment entering Govt. service had to meet the minimum strength), a militia draft would be held; and the drafted men ordered by their Governors (their commander-in-chief) to enlist in the volunteer unit...and from there to be mustered into US or CS service with it. There was a MASSIVE attempt in the 1860s to do everything possible to forestall militia drafts to meet troop quotas... namely in the form of local/State/federal bounties, etc.

From Vermont, April, 1861...

Considering the general disorganization of the regular militia before the war, during it, even when Militia was called forth by the Governors for State active service, it was frequently by volunteers first, forming new companies at full strength for the purpose. From Missouri in August, 1861...

Or where the militia organization was imperfect, without time to perfect/organize it in the manner of the laws in force; a State's militiamen might be employed among "citizen volunteers" or "home guards" like the army of 20,000 "squirrel hunters" called forth by the Governor of Ohio for local defense during the Confederate invasion of Kentucky in late 1862...

The Union Army also included many militia units serving as such in US service, besides the regular and volunteer troops. For example the 75,000 Militia called forth by the President in April, 1861 after Fort Sumter (soon joined by the call for Volunteer troops). The Militia draft of 300,000 Militia for nine-months in August, 1862; some of which units were engaged in combat at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Port Hudson. During the Gettysburg Campaign, the US formed a principally militia army in the Department of the Susquehanna for the defense of Harrisburg. Gen. W.F. Smith commanded a division of militia in the pursuit of Lee's army to the Potomac after Gettysburg.

Further militia calls in 1864, etc. including a large force for 100 days US service, etc. to replace rear area troops to move to the front with General Sherman's armies in the west.

Further, with enlistments for volunteer army service declining, and with a certain amount of resistance within the Northern States to the militia calls of the President and Governors (only some 90,000 of the 300,000 called forth by the President in August, 1862 actually rendezvoused and mustered into US service) the US laws established in 1863 the "national draft" to aid the States in enrolling their militia, and for potential drafts of men to meet US quotas for volunteer troops and encourage voluntary enlistments. Before the close of the war, the national draft law and the State and local boards had produced the following troops...(or commutation payments in lieu of active service)...

At the close of the fighting in mid-1865 the national draft act had aided the States etc. materially, as 2.5 million men enrolled for State/federal drafts available for calling forth to combat State or local disorders/riots, and finish off the Confederacy (or its potential allies) if necessary...

Jumping ahead several decades, after 1903 the old regular militia laws were replaced by the modern Dick Act, dividing the militia between the "organized" and "unorganized." The principal part of the "organized" militia comprising the "National Guards" of the States, who are organized etc. similarly to US troops generally. Since 1933, the National Guardsmen are dually enlisted in both the organized militia of their States (like the "Florida Army National Guard" etc.) and the Army as part of the Army Reserve component called the "National Guard of the United States"...

Consequently the modern NG's might be employed by their Governors or the President as Militia, or by the President as US Troops upon activation as Army reservists, etc.

 

[Mississippian1861]

In general there were two types of pre-war militia, so "Beat" or "Common" militia which was made up of all males of military age, they were supposed to equip themselves and drill regularly but this almost never happened. If a drill did happen, it was usually a few minutes of the manual of arms then the rest of the time drinking, eating, and politicking. Then you have the "Volunteer" militia companies, usually made up of more military minded members of the community. These units held regular drills and parades, were often uniformed and properly armed and equipped. These were more common in urban and wealthier areas and often were like a social club. My 4x Great Grandfather John (Kwiatkowski) Rosemond was a Polish refugee who ended up in the Raleigh NC area in the 1840's. As a veteran of the 1831 November Uprising against Russia and a graduate of the Polish Military academy he was active in several pre-war volunteer militia units, including the "Oak City Guards" which became Co. E of the 14th North Carolina Infantry. He owned a tavern on the road between Raleigh and Chapel Hill and often hosted the Oak City Guards on his property for drills and social events.

 

[JackADriscoll]

Great information. Thanks y'all!

 

[Trooper "D"]

This is a silly question but I've been curious: so when I think of the militia system I think of it as their example of the modern military reserves. I know they did some infantry type training but did they ever train to logistics supply etc? Or combat arms only? My guess would be the latter

John Hunt Morgan was in the militia. There are photos of them at their annual camp out at the fairgrounds. I forget their name. Lots of fried chicken and beer I bet. And whiskey of course being Kentucky. Tents erected so they were comfortable even if it rained a bit. I think I remember stacked rifles in the photos. They must have kept up with some training besides the annual calling out of the militia. I think they had elections as well as training and chicken.
Cheers!

 

[major bill]

Ron Field put out a book describing the militia of each state at the start of the Civil War. If anyone is interested in the militia of a particular state, I will sumerize what Field wrote about tthat state's militia.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

To add another dimension to it. At first glance there seemed to be little difference between 'home guard' and 'militia' units.

Thought Rusk County Avengers provided an explanation of the distinction way back on Jul. 21, '22. (See below)

A State Militia serves the State, back then could go as is or be mustered into regular service as Volunteers in some States, and even rarely in the CW be sent on campaign with the army. They were armed and equipped by the State though not uniformed most of the time and in theory, but rarely in practice, were supposed to be as drilled and disciplined as Regulars, but again in practice that was a "nope" for many, many reasons.

Home Guard were basically militia, but they were to be raised for the defense of a town or county and recognized as a legitimate force by State Governments. They had to provide their own arms and accoutrements, uniform if they decided to wear one, horses, etc. They were made up of nonmilitary age men, or just men who couldn't serve. They served in one area enforcing the law and were supposed to defend it, but they tended to disband when Federal troops came a knocking, though some would attempt to fight, sometimes give a good account of themselves, other times the same problem as with State Militias would rear its head. If there was a POW Camp in their town/county it was also common for them to be pressed into service as guards.

At a glance, no difference, but in depth a lot of differences.

 

[leftyhunter]

This is a silly question but I've been curious: so when I think of the militia system I think of it as their example of the modern military reserves. I know they did some infantry type training but did they ever train to logistics supply etc? Or combat arms only? My guess would be the latter

During the ACW both sides had various milita or home guard units for counterinsurgency. In rural areas on both sides there were various guerrilla and or free lance bandit gangs often composed of deserters sometimes there would be Union and Confederate deserters in the same gang. The militas had little to no training. Sometimes they accompanied regular troops to hunt down guerrillas or deserters. If milita forces captured a suspected guerrilla or deserter they had full discretion on how they wanted to deal with said individual.
In all counterinsurgency conflicts there is no choice but to supplement regular soldiers with milita and the ACW was an exception to the rule.
Leftyhunter

 

[RedRover]

At first glance there seemed to be little difference between 'home guard' and 'militia' units.

No external difference generally perhaps. The "Home guards" generally being units formed among the men of a community (including those subject to the State/federal Militia laws) exterior to the regular or volunteer militia organization of their State, etc. For example the home guard companies could vary widely in numbers and organization; elect officers without concern of appointment/commission by the State, etc.

Such "Home Guards" like those in Illinois in the 1860s could handily supplement the regularly organized militia corps...

Here's a sketch of a West Virginia Home Guards picket post...

Militia corps in the service of a State, and Home Guard corps external to any State or federal organization, could render actual military service for the United States, but were considered "irregular" for the purposes of pay, bounties, etc.

And since Home guard corps were generally external to even State laws, the States generally would employ them when necessary (since the regular militia organization was generally lacking in most States by 1860), but without legal provision to muster them in as units, for pay, etc.

The number of Militia and Home Guards unit personnel who rendered actual service to the United States, under command of or at the behest of US Army officers, though never in the US military Service, was understood to be in excess of 270,000.

Thus Militiamen might render service organized in an "irregular" manner, like home guard company... or, all the way up to organized and equipped just like "troops" of the army, like the "Illinois State Troops" of the Illinois Militia in the later decades...

 

[Nathan Stuart]

No external difference generally perhaps. The "Home guards" generally being units formed among the men of a community (including those subject to the State/federal Militia laws) exterior to the regular or volunteer militia organization of their State, etc. For example the home guard companies could vary widely in numbers and organization; elect officers without concern of appointment/commission by the State, etc.

Thanks for the further elaboration on this distinction.

 

[major bill]

I picked Georgia for an example of what Field said. Georgia's militia system was basically broken in the years leading to the Civil War. The enrolled militia, of which every white male was in the enrolled militia, was not apparently enforced. There were many volunteer militia companies that were often more like social clubs. The state did not even have an adjutant general until December of 1860. In June 1861 Governor Brown raised a reinforced brigade for the state's defense.

I take it that Georgia did not exercise control over the volunteer militia companies, so Governor Brown probable used the volunteer companies as a basis for forming a brigade.

 

[CaptSpook]

The Militia is not an army (the Constitution, for example, distinguishes between it and "troops"). The principal quartermaster's for it were the men's wives and mothers if necessary, etc. John Taylor of Caroline, one of Thomas Jefferson's favorites, observed that it was the military force of the People of the United States... available to the State and General Governments as necessary for certain purposes.

View attachment 551122

The Governors are commanders-in-chief of the Militia of their States, and the President is their Commander-in-Chief upon calling them forth for the purposes of enforcing the laws of the Union, resisting insurrection, or repelling invasions; besides which they might be employed for the purposes of war. The Constitution gives to the President the power to call forth the Militia into actual service. And for Congress to provide for the organization, arms, discipline, and for the modes of governing them when in the service of the United States, etc. (for which the laws in force pre-1860 generally allowed them the same pay, rations, etc. as troops).

As a manpower reserve, it might be noted during the Revolution, Besides employing large numbers of militia in Militia units in short periods of active service; when voluntary enlistments in the Continental army cratered after 1776-77, the Continental Congress and the States employed militia drafts as "levies" to fill the Continental Army regiments... the drafted men ordered by their Governors (commanders-in-chief) to serve in the ranks of the Army and abide its officers for several months at a time. They not being enlisted men, they were not due the army pay, clothing, etc. that enlisted men were. Consequently, many Continental army units, at any given time, had half or more of their rank-and-file provided by militia levies. Sometimes whole Army units were composed of such levies, except for the officers, as was the case with the North Carolina brigade at Eutaw Springs, etc. etc. Given material shortages in the Army the levied men were paid commutations for providing their own musket or firelock when presented into the army, etc.

View attachment 551130
...
View attachment 551133

Some comments by some early Presidents regarding supporting the militia as a potential force of national defense...

View attachment 551153
View attachment 551154



The US Militia Acts of the 1790s directed the Militia generally to discipline by Steuben's regulations for the infantry of the United States at their musters. It was generally intended that every five company battalion of Militia would form a "light" company; preferably of the most active and suitable fellows for that purpose. From May, 1820 the US law required them to discipline by the same modes employed by the Army. The overwhelming number of common or "regular" militia units from the 1790s to 1850s, or "beat" units comprised of men (all aged 18 to 45 by most of the laws) in a given territorial bound or beat, were disciplined as "infantry."

View attachment 551125View attachment 551126

The Volunteer militia companies etc. were generally "light infantry," rifle, cavalry or artillery companies. It was popular for these volunteer militia to wear particular uniforms, and otherwise copy some of the appearance and modes of troops, at the men's own expense, as by most State laws this was the cost of associating with such versus being enrolled in one's common beat company, where uniforms were unknown beyond the officers (maybe) and esprit de corps was meaningless as it was simply a legal obligement.

View attachment 551127

There was no pay for common militia duty/musters, etc. Only for active service to their State or the United States per the laws in effect.


There was complaint in the 1830s-40s that Scott's Army tactics were rather too prolix and complex for country militia to easily master in only a few musters. There were consequently produced various "abstracts" of basics published. Hardee's rifle and light infantry tactics of the late 1850s was considered unsuitable for regular militia, which comprised men 18-45 irrespective of their health or strength; and who might not be able to drill "at the double-quick" time, etc. But some volunteer militia corps, like Elmer Ellsworth's Chicago Zouaves, selecting only physically fit men, mastered it, and their drills were considered a popular gymnastic exhibition...

View attachment 551124


By the 1860s in a larger number of the States, the "regular" militia was rather moribund or even disorganized in spite of the laws on the books; with the "volunteer" militia instead further organized, etc. in a manner like troops, and their foremost already familiar with Hardee's tactics. Many of these volunteer militia corps, irrespective of their discipline, were mustered into Army service as volunteer "troops" in the Armies in 1861-62. The fact they already had uniforms and military equipment was handy...

When the US administration (and the CS administration during the war's first year) sent quotas for volunteer troops to the States, where the number of volunteers from a given district were wanting (each company and regiment entering Govt. service had to meet the minimum strength), a militia draft would be held; and the drafted men ordered by their Governors (their commander-in-chief) to enlist in the volunteer unit...and from there to be mustered into US or CS service with it. There was a MASSIVE attempt in the 1860s to do everything possible to forestall militia drafts to meet troop quotas... namely in the form of local/State/federal bounties, etc.

From Vermont, April, 1861...

View attachment 551150

Considering the general disorganization of the regular militia before the war, during it, even when Militia was called forth by the Governors for State active service, it was frequently by volunteers first, forming new companies at full strength for the purpose. From Missouri in August, 1861...

View attachment 551149

Or where the militia organization was imperfect, without time to perfect/organize it in the manner of the laws in force; a State's militiamen might be employed among "citizen volunteers" or "home guards" like the army of 20,000 "squirrel hunters" called forth by the Governor of Ohio for local defense during the Confederate invasion of Kentucky in late 1862...

View attachment 551151
View attachment 551152

The Union Army also included many militia units serving as such in US service, besides the regular and volunteer troops. For example the 75,000 Militia called forth by the President in April, 1861 after Fort Sumter (soon joined by the call for Volunteer troops). The Militia draft of 300,000 Militia for nine-months in August, 1862; some of which units were engaged in combat at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Port Hudson. During the Gettysburg Campaign, the US formed a principally militia army in the Department of the Susquehanna for the defense of Harrisburg. Gen. W.F. Smith commanded a division of militia in the pursuit of Lee's army to the Potomac after Gettysburg.

Further militia calls in 1864, etc. including a large force for 100 days US service, etc. to replace rear area troops to move to the front with General Sherman's armies in the west.

View attachment 551141

Further, with enlistments for volunteer army service declining, and with a certain amount of resistance within the Northern States to the militia calls of the President and Governors (only some 90,000 of the 300,000 called forth by the President in August, 1862 actually rendezvoused and mustered into US service) the US laws established in 1863 the "national draft" to aid the States in enrolling their militia, and for potential drafts of men to meet US quotas for volunteer troops and encourage voluntary enlistments. Before the close of the war, the national draft law and the State and local boards had produced the following troops...(or commutation payments in lieu of active service)...

View attachment 551144

At the close of the fighting in mid-1865 the national draft act had aided the States etc. materially, as 2.5 million men enrolled for State/federal drafts available for calling forth to combat State or local disorders/riots, and finish off the Confederacy (or its potential allies) if necessary...

View attachment 551146




Jumping ahead several decades, after 1903 the old regular militia laws were replaced by the modern Dick Act, dividing the militia between the "organized" and "unorganized." The principal part of the "organized" militia comprising the "National Guards" of the States, who are organized etc. similarly to US troops generally. Since 1933, the National Guardsmen are dually enlisted in both the organized militia of their States (like the "Florida Army National Guard" etc.) and the Army as part of the Army Reserve component called the "National Guard of the United States"...

View attachment 551148

Consequently the modern NG's might be employed by their Governors or the President as Militia, or by the President as US Troops upon activation as Army reservists, etc.

A very complete and comprehensive explanation of militia.

For myself, I simply like to think of militia as citizen soldiers, commoners who take up arms in times of emergency to defend their community, state, or country. Not very well trained or disciplined but effective when called quickly to fight.

The more organized militias in the CW became "volunteers" with more and better training and outfitting. Their effectiveness varied greatly, as previously noted.