Militia Companies... why organized?

[Robert Braun]

Alright, I admit it's a strange header for a discussion thread.

But two questions have been nagging me:

1. IF We agree that the 1792 Militia Act stated: 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...

THEN why are all these militia companies being organized in response to Governor Reynold's call? Shouldn't they ALREADY be organized, and ready to respond once called to duty by the governor? For example, why did the Sangamon County militia company have to elect Lincoln as its company commander? Wasn't it ALREADY organized, under the provisions of the Act? And... didn't we read elsewhere on this board that Illinois already had a regimental system for its militia (based on geography) at/by 1826? If everything is theoretically already in place... why aren't dozens of pre-organized companies flocking to the governor's call?

2. IF we agree that, according to the 1792 Militia Act ...and every person so enrolled and notified shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket and bayonet, fuzee or rifle, knapsack, blanket, canteen, two spare flints, a cartridge box, to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or fuzee, each cartridge to contain the proper amount of powder and ball, or pouch and powder horn, with twenty-four balls, suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder...

THEN why do the quartermaster records for the state of Illinois document the issuance of what I would term significant quantities of guns, accouterment, and so forth? If the enrolled militia members, which meant "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" is already supposed to have his OWN "musket or fuzee" and attendant accouterments, WHY did Illinois issue weapons and accouterment in the quantities it did?

Can any board participants provide some illumination on these questions?

[pshrake]

For the sake of conversation, I would foreward two theories, however, I will state, I have no evidence to support my assertions. So this is really just a gut feeling.

1. With the population of the region increasing yearly, some might say monthy, it is possible that a large number of men were eithor too new to the region, unaware of the states laws, or too hard to pin down, for local or state officials to place them on any muster roll.

2. The purchase of all the required equipment was probably a costly venture for any common miner or settler at that time. Given the temperment of the miners, and the general independant spirit of the day, I could easily imagine many potenital militia man simply refusing to purchase any equipment.

Are there any parallells with other states during the War of 1812 requarding this? Were the militia in that war largely supplied out of governement stores? If so, perhaps many potential militia men in Illinois, who would have only recently emigrated from other regions, may have expected to recieve supplies from the state.

Pete

[Rusty Ayers]

I think it was basic politics compounded by simple human nature. Governments like to pass laws without taking any special consideration of how expensive they may be to actually implement. The 1792 Militia Act was an unfunded government mandate to local communities and especially to individual households, who may or may not have been able to afford to pay the equivalent of 6 to 12 month's wages to buy a firearm and the assorted trappings.

Just like unfunded mandates today, some people obey the law to the letter, and others basically challenge the government to enforce it. Since government officials were few and far between on the frontier -- mostly postmasters and possibly a judge who would visit from time to time -- it would have been extremely difficult to enforce the militia law UNTIL the average citizen saw how it was in his self-interest to obey it... say when the Indians or Mormon militia started causing problems. Then everybody wanted to participate, and expected the government to provide them with weapons.

While that "Arming of America" book has been extensively criticized (and rightfully so) for its terrible lack of scholarship, I think the case can still be made that early America was not necessarily the nation of rifle-wielding, steely-eyed Natty Bumppos beloved by Hollywood. If a farmer had to choose between buying a gun or a plow, I suspect most farmers probably would buy the plow, and worry about getting a gun later.

[Greg Carter]

Rusty,

I think you bring up some good points. I seem to remember a passage in Jack Larkin's book mentioning that men grumbled about militia duty because it took them away from their duties at home, including farming and other chores.

I suspect this was very much the case on the Illinois frontier, and like you said... once there was a threat, everyone wanted a weapon, but until then, the militia was more of a burden than a privilege.

To top off the cake, the Illinois militia laws I have looked at from the time period are decidely lax when it comes to what everyone must have and enforcement of the rules. Passages along the lines of "each company shall be uniformed as the majority decides" frequent Illinois militia laws from the territorial beginning to the Mexican War. Undoubtedly this caused some problems as well.

On the topic of the number of people around who enforced the militia laws, I think you are correct in that there were not many who did. I haven't read many accounts of any competitive or organized militia activities pre-dating the Black Hawk War or the Fever River Expedition that revealed any serious desire by the Illinois militia commanders to enforce any rules pertaining to the militia.

I guess it is a question that excuses a trip to the State or Newberry Library for a day, huh?

GMC

[Robert Braun]

Finally!

I have long been puzzled by the terms "enrolled" vs "volunteer" militia. The answer appears to be thus:

"Enrolled"-- appears to reflect militia signed and mustered under an individual states' millitia law (apparently every state had such a law) as prived for under the Militia Act of 1796. Enrolled militia served as an extension of state government and at the will of state government. These are the fellows that attend the twice-yearly "militia musters." Such militias appear to be indifferently done in Illinois... which is why the state had to RAISE militia companies in 1827, 1831, and 1832;

Volunteer"--- volunteer militia reflects those privately raised and funded militia companies. Such companies MAY tender their service to the state or U. S., but are under the auspicies of neither. There was a dramatic rise in volunteer companies after the 1840s, and were spurred on by the "Ellsworth Zoave Cadets" as the Nation approached inevidable sectional conflict.

Find out more on the Militia FAQ page www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp#3.40

Regards, Bob.

[Greg Carter]

Committees of safety seem to have sprung up when danger threatened. For instance, in Knox County, a company for defense was organized in 1829, then it basically was forgotten about until 1832. By that time only 5 of the original men in the company remained in the county.

GMC

[Robert Braun]

The said:

Committees of safety seem to have sprung up when danger threatened. For instance, in Knox County, a company for defense was organized in 1829, then it basically was forgotten about until 1832. By that time only 5 of the original men in the company remained in the county.

GMC

Indeed--- there is written evidence of a "Committee of Safety" formed at Galena during the Red Bird Rising of 1829!

Bob.

[RangerBanks]

I have a question about the Blackhawk War Militias. I am a Illinois Territorial reenactor. Our regiment disbanded because of delinquent payment from the government. Was this a problem after statehood? Could this have been why militia had to reform?

Hello and welcome to the Black Hawk War discussion board! We're glad you're here.

Please sign all posts with your full real name. It is one of our Board's few rules.

You can either type your full real name after each post, or add your name to the "Signature" feature in your "Profile" and your name will automatically appear after each post. If you need help with this, just let me know.

Again... welcome!

Bob Braun
Moderator.

[Robert Braun]

Hello...

First off... I'm not sure what time-period you are doing, so its difficult for me to understand your context.

Regarding Illinois' militia set-up and payments, I would venture to say that Illinois at best loosly adhered to the Militia Act. As such, I suspect that Illinois had few if any enrolled or volunteer militia companies. Illinois appeared to have the militia apparatus (meaning state-level militia positions, a significant stockpile of muskets, bayonets, cartridge boxes, etc., etc.)) at least partially in place, but the clear indication was that the militia was to be called up by the governor when needed, and then disbanded when the task at hand was completed.

This is exactly what happened in both the Red Bird Rising of 1827 and the Black Hawk War of 1832.

Since the Illinois and Michigan Territory militia companies were tendered to and accepted into Federal service, pay, etc. came from the Federal Government, and not the state or territory. I believe that payment was forthcoming only for days of actual enrolled service. Long after the war, there was an allegation of grumbling over the lack of pay in one of General Dodge's companies-- a premise that was soundly thwarted by one of the actual veterans. You can read this veteran's remaks by clicking this link www.geocities.com/old_lead/gdodge.htm

I hope this in some way answered your question.

Cordially,

Bob Braun.

[josef]

Well Bob lets see if I can shed some light on this subject. You asked why were the militia companies being organized. Remember that Gov Reynolds sent out a call for volunteers to fight BH. The volunteers were from the different counties of the state. The county militia's were based on the old county militia's dating back to the middleages in England. Each county had an organized militia that required every one to serve in. Gov Reynold knew he didn't need the entire milita so he asked for volunteers. Each of these volunteer companies had to elect new officers since the entire county was not going to be called up.
On your next question I dont really have an answer I have discovered the same problem dating back prior to the american revolution. Here are some thoughts on it. Even though the law requires you to have a weapon with equipment it must not have been enforced as much as we think it was. The state of Virginia had arsernals in each county during the 1770's but in Illinois during this period the arsenal seemed to be in the capital. I would asume further that there would be some type of arsenal in the largest town in each county.
Thanks
Joe Kleffman
I am a little behind in the post

[RangerBanks]

Robert, I am a War of 1812 reenactor. Our unit was created by and act of Congress in 1811 to deal with indan attacks and English encroachment in the Territory. Ten companies of mounted rangers were dispatched under the command of Col. William Russell. Six of the companies were garrisoned, the rest became roaving bands, patrolling the territory. Our research concluded that the companies lasted about three years, disbanding because they had yet to be paid for their services rendered or the equpment & horses they provided.

Companies of militia reformed for later attacks leading to your era of experise.

[Robert Braun]

RangerBanks said:

Robert, I am a War of 1812 reenactor. Our unit was created by and act of Congress in 1811 to deal with indan attacks and English encroachment in the Territory. Ten companies of mounted rangers were dispatched under the command of Col. William Russell. Six of the companies were garrisoned, the rest became roaving bands, patrolling the territory. Our research concluded that the companies lasted about three years, disbanding because they had yet to be paid for their services rendered or the equpment & horses they provided.

Companies of militia reformed for later attacks leading to your era of experise.

Thanks for the clarification. I have never heard of these formations, nor of the federal act that you indicated authorized their formation. Based on what you have stated, if this "ranger" unit was formed by an act of Congress, that made the unit a Federal or "United States" regiment, and not, strictly speaking a "militia" unit. Hence if there were greviances regarding pay, etc., such concerns were no doubt leveed at the federal government and not the Illinois territorial government, yes?

Was this 1811 act similar to the one that authorized the U. S. mounted Ranger battalion in 1832-3? While Henry Dodge raised several of his Ranger companies from local militias, and the men were clothed and armed mostly from their own resources, pay and governance came at the federal/U. S. Army level.

Apparently, there is evidence (i. e. muster rolls) that there were, indeed, territorial militia regiments and companies raised within Illinois during Mr. Madison's War. From what you have stated, the group you represent was an extra-territorial unit-- or raised outside Illinois.

I am not sure the "reforms" of which you speak were directly applicable to the "militia" per se.

Finally, I need to again request that you sign each post with your full, real name. You can do this by either physically typing your full, real name after each post, OR setting up a "Signature" block found in under your "Profile." Please contact me for help, if needed.

Cordially,

Bob Braun
Moderator.

[Robert Braun]

josef said:

Well Bob lets see if I can shed some light on this subject. You asked why were the militia companies being organized. Remember that Gov Reynolds sent out a call for volunteers to fight BH. The volunteers were from the different counties of the state. The county militia's were based on the old county militia's dating back to the middleages in England. Each county had an organized militia that required every one to serve in. Gov Reynold knew he didn't need the entire milita so he asked for volunteers. Each of these volunteer companies had to elect new officers since the entire county was not going to be called up.
On your next question I dont really have an answer I have discovered the same problem dating back prior to the american revolution. Here are some thoughts on it. Even though the law requires you to have a weapon with equipment it must not have been enforced as much as we think it was. The state of Virginia had arsernals in each county during the 1770's but in Illinois during this period the arsenal seemed to be in the capital. I would asume further that there would be some type of arsenal in the largest town in each county.
Thanks
Joe Kleffman
I am a little behind in the post

Joe... if there were already existing militia companies, why did the governor need to call for volunteers? Such a call would seem to place the manpower that MIGHT respond out of control of the state government. How would they ever be able to predict the numbers that would have/could have responded?

Rather, they could have easily activated CERTAIN regiments, and therefore been assured a specific number of troops, known with reasonable certainty.

Thanks... Bob.

[RangerBanks]

Bob,

Sorry about the signature, my eyes simply overlooked it in the previous message.

Briefly, our reenacting regiment was founded in 1984 by Harley Bonham. Harley is a retired ISP officer. He discovered the Rangers trough his historical research and wanted to find out more. He soon realized that it was a story that had never been told. Began a research project that ended up as a manuscript for a book. He shopped it around to several publishers, who did not want to publish it. They felt the language was a little too strong in regards to the indians. Specifically original documentation using the word "savages" and stories of the brutality of indian tribes in Illinois. The manuscript remains to this day unpublished.

My own research is in it's infancy. I am a high school social studies teacher and school work often takes the place of the research I would like to continue. I did find a law granting territories the ability to form miltias in the Illinois territory. I will revisit it and get back with you.

According to other members in our group, it is believe that we started as a "federal" regiment. By the time they got to the Illinois Territory, discipline had become somewhat lacks. Many had traded cloth pants for buckskin, because of brambles and underbrush. An observer wrote that they were ranther rag-tag but that they "all had cocked hats made of wolf hair." Once here, they took on volunteers. I know that several of the companies were garrisoned. Fort Russell near Edwardsville is named after William Russell who I mentioned before.

Recent information I have come across is linking the Rangers with the later Black Hawk War. See this article on Maj. William McHenry, namesake of McHenry County.
www.iltrails.org/mchenry/majormchenry.htm

I think our two eras are intertwined more than we know. I might speculate that most of this militia "reforming" is due to several issues:
1. Ranger units disbanding, based upon the payment promises. Especially in the the cases of volunteers.
2. Increased indian activity. Which is provided for in the above stated federal law.
3. Possible restructuring between territorial control & state control.

Historically speaking, 1811-1832 is a very short period of time. Many of the officers in the BHW probably got their start in many of the ranger & militia units leading up to 1818 & 1832. It warrents closer analysis, which I intend to do.

Do you think this discussion should fall under a new discussion topic? I do not wish to discuss issues under "Militia Companies....why organized?" if it should be located under... "Militiary units prior to BHW in Illinois" or the like.

Cordially,

Shawn Banks

[RangerBanks]

Bob,

I have revisited my notes and Bonham's manuscript and realized I needed to clarify a couple of things.

The rangers were an idea of President Madison. Ninian Edwards had sent several dispatches to Madison and the Sec. of War, Wm. Eustis about the numerous indian attacks happening throughout southern Illinois territory. Edwards stated in one dispatch "No troops of any kind have yet to arrive in this territory, and I think you may count on hearing of a bloody stroke on us soon. I have been extremely reluctant to send my family away but, unless I hear shortly of more assistance than a few rangers, I shall bury my papers in the ground, send my family off, and stand my ground..." Aug 4, 1812. Madison had created the earlier mentioned 10 companies of rangers, i.e. mounted riflemen. The rangers would be like special forces, operating and patroling independenly of other federal troops. "The men would furnish their own equipment, horses, food and clothing. They would not be dependent on military stores in any way. The pay would be one dollar a day and the men would scout the frontier in Illinois and Indiana until the indian trouble came to a close." (Bonham, 411) They were to be commanded by Col. Wm. Russell of the 7th Regiment out of Kentucky. Russell to a fairly long time to orgianize and move into the territory.

In their first engagements, they took the indians by suprise, as they were not dressed as regulars, and they acted without commands. Each ranger had specific duties that were coordinated in advance as to not take the time during the battle. Their attack was swift and seemingly, to the indians, disorganized. The tribes became confused and were repelled on several occasions.

This type of troop movement was effective however, it was not very reasonable in an accounting sense. You have guys roaming about the frontier, getting paid a dollar a day. They didn't have time clocks or a place to go that was keeping track of all their pay. So, the rangers began to realize that this was not working in their favor and many of the units collapsed.

I hope this clarifies the whole were they federals/ were they militia...the answer to both is yes!

Shawn Banks