Talk:Minutemen/Archive 1

An Englishman's home is his castle
One Massachusetts man used the phrase "An Englishman's home is his castle" when he explained to his friends why he had barricaded himself behind his front door to fight the British Army as it passed by during the final phase of the Battle of Lexington and Concord.


 * I think this can be explained / expressed better. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should be merged with the United States National Guard, as the militias are now called the National Guard.
This should be merged with the United States National Guard, as the militias are now called the National guard.

The technical and original name of the U.S. National Guard is name is Militant they were only renamed first by the States individual one by one, after the US Civil War.

Finalized with an act in the early 20th century which established that all the State Militia will now be referred to now on as “National Guard”, in addition to provided additional funding, organization and regulation as allowed under the US Constitution under: Article. I: Section. 8: part 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

This goes back deep in to United States history, in the formation of the united states, when the first congress objected to maintain a standing national army, and instead we were going to rely on the National Guard(militia’s) of the several states, to defend the union. This got blown to peaces come the war of 1812, as having no trained remaining officer core of and little to nothing more than national guard units the earlier United States nearly lost it self. From that, point on congress of the United States has maintained a trained officer core. And we no longer would rely on the militants (national guard) to defend the union entirely, although they would continue to play a major roll. Although 1812 played a vital roll in shaping and reinforcing US history, culture, and destiny as was done technical after the war was over in the recently admitted new State of Louisiana. Specifically in the New Orleans area, when a small American force of every day basic civilians form the city of New Orleans(many of them freed blacks), Indians(Native Americans of course), Pirates, and militant(National Guardsmen) from a few different States(then little better than civilians with there own guns). Signal handedly took the to Battlefield, under the leadership of Andre Jackson, with nothing more than there own guns, Patriotism, and Love of Freedom, standing side by side as Americans, and together held off and defeated he best trained military force in the whole world at that time. The same exact force that had just beaten Napoleon at Waterloo, were marching up that pensile, onto the city of New Orleans, to take control of that port.

As you might imagine the re-precustionarty effect across the Continent was reintegrating an reaffirming, of the basic values and pintables upon which America was founded and still carrier her today. It is doubtful that we would still exist had it not been for that battle, even thou the war was technical over an the British would not have been able as a result to hold on to that port. American right to exist as free people self Governing on the North American Continent, would not have been reconfirmed, an our loses in the war of 1812 and the near civil war that resulted from mass trying to sever from the union an join the British. Put that fact in doubt. We the people of American one and all right there in the new state, re-demonstrated right there in New Orleans, LA that we were willing fight for our freedom and self determination.

This is really in part what the Militants(the national guard) citizens shoulders, help personify after the American revolution, and we the Citizens not just our States defending our self’s. And that in it self is perhaps the most vital lesion of the American experiences, an what define what an who we are as Americans. For this reason I object to the militia not being included in with the there modern name the national guard.

As it is an affront to our America experience, our most basic values and the continuation of the basic nature of the democratic self demonstrated and identify American militant(National Guard). 
 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger proposal
I disagree with this proposal, and here's why:

1) According to the U.S. Code, the millitia is all male citizens between age 17 and 38. Fit and able to bear arms. It mentions nothing about soldiers or the National Guard. Those are U.S. troopers, members of the United States Army during wartime, and other the command of the local executive during peacetime.

2)When the second amendment refers to as a "well-regulated millitia" they refer to a Minutemen type organisation, opposing the enemy like Tirrellaurs or other irregulars. In other words, a Resistance or Marquis. The minutemen were not organized by thier respective colonies, but were rather local volunteers.

3) Even if their role has largely been inherited by the guard, the Minutemen deserve thier own entry as a historical entity, rather like merged/defunct British, Canadian or American regiments.

4) Remember the adage about 10 rednecks with m-1 garands. 10 of those fellows could hold down 100 soldiers in thier own terrain.

5) About New Orleans, to say that those were the regiments that won at Waterloo is only partially accurate. Sure, some of them were the same regiments that beat Napoleon. They were also led by an idiot, Pakenham whose grasp of strategy and tactics was certianly not Wellingtonian. Do I think Jackson could've beaten Wellington... probably not. Could he have beaten one of his major subordinates, we don't know, but probably so.

V. Joe 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Minuteman (militia) article is not about miltias in general but about the militias that fought in the American revolution. See the lead sentence in the article.  I say "nay" to the merger proposal. WikiParker 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the merger is not needed.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
This article should be moved to Minutemen. The disambiguation page there should be moved to Minutemen (disambiguation), with the standard {otheruses} at the top of this article. All the other articles listed there are derivative, with the objects in question named after these Minutemen as a historical allusion, whether its the missiles or the border vigilantes. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I think of the missile first, and I think a not inconsiderate number of people do as well. 132.205.93.86 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The missile is named after the Minutemen militias. Some people may think of the Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier first when they hear Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't change the fact that one is clearly named after the other. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiParker 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -  AjaxSmack   08:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. But I don't mind leaving it as is either. To complicate matters how about Minuteman (singular) and Minutemen (plural) being treated differently.  The singular goes to the missiles and the plural to the militia?  Both would have a link to the same disambig page (if this is possible).


 * Oppose - Because it is not clear-cut, it is better to leave as it is now. -- Beardo 06:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's not clearcut about it. The U.S. names its missiles after an apropo historical group. What's more the missle's name actually is LGM-30 Minuteman. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wording
Some of the wording in the section describing "New England confederation" comes across as rather blunt, especially the use of "stupid" and "stupidity." Perhaps these should be edited. 202.163.208.50 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The New England Confederation section is too long!
As I said.Figureground 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

to be what exactly by king george the third?
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.107.85 (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph removal
I removed this paragraph from the Pequot War section: "This necessitated a law beginning in 1630 that in certain places and at certain times, you should carry a firearm. Seven years later, in 1637, the law changed drastically to say that you were required to have firearms almost everywhere you went and at any gathering, or you would be fined for not doing so." 1630 predates this war, and "you" is bad writing. Rewritten and properly sourced it could be added back to the early history. CAVincent (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disjointed?
I like the new first section, but it's not well integrated with the previous article (now moved the second section); it's more like two articles now.

As a idea of integration, the titles of the two sections are wordy. If these were each broken down into separate sections, where to merge might become clearer.

Also, we're really missing a simple introduction. Normally, the definition of the article's title appears in the first phrase of the first sentence.

I'd start this myself, but I don't want to start another major change so soon after the last without giving others a chance to comment.

--A D Monroe III 15:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Everything you've said above is correct. Feel free to fix the article -- it needs it! --Kevin Myers 16:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I agree with you. Please go ahead. Flying Jazz 16:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. I tried to keep the changes to a minimum, so it might still seem a little choppy, but -- hey -- it's an article about irregulars. ;) --A D Monroe III 14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * One thing that strikes me as I read this article is that about half of it is about the colonial militia. I think the article would be a little more cohesive if it were strictly limited to the development and use of minuteman companies, and the rest could be left to another article, like Militia.
 * Mingusboodle (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article
This article is named "Minutemen", but it keeps deviating from that topic to talk about the Colonial Militia generally. Even though it makes it clear that the "Minutemen" made up only about a quarter of the Militia. For example, THERE WERE NO MINUTEMEN AT THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON, so this really should not be discussed (maybe just sentence like "contrary to popular belief . . .")--KEVP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.12.24.106 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is technically true that the Lexington militia in 1775 did not have a "minute company", the same cannot be said of those that gathered at Concord, where numerous of the surrounding towns had them. David Hackett Fischer in Paul Revere's Ride devotes an entire chapter to this subject (see p. 149ff), and also goes into other myths about New England minutemen, such as the widely believed (yet false) notion that the militia at Lexington and Concord had rifles. (The fact that the accuracy of rifles made an impression on the New England militias when they did show up indicates that they were unlikely to be used in the earlier engagements.)

That said, if there were minute companies in other provinces (for example, those in the mid-Atlantic that sent entire companies of riflemen to the Siege of Boston) carrying different types of arms, regional differences (like the weaponry typically used) ought to be documented.

This whole article needs work, and can probably serve as a vehicle for describing Colonial-era militias (training band vs. minute company vs. alarm list especially), as well as minute companies (since there's only a relatively minor difference between them, yet much misunderstanding about those differences). Maybe I'll tackle it (or at least parts of it).  Magic ♪piano 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many inaccuracies
Besides the fact that the writing of the essay wouldn't pass muster in a high school English composition class, (I gave up trying to edit it) it also contains some factual inaccuracies, too, and a great deal of bias. Too much cribbed from Galvin, too.

One that hit me was the statement that the Minute Men of Massachusetts used rifles in 1775. There is zero evidence for this. If there is any, I'd like to see it. The New England colonists were not rugged frontiersmen and deer/bear hunters in 1775, but rather yeoman farmers in a very ordered, civilized society. Eastern and central Massachusetts had not been the frontier since the 1650s. Big game hunting was long ago in the past. Most hunting done in the mostly clear cut land of Massachusetts was bird on the wing or water- hardly rifle territory. The myth of the Minute Man rifleman is just that- a myth. They employed muskets, mostly used muskets either provided them by the Crown in years past, old European military guns bought on the open market, and the occasional "fowler", a long, thin bird-hunting musket, in civilian applications used as a shotgun. If the militiaman had no gun, he had to buy one from the colony. I see no mention of artillery or horse units either, both of which were part of the militia of 1775, too.

95thfoot, 10:29 PM, May 31, 2007


 * I agree that the article could use some improvement. And, your complaints could easily be well founded, but you give no attribution or citations to reliable sources which back up your claim.  Without knowing the scholarly source of your criticism, they appear to be based on original research, which is not allowed.  SaltyBoatr 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's not much original research on minutemen... most of them are dead.
 * I wondered about the bit on rifles, too. With a few exceptions (like the Culpeper Minutemen), most militia companies were armed with obsolete British muskets.  I can't speak for every colony, but the New York drill specifically refers to muskets, not rifles, and militia companies were not issued bayonets.
 * Mingusboodle (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "musket" was used for rifled muskets until the late 19th century, so this particular drill reference doesn't clear up the matter. Not having bayonets might even imply rifled muskets, as they were the only military muskets that didn't use them.  I think it's likely that minutemen, like most militia, were sub-standard soldiers, and likely had a hodge-podge of different arms, and that the effectiveness of minutemen has been exaggerated over the years.  But, that's just my opinion.  The only references I've found lean towards this likely exaggeration.  We still need some better references to change the article.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pay
Were minutemen paid anything?

206.172.193.28 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It varied from town to town, from what I've read they were paid for each day they drilled (when they did). Lemonjuice1020 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization
I have noticed that the article uses inconsistent capitalization. Sometimes Minutemen appears mid-sentence, and sometimes it's minutemen. That needs to be corrected. (No, I don't feel confident enough to actually alter this article myself, my apologies.) RainOfSteel (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)