• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Black Watch and Our Early Militias

jet57

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:

“ Watches “ were a system of policy to prevent cattle – lifting, each watch was raised by the most powerful chief of the county in which it was to act, and the heads of the clans thus associated were bound for the maintenance of their respective parties, the security of their districts, and to make good to the owner any property stolen within their bounds. In the companies thus raised, the leaders and men supported, clothed, and armed themselves according to the ordinary garb and weapons of the clans before disarming under Michael Wade. Cluny, Macpherson, Lord Lovat, and the Marquis of Atholl were the principal persons associated with the raising of this armed body.
Click to expand...

The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
 
If that is true, then why did Canada develop differently?
 
jet57 said:
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:



The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Really very interesting. But there are good reasons beyond tradition to prevent government from forbidding the citizens ownership of weapons. Why allow government to do that?
 
jet57 said:
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:



The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

wow, thats an old book
 
joG said:
Really very interesting. But there are good reasons beyond tradition to prevent government from forbidding the citizens ownership of weapons. Why allow government to do that?
Click to expand...

For the cheeeeeldrin. Why else? :rolleyes:
 
jet57 said:
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:



The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Salutary Neglect. That argument is invalid. These people were Americans. And the Revolutionary War was a testament to that fact.
 
Carjosse said:
If that is true, then why did Canada develop differently?
Click to expand...


Because Canada was a different society. It probably modeled after English fashion, I don't know. You are apparently Canadian so you can edify us on that point.

The Gaelic countries had their own clan systems, wherein in the Scots's Highlands, their traditional militia style was woven into the English system as regimental. The Black Watch exists today, but not in the militia style that it once was.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Salutary Neglect. That argument is invalid. These people were Americans. And the Revolutionary War was a testament to that fact.
Click to expand...

And you prove that my thesis of similarities is invalid - how? Say, in 1773, from where did the colonial Americans draw the traditions exactly? That is part of the point.
 
joG said:
Really very interesting. But there are good reasons beyond tradition to prevent government from forbidding the citizens ownership of weapons. Why allow government to do that?
Click to expand...

Thanks. As for reasons however, in those days we really weren't talking about our government perse, in the old countries, it was about insurrections and enemy (Indian attacks for us)... Bacon's and the Whiskey Rebellion will testify to that for us. We have to remember, that armies took a long time to raise and to hold onto the soldiers, as the revolution clearly shows, took great effort and expense incentives and that goes way back into the early middle ages.

In my memory, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember ever being educated on the idea, early 60s on, that the second was designed to protect us form our own government. Militias were not raised for that, especially in the Gaelic countries and in England which saw no shortage on insurrections.

Governments traditionally withhold arms to prevent insurrections. That's why the English did it and confiscated weapons.
 
jet57 said:
:doh

Uh, no. The line is :"For your father, for your father."
Click to expand...
I realize libs think they run the world, but you don't get to decide what my lines are. :roll:
 
lb_on_teh_cb said:
wow, thats an old book
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have a number of them in my library. I bought one for my wife that is all about John Wilkes Booth's writings before and after the assassination. How the hunt for him went, and there is a map of the trail. It was published in 1942 or thereabouts.

One of my favs is Secret History of the American Revolution, Viking Press, 1941: all about "the conspiracies of Benedict Arnold and numerous others drawn from the secret service papers of the British Headquarters in North America".

The realities of our revolution are fascinating and why I decided on this thread.
 
countryboy said:
I realize libs think they run the world, but you don't get to decide what my lines are. :roll:
Click to expand...

No I don't think that libs run the world either. I don't see where they do and I'm a news junkie, so no one's mentioned it, in passing or otherwise. I'm sure that even Amy Goodman would question such an assertion. I'm not a lib; I just read a great deal and draw conclusions based on reality, that comes to us by real history and source documentation. That leads those of us who do read, the ability to ask interesting, intelligent and thought provoking questions and raise educated points in a discussion that challenge others - who read as well.

Following that model, we avoid statements like:
I realize libs think they run the world
Click to expand...

Seems kinda outta tune. I hope you understand.
 
jet57 said:
No I don't think that libs run the world either. I don't see where they do and I'm a news junkie, so no one's mentioned it, in passing or otherwise. I'm sure that even Amy Goodman would question such an assertion. I'm not a lib; I just read a great deal and draw conclusions based on reality, that comes to us by real history and source documentation. That leads those of us who do read, the ability to ask interesting, intelligent and thought provoking questions and raise educated points in a discussion that challenge others - who read as well.

Following that model, we avoid statements like:

Seems kinda outta tune. I hope you understand.
Click to expand...

Whatever, if you walk and quack like a duck, you're a duck. That doesn't change the fact that you were attempting to know what I was trying to say better than myself. Typical lib behavior.
 
countryboy said:
Whatever, if you walk and quack like a duck, you're a duck. That doesn't change the fact that you were attempting to know what I was trying to say better than myself. Typical lib behavior.
Click to expand...

What a stunningly poignant and well thought out topical response.

Your knowledge of history and its roots in our second amendment is truly remarkable.
 
jet57 said:
What a stunningly poignant and well thought out topical response.

Your knowledge of history and its roots in our second amendment is truly remarkable.
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your idiotic remark about what I said.
 
261 views and apparently the subject is a little too deep for the more learned of the pro gun crowd around here. Too bad, it's a good find.
 
jet57 said:
I was giving the roots of the second amendment, and of our colonial and new American militias a thought, and I remembered a passage from one of my European history books about the mid 18th century Scottish Highland Militias that were formed into the "Black Watch":

Clans Septs And Regiments of the Scottish Highlands; 1908, Frank Adam 5th edition:



The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

First thing I thought of is how the ranchers guarded cattle in Texas and how rustling instigated a law that allows a person to shoot people that are stealing their property outside of their home after sunset and before dawn. I kinda like that idea.
 
NonoBadDog said:
First thing I thought of is how the ranchers guarded cattle in Texas and how rustling instigated a law that allows a person to shoot people that are stealing their property outside of their home after sunset and before dawn. I kinda like that idea.
Click to expand...

That came waaay after our militia system. Seems ours was really the same as the old Scots.
 
Visual inspections of this thread have reached 302 as of today, but none of the constitutionalists seems to be bale to handle the subject.

Interesting.
 
jet57 said:
Governments traditionally withhold arms to prevent insurrections. That's why the English did it and confiscated weapons.
Click to expand...

That's the whole reason why so many of us are adamant they don't do it in the US.

You seem to be largely ignoring the reason for the militias in the US. They were organized within the states to protect against and fight against the Indians, French and British. Go back and read some history on the colonies in the late 1600s and through the 1700s it will give you a clearer picture. Keep in mind the response times in that era, localization was a necessary thing for effectiveness.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That's the whole reason why so many of us are adamant they don't do it in the US.

You seem to be largely ignoring the reason for the militias in the US. They were organized within the states to protect against and fight against the Indians, French and British. Go back and read some history on the colonies in the late 1600s and through the 1700s it will give you a clearer picture. Keep in mind the response times in that era, localization was a necessary thing for effectiveness.
Click to expand...

That's all in the OP, and I've handled it elsewhere in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom