imported post
PT111 wrote:
I have a question and does relate to 2A. In the revolutinoary war were soldiers issued rifles or were they required to bring their own. I know there have been stories about militia men coming from their houses with their firearms but I have never heard if the regular soldiers were issued firearms or not. I suspect that at least some were but can anyone provide facts. I have read where some ships were under contract to the US government but privately owned. Could this have been an influence in the insistance of 2A?
In some internet searching I have found what confirmed my memory from various books over the years. Combining various sites' info: Each of the states were to provide a certain number of soldiers based on population and were to equip the men with arms, equipment and clothing. This was for the Continental Army, the regulars if you will. Lists of the men and equipment to be supplied for each by each state are available from various sources including online if one looks enough.
They differed from the militias who typically provided their own firearms and most, if not all, colonies required the militiamen by law to have private firearms in good condition of a style and caliber in common usage and often set out the minimum requirement for powder and ball each were to have on hand as well as other combat applicable items. There were several acts in various colonies over the years as to this. I have read transcripts of some original acts in the past but it would likely take some time to find links or even the books at the moment (I am remodeling and most of my library is boxed up at the moment).
There were significant difference between the regulars and most of the militia, especially in level of formal military training and often equipment. Moreover, the regulars were paid soldiers whereas the militias were not typically. In some battles where the militia were used along side the regulars (remember that despite the folklore, most of the war was fought using European battle tactics), the militia lines did not hold and actually fled, especially in the face of bayonet charges, while the regulars were much better trained and more disciplined. Smarter generals eventually figured out how to use the militia troops effectively to harrass the enemy flanks or as fire and retreat units, as most notably used by Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens (
http://www.nps.gov/archive/cowp/batlcowp.htm ).
While certain militia units were fierce and effective fighters, many others were composed of farmers and shop keepers above the typical service age without any formal military training beyond rudimentary community drilling in the town square. Furthermore, many of them were townsfolk and despite the folklore, were not out daily hunting for food. They went to the butcher like we do or raised their own livestock. Weapons were not their common stock in trade and they were not the stalwart, hard charging, hit a squirrel at 200 yds types, and many had generation old muskets with limited range and effectiveness. They were just regular people doing what they could for the cause. The more effective militia units tended to be formed from frontiersmen, hunters, Indian War veterns and other who lived closer to the wilderness and who engaged more in guerilla warfare. I have read other sources and diaries that indicate that these militiamen also tended to have rifles and be more sharpshooters as they depended often on their shooting skill for survival.
If you peruse the wikipedia entry for Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion who commanded a malitiamen unit there are references to the fact that militiamen, unlike Continental Army troops, "served without pay, supplied their own horses, arms, and often their food".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
While that is not comprehensive and loosely referenced, I hope that it at least gives you something of what you wanted towards facts.
