THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, June 2, 1995 TAG: 9506020008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 40 lines
In reference to your paper's continued attacks on citizen's militias, I would like to comment on some points raised in recent days.
In one letter, a reader mentioned his oath to ``defend the government.'' When I joined the Navy I also took a vow, but it was to defend the Constitution. The significance of this difference is that I was obliged to disobey unlawful orders as a Navy man, and as a civilian I must hold the government to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution.
Columnist George Tucker mentioned recently a Union soldier who was killed early in the Civil War. The man had been a member of ``civic military organizations'' and the New York Fire (fireman's) Zouaves. Both of these were ``citizen's militias.'' They were ``well- regulated'' in the 1780s sense of the phrase, which meant they were ``in good order.'' In modern times, ``regulation'' has become synonymous with ``law,'' much to our loss of freedom. As late as a year ago, the Museum of the Confederacy had a display describing how ``civic military organizations'' made up the bulk of the units on both sides early in the war. I suppose these were also groups of wild-eyed fanatics, full of hate and intent on spreading anarchy.
Those whom we now call ``patriots'' were called everything but that in the 1770s, when they saw no recourse but to take up arms in defense of their liberty. They organized in spite of the law and agitated against the government.
They did not attack the government, but when attacked they fought back. Lexington and Concord resulted from the government trying to disarm the citizen's militia. These arms and supplies were not stored for Armageddon, but in preparation for the possibility of the grim business that might lay ahead.
WILL AYGARN
Norfolk, May 24, 1995 by CNB