He claimed time and again—as recently as last Friday–that he was offered entrance to the military academy in 1969. Here's proof that he's not telling the truth.
Let's re-cap what has happened in the last few days since that first explosive story came out in Politico…and was observed here by our own Charlie Pierce on Friday. To wit, the Tale of Cadet Ben Carson.
On Friday, Politico posted a sensational, but sadly incomplete, evaluation of some of Dr. Carson's claims about his past. Specifically their story asserted that Carson had not been given a "scholarship" to West Point, as he claimed in his book(s) and in multiple accounts of his past in speeches and interviews since 1990, when his first co-written autobiography appeared. Further, they said they had a real gotcha since they also claimed that Carson's campaign had fessed up to this central point as non-factual. They also hit him for being at best a fabulist and perhaps an outright liar on other points of his background. That one hit the waves, and hard. And when a wave hits the shore, it bounces back, and into other waves.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Bouncing back is what has been happening since late afternoon on Friday, in a confusing fury of splashes, since some of those who picked up Politico's ball and ran with it were conservatives. Carson himself fairly well exploded, falling back into that old mantra known so well to the political class which he has now joined, "deny, deny, deny, make counter-accusations."
I am going lay out what we absolutely know about what and when Ben Carson said about his past brush with West Point. That part is easy. Then I will help all of you along a trail of military and political history. You will then be able to draw your own fact-based conclusions with the help of some straightforward logic.
Not to keep you on pins and needles, here is the BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): First, the initial reporting was sloppy. At a minimum Politico's political reporters should have consulted with their peers who cover the military. Better, they should have consulted historians. (Best would be both of course.) Second, the counter-arguments and defenses from outraged conservatives in Carson's camp were even sloppier. Even worse: in some cases these arguments, especially those from Carson's own campaign, definitively (if accidentally) undo his own accounts. Third and finally, Ben Carson has a real and serious problem with the actual and undisputable history surrounding what he said. At best he told and continues to tell a story which demonstrates that he has a horrible memory, and cannot even remember basic facts (verifiable facts, as I will show) about his own history. More likely, the historical evidence appears to demonstrate that he is, indeed, an outright liar who has been fooling people with a self-created fabulist fictional story. Worst of all, it is a story about his own past designed to make himself look better at the utter expense of the truth.
And he made a lot of money telling that false story.
***
So let us first establish exactly what Dr. Ben Carson said about his origin story, particularly the part about Junior ROTC Cadet Ben Carson. For starters, here is the central and apparently initial version. In his 1990 book Gifted Hands Carson describes marching in the Detroit Memorial Day parade in May 1969:
"I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point. I didn't refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn't where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship, I wasn't really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college, precluding my chances to go on to medical school."
In his book, You Have A Brain (January 2015), writing about his meteoric rise through High School Junior ROTC to the rank of Cadet Colonel, Carson wrote,
"That position allowed me the chance to meet four-star general William Westmoreland, who had commanded all American forces in Vietnam before being promoted to Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.…I also represented the Junior ROTC at a dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners, marched at the front of Detroit's Memorial Day parade as head of an ROTC contingent, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point."
In a Facebook post on August 13, 2015, still well before all of this broke, Carson again personally addressed the issue. (That question, by the way, looks like an obvious plant by Carson's own campaign to give him the chance to reiterate his "history.")
"The next question is from Bill. He wanted to know if it was true that I was offered a slot at West Point after high school. Bill, that is true. I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point. But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (it was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me. I often wonder what might have happened had they said no."
Finally, on the Charlie Rose show not long before all this blew up he put it this way,
"I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer [in JROTC]. Well, no one had ever done that in that amount of time … Long story short, it worked, I did it. I was offered full scholarship to West Point, got to meet General Westmoreland, go to Congressional Medal dinners, but decided really my pathway would be medicine."
This seems to be a fair cross section of Carson's statements on the issue prior to Friday. If Carson was not running for President, would it really matter if this was the truth? Probably not. There are plenty of harmless Stolen Valor types out there who make more audacious claims about their past. But here is the key point: none of them are running for President in part due to their biographies. Carson is, and therefore it matters.
Doubt that his 1990 book saw much light after it was first published? You would be wrong, on a couple of levels. First, it started making Carson rich. Second, it was repeated verbally and in interviews along his rise to political fame. And third, it was copied almost verbatim in one of the most influential political journals for conservatives in the nation, National Review.
"[Carson] was a medal-winning marksman and a dining companion of General William Westmoreland. Despite having joined high-school ROTC a semester late, Carson was a superstar cadet, racking up medals in drill and riflery. He flew through the ranks, moving from private to second lieutenant in a year and change and then so thoroughly acing his field-grade exams (he set a new record) that he leap-frogged straight to lieutenant colonel, and then became one of three full-bird colonels in all of Detroit. In recognition of his achievement, a 17-year-old Carson was given the opportunity to dine with General William Westmoreland, the top U.S. commander in Vietnam, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point."
***
We have established what Dr. Carson actually said, and how those things he said helped launch him on his road to the Republican nomination. But now we need to go back in time.
To understand this story, and the conclusions that logically fall out from them, we have to dig deep. Like really deep. Back to the Founding Fathers. It all starts there. So this will be a long story, hang on for the ride.
On March 16, 1802, Congress officially passed a law creating the United States Military Academy (USMA) and directing that it commence operations at a place known to few Americans known as "West Point." That origin story is deeper, and fascinating, but we will leave that for some other time. Suffice it to say that there was not a little irony in the fact that the President who signed the law was one of the most anti-standing-military presidents in our history, Thomas Jefferson. (A politician since age 25, by the way, even though he did not actually WRITE the Declaration of Independence until he was 33, despite some assertions to the contrary.)
So Jefferson left office in 1809 and James Madison entered. Madison used his Secretary of War to make actual appointments, and Dr. William Eustis and Madison both distrusted the idea of a standing military, so they starved it. In 1809 Eustis appointed only four cadets, and the year after that just two, then none in 1811. This, as you might guess, would bite America in the ass come the War of 1812, because fighting a war without people trained to fight a war can be difficult.
By early 1812 Congress itself took the bull by the horns. On April 29 of that year, Congress passed a bill into law that established the maximum size of the Academy (250), and significantly stated that cadets would be sent to West Point "at the discretion of the President of the United States as students to the military academy." Got that point? It is important. The civilian political leader of the nation controlled who would be a cadet. Military Subordination to Civilian Authority is a pretty key point in our national history; it's right there in the Constitution for example. Here it was again, reinforced by that same first generation of Founding Fathers.
That Act of 1812 also set standards, such as a minimum and maximum age for entry, a modicum of academic qualifications, and some physical ones. But these were often ignored by those same civil authorities, because, well, politics. So it was that the Military Academy once had a cadet aged 12, appointed in the year 1814, and a one-armed cadet a few years later, and one with one eye at around the same time. This sets up the second dynamic: the continuing efforts of the professional folks at the military academy to try to get the standards (physical, age, mental, educational) not only raised, but actually adhered to by the people making the appointments. Raising and adhering to standards, while subordinate to the Civil Authority is the second important point to keep in the back of your head.
Initially, with the Academy hovering at year-class sizes of about a dozen, it was not a big deal for the President to control all the appointments. But over the next few decades, as America grew and expanded, Congress increased the size of the Army and with that came the need for more officers. More officers = more appointments = more work for the President. So naturally, the Presidents started delegating that to the Secretary of War. Those men, also being civilian politicians, were not fools. They started the tradition of asking various congressmen for their recommendations. Remember, at the time we are still only talking about a few dozen per year.
Then, in the early 1840s, Congress expanded West Point just a little more, and in response that process became a little more formal still. Congressmen were now allocated a nomination. Well, actually, they took what had been an informal arrangement and, by the power of the purse string, legally made it their own. Now that is appropriations. (If you are really wanting to geek out, here is the actual text of the bill, from March 1, 1843.)
Over the years, as America's military needs continued to grow with her increasing security concerns, the size of West Point grew. With it, of course, the number of cadets expanded as well. A process was hashed out and refined, which formalized (eventually in law) the two-step process. Every potential cadet had to have a political nomination and to actually meet the physical, age, mental/educational standards and pre-selection tests set for admission. And then, West Point could select from among the pool of political nominees which ones would be offered admission.
Remember, West Point is not a civilian school. You don't just mosey on in one fine September day, unpack your stuff from Mom and Dad's station wagon and go to New Student Orientation. No, "Reception Day" (the official first day that new cadets must arrive) is in late June, and immediately that entire new class starts what is called today "Beast Barracks." (It has been called many things over the past 215 years, "Summer Encampment", "Plebe Summer," etc., but it is commonly known as Beast now.) That is correct, new students at West Point show up in late June. Remember that point as well.
What all of this means is that prospective cadets are encouraged to start the application process in the spring of their junior year in high school. After all, they must start an application, then take the physical (medical) exam, then take a pre-qualifying (and proctored by the military) physical fitness test, then also start applying through their Congressman, Senator, or other appointment route (there are reserved appointments, for example, for the children of those who have earned the Medal of Honor, as well as a percent of enlisted soldiers in both the Reserves, National Guard, and Active Duty). In the fall of Senior Year they submit an official transcript (and for the past 30 years SAT or ACTs), then get their nomination…all of this before West Point can offer an appointment. It takes a long time, but all of that is the logical extension of the dynamic of those first two points.
Here is the current West Point recommended timeline for application. Pretty impressive eh? Look at all that. Oh, obviously but I guess I should mention this, applying to West Point is free. Jumping through all the other hoops may cost time, and involve some travel, but nothing anybody in a major urban area could not do via public transportation.
I started my process of application to West Point in the spring of 1984, as suggested, during my junior year of High School. That's just how it was, just as it is today, a really complex and involved system. But in case you might be wondering, "Yes, but was it like this back in the 1960s, when, for example, future-doctor Ben Carson would have been exploring these things? Weren't things simpler and quicker then?" Thanks to the wonders of the Internet we can see that it was pretty much the same, but yes, it was a little quicker. Here is a link to Ebony magazine's June 1966 edition magazine's June 1966 edition. Note on the bottom of page 74 it is pretty explicit. "High schoolers should apply in the late spring of their junior year and graduating seniors should seek admission early in the fall. Applications should be made at least eight months prior to enrollment." (This link is, ironically, provided by Dr. Ben Carson's presidential campaign.)
So even in 1966 they point out that applying usually takes more than a year, no less than eight months. Yes, if you are an All-American football player you can get away with the eight months side of things. This means that the drop-dead date for an application to be completed was, (and confidentially, still pretty much is) in the late-November time frame of the prior year. (By the way, I was not accepted. In April of 1985 I learned that I was an "Alternate." I never attended West Point.)
***
Now we have a firm grip on the historical foundations: Civil control of the military through control of appointments to West Point, military efforts to have the standards raised (and adhered to) for admission, and how long it takes to complete the application process, both now and in the past. There is your foundation for understanding what has been missing in all the analysis and sloshing around in this meta-story. Onto what went wrong with Politico's story.
Basically it was sloppy in that the journalist did not know all of the above, leapt at precise definitions, and overstated his case…while entirely missing the really important bits that could have led to some good journalism.
Much of the controversy since Friday has revolved around the definition of the word "scholarship," and the various ways one can interpret "offered" in the English language. The counter-arguments and defenses have been working the angles to present evidence that West Point offers a de facto, if not de jure, "scholarship" as most people would think about it. They have also played heavily on the idea that the High School senior Ben Carson could reasonably be taken at his word when he described things he says were said to him as "an offer," regardless of if he had actually applied to USMA or not.
One of Carson's other defenders, The Daily Wire put it this way:
"But Carson never said he applied. He said he was extended a full scholarship offer. What's more, West Point doesn't offer scholarships: all admission is free contingent on serving in the military afterwards. It thus seems probable that Westmoreland or another military figure tried to recruit Carson, telling him that he wouldn't have to pay for his education – and that Carson read that as a "full scholarship," and never applied."
Here's how one of the first sources to go viral hit these main counterpoints:
"Ben Carson was a brilliant student who had already shown an interest in the military and had demonstrated leadership skills. It would be weirder if West Point hadn't tried to recruit him than tried to recruit him. This doesn't happen to us journalists, for obvious reasons, but exceptional students are recruited by top colleges and universities all the time."
OK, break. Time to insert another point. West Point does not actually "recruit" anyone but athletes. They provide information, at school fairs, through media outlets, and through the volunteer activities of their graduates and networks. But they don't actually send people out to "recruit" anyone. None of the Army does that. It cannot afford to, and in the case of West Point, does not need to. Enlisted or Officer, the backbone of "recruiting" is pretty much the same, provide as much information as broadly as you can (information tables at Job Fairs, etc.), and then see who walks in through the door of the office all on their own. But that's a minor sidebar correction to the correction.
Other than that, the section above is not incorrect. Politico did overinflate and overstate.
But on one point the Politico story did catch something with hard evidence, and here is where Carson's own campaign has hurt him, and his statements of the past weekend will likely haunt him. Remember that original Carson passage from his book where he wrote about the Memorial Day 1969 Parade in Detroit, saying, "Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point." They did catch him out on that one, consulting with Army history to determine that, no, Westmoreland was not in Detroit in May 1969, he was in DC. Ohhh, "gotcha!" Sorta. For this too there was some wiggle room.
"But Politico goes on to note that there was a similar banquet event in Detroit in February of that year that the General did attend, and that "Carson, a leader of the city's ROTC program at the time, may have been among the invited guests at the $10-a-plate event."
The Detroit News put the nail in that one. According to their own archives, and research, they identified this as quite potentially the true origin. Carson's campaign leapt at the gap, changing their narrative and offering February 1969 as the date when Carson met Westmoreland:
"The Army records and The Detroit News archival records show Westmoreland was in Detroit on Feb. 18, 1969, for a dinner honoring a Vietnam War veteran. The banquet was for Congressional Medal of Honor winner Dwight Johnson, a Detroit African-American who risked his life "beyond the call of duty," according to a website about black participation in the Vietnam War."
Carson spokesman Doug Watts could not immediately explain the discrepancies in Carson's published account of meeting Westmoreland on Memorial Day 1969 and the general being in Washington that day.
"Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the city of Detroit," Watts said in an email to The News. "In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can't remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson's performance as ROTC City Executive Officer." Carson's spokesman could not pinpoint whether Carson met Westmoreland in February 1969 in Detroit or on Memorial Day 1969 as detailed in his memoir. "We believe he met Westmoreland at the banquet," Watts told The News.
***
Now, we can get down to timelines and brass tacks. These are the facts:
1. Carson was a senior in the 1968-1969 school year. That year he was promoted in the Junior ROTC program to Cadet Colonel and made the "Executive Officer" (in military parlance this is "XO," in other words the second highest ranked person in an organization).
2.He applied to attend Yale that Fall of 1968. And only Yale, because he said that was all he could afford. (Remembering, USMA costs nothing to apply to, and even as a Junior, especially in JROTC, he would have had access to that information in his cadet detachment.)
3. There was a banquet that he may have attended and where he could have met General Westmoreland, a four-star general and at the time America's most famous military commander. That was in February 1969. Carson's supporters, and then his campaign, and now Carson himself, say that it was probably actually at this point that Carson met Westmoreland.
4. Carson said, in 1990 and numerous points in-between, that it was after the Memorial Day Parade in Detroit in May of 1969, that he met General Westmoreland. He was wrong. Westmoreland was not there.
This is what we know from Carson himself and his staff. Now, superimpose over this the official West Point timeline for application for today, as well as that pointed out in the 1966 Ebony magazine article supplied by the Carson campaign.
A. Cadets should start the application in the Spring of their Junior year of High School. For Carson that was the Spring of 1968.
B. In Spring of 1968 Westmoreland was still finishing off the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and its aftermath as the Commander, Military Assistance Command–Vietnam. He was not in Detroit at all.
C. In the Spring of 1968 Carson was not a "Field Grade" cadet. He was still working his way up.
D. The West Point deadline, in the late 1960s, was no later than eight months prior to when a prospective cadet would have to arrive at the Academy the following year.
E. Cadets show up for "Beast Barracks" in late June, or by the first day or two of July, so the drop-dead date to complete both a nomination process getting a political nomination, and the Academy application would be late November of the prior year. In Carson's case that would be November 1968.
Now, some reasonable assumptions and additional facts.
I. No "West Point officers" would initiate an application process after the drop-dead deadline for completion had already passed.
II. Military officers in the field cannot offer appointments, then or now. That rests with a centralized board. Not even the Chief of Staff of the Army can do that. And none would because that would undercut Congress and civilian control of the military, since the nomination must come first.
III. Appointments are made only after a political nomination has been made, usually by a Congressman/Senator, but sometimes using the slots reserved for the President (which he delegates). (Civilians rule the process, remember.)
IV. No military officer at all would make an offer, by any definition of the word, to attend West Point in 1969 in February of that year. Nor would any make any suggestion that such an appointment was even possible. This would be "obligating the government" falsely and could end a career.
V. No military officer would risk his career to make such a statement to a 17-year-old he had never met.
VI. Presenting information to a person, and encouraging them to apply, is not the same as "offering a scholarship." When one attends a college fair and picks up information brochures from 17 tables they do not go home and say, "Mom, I got offers from 17 colleges!"
V. Any officer talking to Ben Carson in 1969 would have, at best, suggested he apply for a position in the summer of 1970.
VI. It does not cost anything to apply to West Point. (Though the costs of completing all travel and associated exams associated with the application process may cost.)
VII. There was no formal recruiting (ie. Going out and finding prospects and then making them offers) operating out of West Point for anything but athletes in 1969.
VIII. "Recruiting" for most of West Point, and all the rest of the Army, consists of spreading information. There were no teams of USMA officers meeting promising students in the Spring of their senior year, trying to entice them to attend West Point in a few weeks' time.
***
Got all that? Now, apply reason. This is what falls out.
Ben Carson did not receive any offer of a scholarship, or an appointment, or whatever you might want to call it. Not spoken or even implied. When he says that he did (and he has not backed off of this part of the story) he is not telling the truth. There is another word for that. It is apparent from everything listed above that he was not assured of acceptance, or anything like it, by any military officer. When he makes assertions to the contrary he is pitting his solitary word against the multi-century tradition of military subordination to civil authority and the honor of 240 years of oaths from the entire officer corps of the United States Army. Not to mention the legal proscriptions of the Acts of Congress dating all the way back to March 1, 1843.
In effect he was making up a story deliberately designed to show that not only could Ben Carson cut it in Detroit Junior ROTC as a military member; he could have been at West Point (a national institution) if he felt like it. This has become part and parcel of his personal myth as evidenced by the multiple times the story has been repeated by him over the years (and especially in the past few months). It steals from the honor of those who actually get in to West Point, let alone those who graduate, to make up such a story. Right now the ghosts of more than two hundred years of USMA graduates should be rising from their graves and shaking in rage that someone would tell a story about how he could have been one of them if only he had wanted to, just to advance himself personally.
Ben Carson did not tell the truth about meeting General Westmoreland on Memorial Day. Perhaps he was confused. Today he is claiming that all of this was so long ago. Who can remember such details?
Are you kidding? Ben Carson wrote the book that started all of this in 1989 (it was published in 1990), just 20 years later. Carson could not remember where/when he met the most famous American general, the Chief of Staff of the entire US Army, just 20 years later? It appears unlikely in the extreme.
Because Carson welded the first and the second together when he wrote about it back in the '80s, he gave the impression that they were related. Was that intentional? I leave that for you to decide.
Does any of this matter? Yes. Actually, it does.
As I said, we often deal with issues of Stolen Valor such as Ben Carson perpetrated, but usually the stories are larger and more outrageous. Most of those stories, however, occur in bars and are merely designed to puff up the thief's reputation to the others drinking beside him, most of whom know nothing of the military and therefore can't check his story. Other times, Stolen Valor perps get caught because they screw up and go out, boasting of their actions in public, and get caught by those who know what they are hearing is bullshit.
This is one of those times. But this time a lot more than a little ego is on the line.
Carson did not use his story to cage a beer or sweet-talk a lady. No, he has used it to help launch his "brand" and then elevate that brand on to ever higher heights.
Remember that very first non-Carson retelling of the tale to a broad political audience, the one in National Review, the one which essentially helped launch him as a potential candidate? "Five Things You Didn't Know About Ben Carson," and that was number four, in February 2013. Since then he has repeated it again and again and again.
No, fabricating stories is what Robert Bateman does.
As an example of another hit piece by author Robert Bateman, just because I want to demonstrate that this is not a lone turd that he has dropped.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion referred to below is District of Columbia v. Heller, S. Ct. 07-290 (26 June 2008) slip op. It is also 554 U.S. 570 in the bound volume available from SCOTUS.
Bateman writes:
You do not have to read this full Supreme Court ruling, it is a supplemental. I can spell it out for you in ten seconds.
You definitely will not read the full Supreme Court opinion at the given link. It goes to a summary. What Bateman characterizes as "a supplemental" is 66 pages long, and that is just the opinion of the court. If one reads all the associated opinions, then one may read 154 pages of this "supplemental" which remains as binding RKBA precedent.
Bateman writes:
Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I'll just tell you: As of 1903, the "militia" has been known as the National Guard.
They are "well regulated," and when called to do so as they have been these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not exist.
First, if you have read the Militia Act of 1903, he will not tell you that '[a]s of 1903, the "militia" has been known as the National Guard."
Second, there was the Militia Act of 1792. That was repealed and replaced in 1795. Those are just the first two. This was not something that first sprang forth from Congress in 1903. Bateman apparently just does not like the Framers or something.
Third, it is Bateman, not Justice Scalia, who thinks that most of the militia does not exist. Dumbass does not know what it is.
Part I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS (§§ 101 - 498)
Chapter 13 - THE MILITIA (§§ 311 - 312)
Section 311 - Militia: composition and classes
THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 311 (2012)
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
That is not some new fangled idea. Here is what it looked like in 1792. The primary differences are that the militia only included white male citizens, and the age began at 18 instead of 17. Doofus writes that the militia is the National Guard.
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.
1 Stat. 271
May 8, 1792.
Chap. XXXIII.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.(a)
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That and by whom each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the 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. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for
__________
(a) The acts for the establishment of an uniform system for the government of the militia, are: An act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States, May 8, 1792, chap. 33; an act providing arms for the militia throughout the United States. July 6, 1798, chap. 65; an act in addition to an act entitled, “An act more effectually to provide for the national defence, by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States,” March 2, 1803, chap. 15; an act more effectually to provide for the organizing of the militia of the District of Columbia, March 3, 1803, chap. 20; an act establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States, April 10, 1806, chap. 20; an act in addition to the act entitled, “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes,” April 18. 1814, chap. 82; an act concerning field officers of the militia, April 20, 1816, chap. 64; an act to establish an uniform mode of discipline and field exercise for the militia of the United States, May 12, 1820, chap. 96; an act to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the United States, March 2, 1821, chap. 12, sec. 14.
272
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.
balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Vice President of the United States; the officers judicial and executive of the government of the United States; the members of both Houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom-house officers with their clerks; all post-officers, and stage drivers, who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post-office of the United States; all ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots; all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may hereafter be exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be, and are exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen, and under the age of forty-five years.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers in the adjutant-general's office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one fife-major.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled, as herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion at least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that to each division there shall be at least one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: there shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombadiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge-box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private or matross shall furnish himself with all the equipments of a private in the infantry, until proper ordnance and field artillery is provided. There shall be to each troop of horse, one captain, two lieutenants, one cornet, four sergeants, four corporals, one saddler, one farrier, and one trumpeter. The commissioned officers to furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mailpillion and valise, holsters, and a breast-plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs, a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouch-box, to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery; and troop of horse shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.
273
discretion of the commander-in-chief of the state, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in regimentals, to be furnished at their own expense; the colour and fashion to be determined by the brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the field officers, and each company with a drum and fife, or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective states shall direct.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant-general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders from the commander-in-chief of the state to the several corps; to attend all public reviews when the commander-in-chief of the state shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution and perfecting the system of military discipline established by this act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that maybe required, and to explain the principles on which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: all which the several officers of the divisions, brigades, regiments, and battalions, are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant-general may be duly furnished therewith: from all which returns he shall make proper abstracts, and lay the same annually before the commander-in-chief of the state.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, shall be the rules of discipline to be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of this act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the commanding officer at every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained agreeably to the said rules of discipline.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lot, to be drawn by them before the commanding officer of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company, or detachment.
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That if any person, whether officer or soldier, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade-inspector to attend the regimental and battalion meetings of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition, and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and manoeuvres, and introduce the system of military discipline before described throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander-in-chief of the state; to make returns to the adjutant-general of the state, at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and the
274
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch 34. 1792.
general advancement of good order and military discipline; and the adjutant-general shall make a return of aD the militia of the state to the commander-in-chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the President of the United States.
And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulations of the militia:
Sec. 11. Be it further enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges, subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this act, in like manner with the other militia.
Approved, May 8, 1792.
The Militia Act of 1803, 32 Stat. 775, "An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes" of January 21, 1903 starts with:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National National Guard. Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.
Meathead should have considered reading his own damn source. Well, maybe he did, and just deliberately chose to misrepresent it. In any case, he should cease and desist trying to bullshit the public.
We crossed the line some time ago, it has just taken me a while to get around to the topic. Sadly, that topic is now so brutally evident that I feel shame. Shame that I have not spoken out about before now -- shame for my country, shame that we have come to this point. One story tripped me.
A woman charged with killing a fellow Alabama fan after the end of last weekend's Iron Bowl football game was angry that the victim and others didn't seem upset over the Crimson Tide's loss to archrival Auburn, said the sister of the slain woman.
People, it is time to talk about guns.
My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence.
I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting, and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25. And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask me about these things, because it is the law.
And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court.
The people who sit on a nation's Supreme Court as supposed to be the wisest among us. They are supposed to be the men and women who understand and speak plainly about the most difficult topics confronting our nation. Our Supreme Court, however, has been failing us, as their actions have been almost the exact opposite of this ideal.
You do not have to read this full Supreme Court ruling, it is a supplemental. I can spell it out for you in ten seconds.
Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in the Second Amendment which talks about "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history.
The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by the Founding Fathers was, "Yeah, they didn't really mean what they said."
You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational system that failed to teach history.
But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war. But even when partially "regulated," militias are sloppy things. They do not always work well outside their own home states, and in our own history and in our Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for militia units to refuse to go out of their own state. In the Spanish-American war the way around this limitation was for "interested volunteers" to resign, en masse, from their militia units and then sign up -- again en masse -- as a "volunteer" unit. It was a cumbersome solution to a 123-year-old problem.
Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I'll just tell you: As of 1903, the "militia" has been known as the National Guard.
They are "well regulated," and when called to do so as they have been these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not exist.
Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the "well regulated militia." Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following "Gun Plank" to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:
1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of some other cops -- harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.
These opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the United States government, the United States Department of Defense, the United States Army, or any other official body. As for the NRA, they can sit on it. (Sorry, I grew up with Happy Days. "Sit on it" means something to those of my generation.) R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com.
Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the "well regulated militia." Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following "Gun Plank" to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:
1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of some other cops -- harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.
Bob Bateman surely knows his military history but he is ignorant on the 2nd Amendment.
When he became a statist hack I don't know. He was a competent Infantry officer many moons ago.
