WI: American Commando System

I always a rather strange thing that the USA never established such a thing and would like to know what you guys think would be the effects of such a system. For all the people in room who may not understand what I am saying I'll further elaborate:

Within Modern South Africa there was a group of people known as the Boers who to put it simply were dutch speaking settlers who more or less went native. Over the course of their settlement in the 1600s they faced up to large scale resistance from local forces and due in part to a lack of support from home had to take matters into their own hands and set up what became known as the Commando System. Under the system all free men were for all intents and purposes required to serve in the militia and in conjunction with the regular armed forces would defend the settlement in times of war. When the Boer Republics were established during the great trek they maintained the system requiring all men between the ages of 16-60 to be liable for service in times of need. This system would function as the backbone of the Boer forces during the First and Second Boer Wars until the destruction of the Boer Republics upon the conclusion of the Latter.

The structure was rather simple. Each Town had a Commando led by a Commandant, below this level would be the wards which were led by a Field Cornet, below these were corporalships which roughly comprised ~20 or so burghers(free male citizens). Above the Commandant were the generals who led roughly 4 commandos, These guys were responsible to the Commander in chief who was theoretically responsible to the president of the Republic. Technically speaking these commanders were not responsible to the government though and were elected directly by the population of those they led.

In later iterations of the system present in modern South Africa the system became less of a military force and more focused on acting as a local police auxiliary useful in helping defend and police mostly rural regions. Due in par tot associations with Boer rule and by extension apartheid it would be dismantled in the mid 2000s.

So with that all in mind What would it take for the United States to establish such a system and not only that what would be the effects? To put it in more simple terms what would be effects of the United States having: Organized and Compulsory militia service(which I will call the Phalanx) both in peace and in war though not necessarily regular military service(which I will call the Legion) and Technically by extension Compulsory Gun ownership*1 with it. More than likely this will come in the form of an expanded 2nd Amendment. My thoughts:

- Short term, america might come out a lot more egalitarian in it's earlier years with the idea being that militia(which I will call the Phalanx) service = citizenship = voting rights. Hence anyone who is of service age(imagine somewhere between 15-20 years of age at the earliest) should be allowed to vote as a free man. America with a more democratic system from the onset could end up with a host of butterflies which adds onto my second point.

Medium Term, African Americans might end up a bit better off with this system. My thinking is that an armed and trained minority is a whole lot harder to disenfranchise than a unarmed one, mixed that in with the aforementioned earlier notions of egalitarianism might lead to them being able to maintain their rights even in the face of oppression. At least in certain regions especially if they have full majorities like say much of the Deep South. Might be kinda hard to justify things like poll taxes and other restrictions on voting rights in this world.

On the otherhand the Federal government might end up being a lot weaker depending on how the Phalanx is organized and controlled. Under the Boers the Commandos were not technically beholden to the government having elected officers and and it appears they had a major function in the collection of taxes to. Though this might end up being a double edged sword for the states since they might exert at best minimal power over this system with local governments(municipalities) having the principle power over it. Consequently you might end up with the idea of municipal rights being developed a lot earlier which is interesting to put it mildly.

- Longish-medium term, Womens suffrage takes a big hit and I think immigration might too. Service in the Phalanx will probably be heavily associated with voting rights, especially if the aforementioned earlier mode of thinking is developed, consequently since women don't serve in the Phalanx and I seriously doubt outside of the most radical of the early suffragist would even entertain such a thought this presents quite a potent argument against women voting. They don't have to bleed and die for their country so why should they get a say? It wouldn't be until you get groups in second wave before you have such thinking becoming a bit more... common but that didn't happen until roughly the 60-70s. Women might not be voting until potentially up to the 1960-80s in this world :eek:. An arguable example of this would be Switzerland which again arguably due to it's compulsory militia service never allowed women to vote until at the earliest 1970 and in some areas until the 1990s.

In terms of immigrants one could probably argue that a good portion of the reason america has such significant waves of immigrants was due in part to it's rather democratic nature but also possibly due to the lack of any sort of peacetime conscription which is a big plus. Now that atleast one of those has changed that might make america less of an ideal place to immigrate.

This doesn't even tough on the fact that minus conscription in the Legion which potentially is the only one required to serve overseas the USA is severely hamstrung in projecting hard power overseas and will have to settle for a more soft power approach to international affairs. No more global police man.

Overall? A somewhat less democratic, feminist, and colorful albeit more racially egalitarian USA that might end up at best a great power on the world stage but never reaches the status as a super power. Just my two cents though. What about you guys, what do you think?

1* that should turn the gun debate on it's head LOL
 
This isn't all that different than OTL, except the reduction of threat as the colonies and later the US expanded west meant that the reliance on militia fell away over time. I'd guess that the Kentucky and Tennessee militia around the time of the Creek Wars, the Texans in the 1850s, and even the Montanans, Nevadans, Utahans, and Idahoans into the 1890s probably weren't all that different than the Boers, although they didn't use the same terminology. Heck, the British found out on their retreat from their raid on Concord that the militia tradition was still very strong in New England in 1775.

The sea change for the US, which would have happened for the Boers, too, is that modern warfare is so much more technically complex that you can't really sustain interstate war without a professional corps and organized training, whether that is a small professional corps that provides a mobilization base (US model) or conscription that provides a massive reserve mobilization base (European model).
 
Stronger militia movement usually does not bode well for democracy. Usually it makes local warlords (sherrifs) stronger. Also Legion was a name for US military 1792-1796.
To have more influential militias, you need US to maintain Legion of the US as a small federal force.
And I do not get why would you use roman and greek military terms for local police/defence selforganised force ? It`s confusing, at least to me.
 

South Africa, was under the Boers roughly where the Americans when they stepped off the Mayflower, in this context the system makes much more sense. However, as Dutchmen, the idea of Generalised democracy was much more prevalent. Basically, if America, was colonised by the Dutch, then maybe, but otherwise it seems unlikely, due to the difference in culture.

And I do not get why would you use roman and greek military terms for local police/defence selforganised force ? It`s confusing, at least to me.

All of the US Founders where Republic/Athenaboos, it isnt beyond the wit of man
 
Within Modern South Africa there was a group of people known as the Boers who to put it simply were dutch speaking settlers who more or less went native. Over the course of their settlement in the 1600s they faced up to large scale resistance from local forces and due in part to a lack of support from home had to take matters into their own hands and set up what became known as the Commando System. Under the system all free men were for all intents and purposes required to serve in the militia and in conjunction with the regular armed forces would defend the settlement in times of war. When the Boer Republics were established during the great trek they maintained the system requiring all men between the ages of 16-60 to be liable for service in times of need. This system would function as the backbone of the Boer forces during the First and Second Boer Wars until the destruction of the Boer Republics upon the conclusion of the Latter.

The structure was rather simple. Each Town had a Commando led by a Commandant, below this level would be the wards which were led by a Field Cornet, below these were corporalships which roughly comprised ~20 or so burghers(free male citizens). Above the Commandant were the generals who led roughly 4 commandos, These guys were responsible to the Commander in chief who was theoretically responsible to the president of the Republic. Technically speaking these commanders were not responsible to the government though and were elected directly by the population of those they led.

In later iterations of the system present in modern South Africa the system became less of a military force and more focused on acting as a local police auxiliary useful in helping defend and police mostly rural regions. Due in par tot associations with Boer rule and by extension apartheid it would be dismantled in the mid 2000s.
So you're asking what if the United States had a militia? Because that is what the Boer commandos were, a specific militia that was for whatever reason consistently referred to by its Afrikaans word. Well, the United States did in fact have militias, especially Minutemen which were similar to what you're advocating. But the necessity of a militia dissipated not long after the Revolution (the militias came about in the first place as a local defense from Indian raids which weren't a big threat for most people in the east by the late 18th Century) and the Revolutionary War clearly showed that a regular army was much more useful than relying entirely on local militia forces. Consequently, mandatory militia service and training died away not long after the war.
Medium Term, African Americans might end up a bit better off with this system. My thinking is that an armed and trained minority is a whole lot harder to disenfranchise than a unarmed one, mixed that in with the aforementioned earlier notions of egalitarianism might lead to them being able to maintain their rights even in the face of oppression. At least in certain regions especially if they have full majorities like say much of the Deep South. Might be kinda hard to justify things like poll taxes and other restrictions on voting rights in this world.
Why would that be the case? Militias in the South largely existed to prevent or stop any slave rebellions and to patrol for escaped slaves. They weren't open for black people to join or form any more than the Boers allowed blacks into their commandos. Even during the Revolution Washington tried to halt enlistment for free blacks despite many having already joined up in the north (IIRC some estimates say 1/4th of the rebel militiamen around Boston at the start of the war were freedmen). He did relent quickly after realizing what a bad idea that was, but in any case service in the patriot armies was no guarantee of equal rights for blacks north or south, a regiment of black soldiers from Rhode Island never even received a promise of pensions.
On the otherhand the Federal government might end up being a lot weaker depending on how the Phalanx is organized and controlled. Under the Boers the Commandos were not technically beholden to the government having elected officers and and it appears they had a major function in the collection of taxes to. Though this might end up being a double edged sword for the states since they might exert at best minimal power over this system with local governments(municipalities) having the principle power over it. Consequently you might end up with the idea of municipal rights being developed a lot earlier which is interesting to put it mildly.
American militias even into the Civil War did often elect their own officers, at least junior officers and non-coms, but that never had a particularly huge impact on US society, although it's worth noting that Americans vote for a lot of offices that are normally just appointed in other countries. Regardless, I can't imagine the US would ever allow militias or minutemen that amount of leeway against the government, they were strictly home defense forces and stuff like collection of taxes was always supposed to be the responsibility of civil officials appointed by an elected government (the last bit being the sticking point that made Americans feel justified in having militias bar passage to British tax collectors).
 

Skallagrim

Banned
When discussing ideas like these, let's keep in mind who, at the time, supported what kind of military policy and what kind of social policy.

-- In support of a strong army (and opposed to all sorts of messy militias provinding the nation's security), we have the northern Federalists. Those also tended to oppose slavery (although not all of them considered it a pressing issue). Finally, they were not a party of democratic egalitarianism, instead favouring elite government (although theoretically meritocratic) and opposing "too much democracy".

-- The southern Federalists were basically the wealthy slavocrats in South Carolina, who liked that whole "elite rule" thing, but firmly supported slavery (obviously). Had the federalists not imploded, this would eventually have become an divisive issue. They were also in support of a strong army (mainly to conquer Louisiana or Florida and thus get more slave states), but they were not opposed to militias. Aiming for (implicit, sometimes explicit) neo-feudalism, they wanted themselves as lords, a small "lower middle class" of white artisans and enforcers, and a slave underclass. The idea of basically turning the (relatively) poor whites into a huge anti-slave-revolt militia was actually prevalent in the anrebellum south, which was much more of a permanent police state than some revisionists like to imagine. So, yeah. Militias. But not the ones you want.

-- Finally, we have (a group among) the Democratic-Republicans. As we know, Jefferson always walked the line between democratic idealism and catering to the slave-owning elite (to which he belonged himself). Let's say that his better ideas a great for this "democratic militia" thing, but some of his actual deed are... less shiny. However. The former "middle colonies" (by this point largely excluding New York, thus being Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia) did have (or develop) a democratic cohort. The artisans and yeoman farmes who formed the majority of Jefferson's base. Those people are the ones likely to support a militia-based system. There were those among them (and some more prominent than is now typically remembered, even in a state like Virginia!) who weren't fond of slavery at all.


This last group can get the job done. If the conditions are right (which isn't the most likely option, but not impossible) you can see proposals like Jefferson's suggestion that Western states should be free states (thos damming in slavery forever) succeed. At least for the North-West, this is very possible. But Appalachian settlers weren't typically slavocrats, so if a truly democratic faction can arise, it can get western support for anti-slavery politics. That kind of thing can be tied into a militia that is eventually open to blacks as well. Don't imagine any of this to be easy or to happen overnight, but it could happen.
 
Sorry I was pretty busy, couldn't respond for a while. now In reference to your points. Yes I do know the united states had a militia system but the thing to keep in mind was:

First, it wasn't usually compulsory while this one is

Second, the militias in many cases couldn't be compelled to serve outside their counties let alone their states in some cases while the commandos of South Africa could

Third, the system I envision involves compulsory gun ownership among all households not just by statute but by constitutional order(aka it would be in the second amendment),

Finally, but not least this would inevitable would have involved a system of peacetime conscription which is something the united states has never had great experience with.

The final 2 are the main points which I wish to explore and believe would bring about the greatest effects. The idea that military service is in some ways a proper prerequisite to citizenship and with that voting would create for some rather odd circumstances. Anglo countries are rather unique in their lack of support for such a system and for me in order to bring it about culturally speaking this might be the only real feasible way to do so. The founding fathers were wary about a large standing professional army but would they have had as much issue with one composed of the citizenry at arms as a whole? Plus the idea of compulsory gun ownership being enshrined in the constitution would be rather interesting in it's effects too. What effects that would have on the ongoing gun control debate I would not know.
 
Third, the system I envision involves compulsory gun ownership among all households not just by statute but by constitutional order(aka it would be in the second amendment),

Finally, but not least this would inevitable would have involved a system of peacetime conscription which is something the united states has never had great experience with.

The final 2 are the main points which I wish to explore and believe would bring about the greatest effects. The idea that military service is in some ways a proper prerequisite to citizenship and with that voting would create for some rather odd circumstances. Anglo countries are rather unique in their lack of support for such a system and for me in order to bring it about culturally speaking this might be the only real feasible way to do so. The founding fathers were wary about a large standing professional army but would they have had as much issue with one composed of the citizenry at arms as a whole? Plus the idea of compulsory gun ownership being enshrined in the constitution would be rather interesting in it's effects too. What effects that would have on the ongoing gun control debate I would not know.

So basically you want to make the Second Militia Act of 1792 an amendment? I must confess myself unsure it will work any better than way but hey ho

Link to online text of both 1792 Militia Acts

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of 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 time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the 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 from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for 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."

So erm yeah it seems that in theory every American freeman between 18 and 45 was conscripted and supposed to equip themselves with specified arms by law....

The issues appears to be all that stuff was expensive and the fines for enforcing the law tended to work out far cheaper....not to mention in time 18 bore muskets ceased to be state of the art.

The big difference between the US and the Boers was that the latter lived in a sea of far more numerous hostile tribes and the powerful British were actively tempted to annex their land (doing it twice but it only stuck the second time). The US rather did not have that problem.


 
IIRC that law had trouble taking into account pacifistic religious communities, which if anything were more mainstream back then than now. Forcing Quakers and Mennonites to bear arms in a militia would be an unthinkable breach of their civil rights as American citizens, but then you'd also have people complaining about how they get an exemption if they aren't forced to serve. The whole problem with a commando system like what you put forth is that it doesn't really fit the context of early American ideology and views of the role of the state and whatnot.
 
RodentRevolution

Cool, that is basically what I was pretty much going for honestly. I was thinking less an amendment exactly and more something that would already be enshrined in the constitution(aka a revised second amendment basically) but still. Pretty cool.

Replace fines with loss of the ability to vote and you are basically there.

9 Fanged Hummingbird

You might have a point but a couple arguments could be made that citizenship confers responsibilities and those who refuse to perform them aren't deserving of all that comes with it(aka rights/freedoms). Kinda mean but you can't deny the united states hasn't exactly been the land of tolerance for much of it's history. Catholics and the like would tell you all about it. Plus weren't such groups really tiny and as such would it really have mattered that much?

The countries that did have peacetime conscription don't seem to have had this issue(france, prussia, etc) sheesh.

Another point to be made last I checked wasn't it so that the united states bill of rights only technically applied to the federal government and not the state government until sometime in the mid-late 19th century? Hence with that in mind since these militias will inevitably by technicality organs of the state, though with federal backing, your points about civil rights violations doesn't really apply does it? Right?
 
You might have a point but a couple arguments could be made that citizenship confers responsibilities and those who refuse to perform them aren't deserving of all that comes with it(aka rights/freedoms).
That sentiment doesn't have a whole lot to do with the American outlook though, these are the people who just fought a long and bloody war to separate themselves from a government that would force compulsory, unpopular acts on the people.
Kinda mean but you can't deny the united states hasn't exactly been the land of tolerance for much of it's history. Catholics and the like would tell you all about it.
Catholics are different, bigotries don't come from a vacuum and the Catholics were generally more foreign than any of the pacifist churches.
Plus weren't such groups really tiny and as such would it really have mattered that much?
Tiny now, not so much back then. Especially since, as you say, we're talking about the primacy of the state governments and these pacifist groups would be more highly represented in certain states, namely Pennsylvania. Is Pennsylvania going to try and force a notable chunk of its population to defy God? A Pennsylvania legislature, mind you, that's likely to have many people from these groups as representatives.
The countries that did have peacetime conscription don't seem to have had this issue(france, prussia, etc) sheesh.
Those countries ain't America though. The whole problem is that you're starting from the wrong angle, you're asking how America might have a commando system like the Boers when you should start off with why the Boers had that commando system to begin with. For one thing, the Boers (as well as countries like France and Prussia) are much more homogeneous than America was even at the start of its history. Especially religiously, the Boers by and large belonged to one church which encouraged its congregation to bear arms and defend their homesteads by force. And then there's the fact that the Boers were also under a siege mentality for most of their existence, especially worrying about the possibility of attacks by natives at any time. By the time America was an independent country that wasn't a concern for most people and although the frontier was under threat by Indian confederations there wasn't a need for every town or state to have minutemen or militias mustered to train regularly. The greatest national concern at the time though was the threat of British invasion and yet again that's not something a minutemen-esque group was suited for stopping, as evidenced by the Revolutionary War.
your points about civil rights violations doesn't really apply does it? Right?
Again, starting from the wrong end, and in any case even if you ignored the supremacy of the federal government the state governments aren't necessarily free to institute such tyrannical acts. If you want an American analogue to the commandos you're going to have to accept that it's not going to be a 1:1 copy and you'll have to make some concessions. You're not going to be able to have states calling militias up regularly in peacetime, that's too intrusive into people's daily lives for a society that isn't under constant threat, and they'll have to make concessions to local sensibilities anyways.
 
There is zero possibility that white America would ever accept millions of trained, armed black, hispanic, native American and Asian people that are only beholden to local commanders.
To put it in more simple terms what would be effects of the United States having: Organized and Compulsory militia service(which I will call the Phalanx) both in peace and in war though not necessarily regular military service(which I will call the Legion) and Technically by extension Compulsory Gun ownership*1 with it. More than likely this will come in the form of an expanded 2nd Amendment. My thoughts:
 
There is zero possibility that white America would ever accept millions of trained, armed black, hispanic, native American and Asian people that are only beholden to local commanders.

That was under the assumption that would occur sometime post civil war during reconstruction. Probably a means by which to assist the relatively small numbers of american soldiers that were present on the ground. Plus They don't appear to have had much of an issue with trained black soldiers in the us military during said war, atleast northerners anyways. So long as the blacks in question stay in the south, which due to a potentially better reconstruction due to the aforementioned, northern whites wouldn't give much of a damn.
 
To have more influential militias, you need US to maintain Legion of the US as a small federal force.

I'm not sure how that *specifically* gets an expanded militia system? The US Legion was a de facto standing army, not different from any other permanent standing army. Well, essentially permanent- "Until the United States is at peace with the Indians." That would weaken a militia system. Or do you mean to emphasize "small", and intend it to be in place of the larger organized army that came later?

Oh, and Go Pittsburgh!

The idea that military service is in some ways a proper prerequisite to citizenship and with that voting would create for some rather odd circumstances.

Did you just read Starship Troopers or something? If not, you should- it's right up your alley. And it is not the same thing as the movie, though I did like the movie for it's kitsch.

I have to admit, the US ain't the Boer Republic. (You have a Quaker establishment right next door to a Catholic one, etc., etc.) You'd have to change quite a lot about the early US to make this happen the way that you seem to want to. Some of the ideology of the revolution would have to change, and you'd have to explain that. Plus, there needs to be a constant existential threat from somewhere. Maybe up British hostility? Even then, as has been said, an established military is a much better solution but you could somehow make that economically unaffordable to the early US. There was a lot of ideological opposition to it, too.

The countries that did have peacetime conscription don't seem to have had this issue(france, prussia, etc) sheesh.

*spits coffee*

The European powers had no end of issues dealing with their religious minorities. That's sort of a major reason that the US turned out the way it did, in fact- they fled to the new world. And the European powers could just make exceptions for compulsory service for pacifist sects, but then in this US that you propose they'd also lose full citizenship- and that's a different situation. That's a hard sell, especially when many of them are already dug into local politics like ticks. Heck, the other states had to pull teeth to get the Quaker-dominated government of Pennsylvania even to vote to fund it's own defense from Indian raids, and they provided essentially no organized troops to the ARW IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Top