pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce) (01/14/90)
From: pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce) In article <3932@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> mjm@jhunix.UUCP (Michael J Mallette) writes: >In article <30698@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes: >>Maybe the confusion is between the National Guard and the various >>State Defense Forces? > >What do you mean by "the various State Defense Forces". Would you please >list them. I didn't know that any states kept Defense Forces. I understood that >the Governor of a state was the Commander in Chief of the states National Guard >but that the National Guard is answerable to the President of the United States >before the Governor. The National Guard has undergone a steady process of federalization over the years. Today the National Guard, along with the Reserves, are an integral and vital part of the US Army. They train like the rest of the Army and they are expected to serve like the rest of the army in case of war. Thus they will not be able to serve their usual function of preserving order in case of emergency should the emergency arise during wartime. Furthermore, according to Prof. George Stein of Miami University in Ohio in the September 1984 *Military Review*, 50% of the US Border Patrol has reserve commitments. In order to support the concept of an individual state militia independent of federal control and to provide a cadre of trained people to preserve order during the abscence of the National Guard and to guard the borders of the United States during wartime the US Congress provided a 1956 Federal Law (32 U.S.C., Section 109) authorizing (but not requiring) each state to establish and maintain a State Defense Force. Today the Federal US government pays over 95% of the funds devoted to the training, equipment, and support of the National Guard. The above mentioned Federal Law mandates that *no* Federal funds may be used to support a State Defense Force, thus assuring their independence. These volunteer militias "may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (governor) considers necessary, but may not be called, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States." Before, and especially during, WWII, many states sponsored home guards under federal aegis, but there was no uniform rules governing them. While there was a great decline in interest in such state defense forces after 1950, the uniform rules of the 1956 statute and the general political climate led to a resurgence in their importance in the 1980s. While State Defense Forces exist thanks to act of Congress, it is fair to say that they owe their importance to Ronald Reagan. Only 21 states (at least as of 1988) have a State Defense Force, but other state governments are considering their advantages. The term "State Defense Force" tends to cause some confusion because each state typically chooses a name that they feel appropriate, e.g. Texas State Guard rather than the Texas State Defense Force. These 21 states are Alabama, Alaska, California, Indiana, Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Puerto Rico also has a State Defense Force. While these State Defense Forces are actually quite controversial in some circles, they have generated little interest in the mainstream media. Thus a survey of the literature turns up surprisingly few references to the State Defense Forces. Due to this request from the net, I will try to periodically provide a greater level of detail (although I only know what anyone could know from reading the literature) about the State Defense Forces so that they may get the attention they deserve. Below I will list several articles that should be relatively easy to find in a major library. However, in our participatory democracy it is important to go directly to the source when possible. The best source of supportive information about State Defense Forces is: State Defense Force Association of the United States 9140 Ward Parkway Kansas City MO 64114 A source for the views of the loyal opposition is: Peggy Moore c/o St. Louis Pledge of Resistance 438 N Skinker St. Louis MO 63130 I urge you to contact these sources, as well as find and read the following articles, in order to form your own opinions. While I have tried to stay objective in this posting, it seems only honest journalism to state that I tend to be somewhat wary of the resurgence in State Defense Forces. Articles about State Defense Forces: 1. Soldier of Fortune, May 1987, p. 56 (approx. 9 pages), James L. Pate: "Citizen Soldiers: Fighting for the Right to Defend America" 2. CovertAction Information Bulletin, Number 31 (Winter 1989), p. 55 (approx. 3 pages), Ed Connolly: "State Defense Forces: The Government Readies for Repression" 3. Resist Newsletter, Number 210 (November 1988), p. 3 (approx. 3 pages), Peggy Moore and Mike Meyer: "State Defense Forces: U.S. Secret Milita" All of these references were sitting on the shelf in the UCLA library's Public Affairs Service room (which even provides tax forms). I know that not everyone in the US has such ready access to views from the far left to the far right (and the lunatic fringe that shows up on no political spectral diagram), so I will try to find the time to summarize these articles. I would welcome the assistance of others who do have access to these or other materials. First hand accounts or interviews with members would be even better. The mainstream media has clearly been lazy in their reporting of such matters, else the posting that prompted this reply would not have to be made. Before being asked to look up these references, I didn't know many details myself, so USENET should be able to serve as a medium for educating ourselves about the means our government has devised to preserve law and order in case of emergency and for deciding whether the resurgence of the State Defense Forces is on balance a positive or negative development for the US. -- Brad