Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dunmore's War

Expand Messages
  • umfspock87
    Dear List, Got a question for the handful of Dunmore s War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 31, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List,

      Got a question for the handful of Dunmore's War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the assembly had yet to renew the Militia Law of 1738 (which had been renewed a number of times before, but had expired in 1773). This meant that the County Lieutenants did not have the authority to call out the militia.

      Yet, in the summer and fall of 1774, Dunmore led a large expedition against the Indians, an expedition made of up troops from the western counties.

      My assumption is that because there still was no miliita law in effect, the men in the expedition were basically volunteers ( who served due to their own desire of self preservation / interest ) rather than due to any requirement of the law.

      Would this be an accurate assumption?

      Mike Cecere 7th VA




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • guardsmand55
      This is certainly my understanding Mike, though I came to that understanding by the same assumptions that you are making. of course many of the men who
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 31, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        This is certainly my understanding Mike, though I came to that understanding by the same assumptions that you are making. of course many of the men who answered the call were protecting their homes and families.

        cheers,

        Ron Carnegie


        From: umfspock87@...
        Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:11 PM
        To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Revlist] Dunmore's War




        Dear List,

        Got a question for the handful of Dunmore's War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the assembly had yet to renew the Militia Law of 1738 (which had been renewed a number of times before, but had expired in 1773). This meant that the County Lieutenants did not have the authority to call out the militia.

        Yet, in the summer and fall of 1774, Dunmore led a large expedition against the Indians, an expedition made of up troops from the western counties.

        My assumption is that because there still was no miliita law in effect, the men in the expedition were basically volunteers ( who served due to their own desire of self preservation / interest ) rather than due to any requirement of the law.

        Would this be an accurate assumption?

        Mike Cecere 7th VA

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • DArmstrong
        The House of Burgesses did not dissolve until June of 1775. In May of 1774 the body authorized Gov. Dunmore to use executive power to quell Indian
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          The House of Burgesses did not dissolve until June of 1775. In May of 1774 the body authorized Gov. Dunmore to use executive power to quell Indian insurrection. Although his circular letter calling out the militia did not go out until June of ‘74 the frontier County Lieutenants had already began call-ups of the militia as early as April in Fincastle and other counties had companies in the field building forts and scouting in May. Captains Stuart and Friend had companies assembled in the Tygart Valley here where I live, and these men were later paid under the act that paid the whole of the militia activated for the 1774 conflict, apparently regardless of the fact that they were in the field prior to the formal call-up. Hope this helps.

          David Armstrong
          Elkins, WV

          From: r.carnegie@...
          Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:22 PM
          To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War
          as


          13 May 1774 House of Burgesses authorize Dunmore to use executive power to quel Indian insurrections (10, pg 18)


          This is certainly my understanding Mike, though I came to that understanding by the same assumptions that you are making. of course many of the men who answered the call were protecting their homes and families.

          cheers,

          Ron Carnegie

          From: mailto:umfspock87%40cs.com
          Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:11 PM
          To: mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Revlist] Dunmore's War

          Dear List,

          Got a question for the handful of Dunmore's War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the assembly had yet to renew the Militia Law of 1738 (which had been renewed a number of times before, but had expired in 1773). This meant that the County Lieutenants did not have the authority to call out the militia.

          Yet, in the summer and fall of 1774, Dunmore led a large expedition against the Indians, an expedition made of up troops from the western counties.

          My assumption is that because there still was no miliita law in effect, the men in the expedition were basically volunteers ( who served due to their own desire of self preservation / interest ) rather than due to any requirement of the law.

          Would this be an accurate assumption?

          Mike Cecere 7th VA

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • guardsmand55
          The House of Burgesses WAS dissolved by Governor Dunmore May 26th, 1774, two days after have called for a day of fasting humiliation and prayer. It was
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            The House of Burgesses WAS dissolved by Governor Dunmore May 26th, 1774, two days after have called for a day of fasting humiliation and prayer. It was prorogued by the Governor at least twice after that (August and November) and didn't MEET again until June 1, 1775. Dissolving the house was common and happened frequently. Sometimes for routine reason that the house had completed its agenda.

            Two important pieces of Legislative work were left undone by the dissolving of the house in '74. The new militia act and the new Fee bill, both of these were replacing the previous laws which had expired prior to or at the beginning of the spring '74 session. This meant no militia in Virginia legally and no civil court cases could meet (criminal cases continued to meet under provisions provided by rules for courts of oyer and terminer).

            I am off for two days, but when I return to work I will try to remember to go through the House of Burgess records (Henning's Statutes) to see what exactly the action on the 13th was. I know however that support for Dunmore and his war were NOT strong amongst the House. Most of the Tidewater gentlemen refused to recognize the importance of the situation. Of course the Governor does not need their permission to call the militia (only to pay for it) and on the 13th everyone would have still assumed that the routine work of a new militia act was going to be completed. The militia acts simply state who has to respond to the call, what they are to supply themselves and how they are recompensed and so on.

            It is this lack of militia in Virginia that causes Patrick Henry to make his famous speech and for the 2nd convention to call for the raising of Independent Companies in March of 1775.

            Ron Carnegie
            Williamsburg, VA

            From: DArmstrong
            Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:46 AM
            To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War



            The House of Burgesses did not dissolve until June of 1775. In May of 1774 the body authorized Gov. Dunmore to use executive power to quell Indian insurrection. Although his circular letter calling out the militia did not go out until June of ‘74 the frontier County Lieutenants had already began call-ups of the militia as early as April in Fincastle and other counties had companies in the field building forts and scouting in May. Captains Stuart and Friend had companies assembled in the Tygart Valley here where I live, and these men were later paid under the act that paid the whole of the militia activated for the 1774 conflict, apparently regardless of the fact that they were in the field prior to the formal call-up. Hope this helps.

            David Armstrong
            Elkins, WV

            From: r.carnegie@...
            Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:22 PM
            To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War
            as

            13 May 1774 House of Burgesses authorize Dunmore to use executive power to quel Indian insurrections (10, pg 18)

            This is certainly my understanding Mike, though I came to that understanding by the same assumptions that you are making. of course many of the men who answered the call were protecting their homes and families.

            cheers,

            Ron Carnegie

            From: mailto:umfspock87%40cs.com
            Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:11 PM
            To: mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Revlist] Dunmore's War

            Dear List,

            Got a question for the handful of Dunmore's War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the assembly had yet to renew the Militia Law of 1738 (which had been renewed a number of times before, but had expired in 1773). This meant that the County Lieutenants did not have the authority to call out the militia.

            Yet, in the summer and fall of 1774, Dunmore led a large expedition against the Indians, an expedition made of up troops from the western counties.

            My assumption is that because there still was no miliita law in effect, the men in the expedition were basically volunteers ( who served due to their own desire of self preservation / interest ) rather than due to any requirement of the law.

            Would this be an accurate assumption?

            Mike Cecere 7th VA

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • DArmstrong
            Thanks, Ron. I had the citation for the 13 May act in my notes at one time, but see now that I don’t have the source I took it from any more. I do know that
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Ron. I had the citation for the 13 May act in my notes at one time, but see now that I don’t have the source I took it from any more. I do know that I got it about 25 years ago from a published source, not the actual minutes of the Assembly. The on-line version of Hening has nothing for that year. If you come up with anything I hope you will let me know.

              I think I misspoke when I said that the House did not dissolve until June of 1775. I think I meant to say that it did not dissolve permanently until then. So I take your point. I see from looking again at Skidmores “Lord Dunmore’s Little War” that part of the June session of 1775 was spent in argument over the payment (or method thereof) for the troops who had gone out in 1774. I see that this was not settled until the Committee of safety did so in 1775. Then the County Lieutenants began bringing in their pay rolls and expense claims and those of the men, and these were eventually paid. To the original question I think the men expected to be paid and eventually were, but I, as Mike asked, would also like to know under what specific law they were called up.

              A handful of us with an interest in the local defenses of the period spent some time going over the pay rolls published in Skidmore’s book in an effort to figure out when some of the companies paid had actually gone into service. I have set up a chronological sequence based on the number of days paid for given men and companies in these payrolls. My date of May 1774 for the Friend company, as an example, was based on the fact that some men appear in more than one roll (under more than one captain) and unless the service overlapped the respective companies (I thought) could not have gone into service at the same time. The time between Dunmore’s June circular letter and the October battle did not leave enough time for all three of the local companies to have deployed separately. Thus I moved the date back based partly on the fact that some of the Fincastle scouts who were out in April (per letter in Thwaites and Kellog’s “Documentary History of Dunmore’s War) were later listed (per Skidmore) as paid under the 1775 act of the Committee. I had based this also partly on the May 13 act which I see now I have mislaid my source for.

              I am still interested in learning more about what the listings for given soldiers in the payrolls published in Skidmore and the number of days paid for each tell us about the facts on the ground in 1774. These rolls were presented for payment a year or more after the fact. If they are accurate with respect to who was doing what in 1774, and if there was no overlap (that is no one paid for service in two companies concurrently) then it gives us an approximate date for the deployment of the first two companies here. If however there were mistakes made, and if some of the men were paid for more days than they actually served in one or both companies, the date of deployments might all fit after Dunmore’s June circular letter.

              I see that William White was listed as paid for 94 days as a scout in “Capt.“ (paid at ensign rate) Friend’s company. Most of the men in the Friend company as a whole were paid for only 48 days. White also took a platoon as a Lt. to Point Pleasant and was paid for 82 days in that roll. I would like to know why some of the leaders in these rolls (like Friend) were shown on the rolls as “Captain” yet paid at the rate of a lesser officer. I would also like to know whether the days of service paid for the individual soldiers can be taken as accurate. It is hard to imagine that the Committee would want to pay the men for more days than they served. But since it was up to the local officers to turn in the claims I cannot say for sure that the Committee would know the difference if the local officer certified the claim as accurate.

              This area where I live is lacking in much of any primary evidence of who was here in the 1770s so getting all we can from what we have (such as the 1774 payment) is important to the area history. Can anyone elaborate on these questions about the pay rolls?

              David Armstrong
              Elkins, WV

              From: r.carnegie@...
              Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:13 AM
              To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War


              The House of Burgesses WAS dissolved by Governor Dunmore May 26th, 1774, two days after have called for a day of fasting humiliation and prayer. It was prorogued by the Governor at least twice after that (August and November) and didn't MEET again until June 1, 1775. Dissolving the house was common and happened frequently. Sometimes for routine reason that the house had completed its agenda.

              Two important pieces of Legislative work were left undone by the dissolving of the house in '74. The new militia act and the new Fee bill, both of these were replacing the previous laws which had expired prior to or at the beginning of the spring '74 session. This meant no militia in Virginia legally and no civil court cases could meet (criminal cases continued to meet under provisions provided by rules for courts of oyer and terminer).

              I am off for two days, but when I return to work I will try to remember to go through the House of Burgess records (Henning's Statutes) to see what exactly the action on the 13th was. I know however that support for Dunmore and his war were NOT strong amongst the House. Most of the Tidewater gentlemen refused to recognize the importance of the situation. Of course the Governor does not need their permission to call the militia (only to pay for it) and on the 13th everyone would have still assumed that the routine work of a new militia act was going to be completed. The militia acts simply state who has to respond to the call, what they are to supply themselves and how they are recompensed and so on.

              It is this lack of militia in Virginia that causes Patrick Henry to make his famous speech and for the 2nd convention to call for the raising of Independent Companies in March of 1775.

              Ron Carnegie
              Williamsburg, VA

              From: DArmstrong
              Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:46 AM
              To: mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War

              The House of Burgesses did not dissolve until June of 1775. In May of 1774 the body authorized Gov. Dunmore to use executive power to quell Indian insurrection. Although his circular letter calling out the militia did not go out until June of ‘74 the frontier County Lieutenants had already began call-ups of the militia as early as April in Fincastle and other counties had companies in the field building forts and scouting in May. Captains Stuart and Friend had companies assembled in the Tygart Valley here where I live, and these men were later paid under the act that paid the whole of the militia activated for the 1774 conflict, apparently regardless of the fact that they were in the field prior to the formal call-up. Hope this helps.

              David Armstrong
              Elkins, WV

              From: mailto:r.carnegie%40verizon.net
              Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:22 PM
              To: mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War
              as

              13 May 1774 House of Burgesses authorize Dunmore to use executive power to quel Indian insurrections (10, pg 18)

              This is certainly my understanding Mike, though I came to that understanding by the same assumptions that you are making. of course many of the men who answered the call were protecting their homes and families.

              cheers,

              Ron Carnegie

              From: mailto:umfspock87%40cs.com
              Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:11 PM
              To: mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Revlist] Dunmore's War

              Dear List,

              Got a question for the handful of Dunmore's War enthusiasts out there. When Governor Dunmore dissolved the House of Burgesses in May of 1774 the assembly had yet to renew the Militia Law of 1738 (which had been renewed a number of times before, but had expired in 1773). This meant that the County Lieutenants did not have the authority to call out the militia.

              Yet, in the summer and fall of 1774, Dunmore led a large expedition against the Indians, an expedition made of up troops from the western counties.

              My assumption is that because there still was no miliita law in effect, the men in the expedition were basically volunteers ( who served due to their own desire of self preservation / interest ) rather than due to any requirement of the law.

              Would this be an accurate assumption?

              Mike Cecere 7th VA

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • umfspock87
              Hi David and Ron, Thanks for responding guys. I have some follow up questions. I found in the House of Burgesses journal (p. 93) that on May 12th the
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 3, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi David and Ron,


                Thanks for responding guys. I have some follow up questions. I found in the House of Burgesses journal (p. 93) that on May 12th the assembly instructed Governor Dunmore to,


                "exert the Powers vested in him, by the Act of Assembly, for makingProvisions against Invasions and Insurrections, which we doubt not, will besufficient for the present to repel the Attacks of the Indians, who haveperfidiously commenced Hostilities against his Majesty’s Colonies."


                I think Ron that you are spot on in your speculation that the House assumed the expired militia law (of 1771) was going to finally be renewed (it expired in 1773) and thus, instructing the Governor to "exert the Powers vested in him" was no big deal.


                But the law wasn't renewed (as you noted) because of the sudden dismissal of the House in late May. So the question remains, under what legal authority did Governor Dunmore act when he , "directed that the Militia of [ Augusta, Botetourt, and Fincastle] Counties be draughted out, in order to compose a body of Men sufficient to go against the Indian Towns and drive off, or extirpate, the Blood-thirst and savage Inhabitants." ( Purdie & Dixon July 14, 1774, p. 2 col. 3)


                By this time they all knew the militia law had not been renewed, so I wonder how this action was legally justified.


                By the way, I found in Henings on April 30, 1757 that the House of Burgesses, in renewing an earlier militia law, specifically authorized the governor to muster the militia in times of invasion or insurrection... p 106. This act was to be renewed in two years, and was done so a number of times after that until 1773. The fact that renewal of this law was required, tells me that the governor did not have a blanket authority to call out the militia. It also suggests that since the law was renewed after 1771, then technically speaking, Governor Dunmore had no legal authority to call out the militia of the frontier counties. Of course, with their lives and property on the line, the men out west didn't probably split hairs on the issue, but it appears to me that, strictly legally speaking, Dunmore had exceeded his authority.


                This brings me to another question. The militia law that was frequently renewed did authorize County Lieutenants and company commanders to muster and drill a few times a year, but I haven't actually seen any authorization for these officials to call out the militia in a crisis. I assume that authority existed with at least the County Lieutenant (because one duty of the militia was clearly to suppress possible slave insurrections). Does anyone know for sure that county level officials had the power to call out the militia?


                And here is another thing.


                I've always kind of assumed that the expiration of the Militia Law in 1773 meant that County-Lieutenants and other designated officials who formerly had the authorization to call out (and compel) the militia to muster/serve, no longer had that authority. But does that mean that they actually did not have the authority to call out the militia and to do so would have been similar to an act of rebellion, or does it really mean that they did not have the authority to COMPEL the militia to serve..... This is an important distinction because the latter interpretation allows for volunteers to muster and train ( aka Fairfax County in Sept. 1774) but the first interpretation would view even that sort of voluntary activity as illegal.


                I'm curious to know your views on the significance of the militia law's expiration.


                Thanks,


                Mike Cecere 7th VA











                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Glenn Williams
                Hi Ron, David and Todd,   I d like to offer a few observations to this discussion based on my research of the subject.   The Burgesses, as you indicated,
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 12, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Ron, David and Todd,
                   
                  I'd like to offer a few observations to this discussion based on my research of the subject.
                   
                  The Burgesses, as you indicated, told Dunmore he had the authority to call out militia under the Act to Repel Invasions and Suppress Rebellions. 
                   
                  From the Journals of the House of Burgesses for May 5, 1774: "... your Excellency will be pleased to exert those powers with which you are fully vested by the Act of Assembly, for making provision against Invasions and Insurrections..."
                   
                  By his royal commission and letter of instructions, Dunmore was commander in chief of the militia; had the authority to call out all or part of the militia; march them to any place in the colony; commission officers, etc.  
                   
                  We should not forget that Dunmore was not an elected governor, but since Virginia was a "royal colony" he acted as the king's viceroy, with the power and authority delegated by the monarch to: “at all times to arm, levy, muster and command” all persons living within the boundaries of Virginia.He could call or issue the order to raise as many regiments and march them anywhere within the province’s boundaries as he saw fit.In addition to enlisting volunteers, the governor could levy, or draft, men as soldiers and artificers for active service.The governor could order the construction of fortifications, and impress or commandeer private property such as sloops, boats, draft animals, wagons, supplies, and provisions for military use.He could also proclaim martial law and issue letters of marque in the king’s name during wartime. (from Dunmore's Royal Commission from the king, and letter instructions from the Secretary of State or the Colonies, dated
                  the Court of Saint James, February 7, 1771).
                   
                  The Militia Act, which needed to be "continued" in 1774, but as you indicated the Assembly was "dissolved," which means new delegates to the House of Burgesses had to be elected, it did NOT mean the General Assembly ceased to exist.  Think of it in terms of being like a "vote of no confidence" in the current British Parliament.  The Militia Law needed to be "continued" (not "renewed") , or a new one enacted, also did NOT mean the colonial militia ceased to exist, or could not be called out.  The "expiration" gave the House the opportunity to amend or change the legislation.  The governor did exactly as he and all the royal governors before him did after disolving the Burgesses: he issued a writ for new elections in order to call the House of Burgesses for the next session of the General Assembly, before he left on campaign, if memory serves.  Remember, in June 1775 the General Assembly was in session when Dunmore removed to HMS FOWEY.  The
                  House of Burgesses, like the House of Commons in England, had to initiate any legislation to levy taxes and appropriate revenue  The Act for Repelling Invasions and Suppressing Insurrections was not due to expire until 1775.  Also, read the wording of the Militia Act, and as I recall, it is mostly administrative and organizational requirements (who must be enrolled, who is exempt, or excused from attending assemblies; how often private and general musters are held; .  The Act for Repelling and Suppressing is more operational.
                   
                  The difference between the Militia Act and the Act for Repelling and Suppressing:
                   
                  The Act for the better regulating and
                  disciplining the militia, or the Militia
                  Law (Hening, 8: 241-245, 503).  The act defined the obligation of all free
                  men to serve, specified their related responsibilities, and qualified the
                  exemptions of those who could be excused from performing service or attending training.  The Militia Law also defined the government’s
                  role in supporting its military establishment, enforcing the act’s provisions, and
                  maintaining order and discipline when its soldiers were not serving on active
                  duty. 
                   
                  In The several acts of Assembly for
                  making provision against invasions and insurrections,(Hening 8: 9-12) defined the colonial government’s
                  responsibilities for defense and internal security.  These included provisions and procedures for
                  raising and supporting militia forces called into “actual service,” and
                  provided for enhanced military measures, such as organizing standing forces,
                  “in times of danger.”  
                   
                  Dunmore to Col. Andrew Lewis, letter dated Winchester, July 24, 1774: "the Old [Militia] Law [is] Still in force as
                  far as it goes we are sure of being reimbursed,” by the General Assembly.
                   
                  What the governor could not do was pay the troops or suppliers.  Certainly, he could "draught" men and "impress" private property, and possibly pay for it out of his own treasure, or seek for the general Assembly to enact the necessary legislation to appropriate funds and levy taxes to raise the revenue.  Remember, the Townshend Duties and the Tea Tax were attempts by the Parliament to make the royal and proprietary governors LESS DEPENDENT on their colonial assemblies (especially the representative lower houses) since they held the colonial purse strings. 
                   
                  The colonial treasurer disbursed such money to pay for militia soldiers who had performed "actual service" only
                  after the Burgesses appointed commissioners “to examine and state accounts of
                  the militia ordered into actual service” made their reports, and the House’s
                  committee of the whole approved their findings. (Hening:8: 9). The House of Burgesses appropriated the money by legislation, and the colonial treasurer was always a member of the House appointed by the House. 
                   
                  The commissions of the county lieutenants, among other directives, required them "... in case of any sudden
                  Disturbance or Invasion, I do likewise empower you to raise, order, and march
                  all or such part of the Said militia, as you shall seem meet, for resisting and
                  subduing the Enemy:”  
                   
                   As for how the army was formed, only the General Assembly could pass an act that enabled the county lieutenants to draft militia for actual service at the colony's expense; and they would never vote to authorize the militia to operate with drafted men outside the colony's borders or more than five miles beyond the farthest settlement (Hening 6: 31, 548).  Previous expeditions were almost always conducted with volunteers (the Virginia provincial regiments during the Forbes campaign against Fort Duquesne are a different story - but then, although they were not militia, still required the approval of the General Assembly).  County lieutenants had the power to draft men for local defense or to serve as rangers (at the county's expense), but could only apply to get the colony to pay in arrears.  And regardless of their rank in the militia, officers and NCOs were only paid for serving in the size unit they recruited as volunteers:
                   
                  The county lieutenants were cautioned “not depute any greater number of inferior
                  officers than one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, three serjeants or
                  corporals, and one drummer for every fifty soldiers,” and in that proportion
                  for a greater number.  When the full
                  established strength of fifty men for a company could not be reached, the
                  number of leaders decreased proportionally.  For example, “every company consisting of thirty men,” when properly
                  officered, could have no more than “one lieutenant, one ensign, and two
                  serjeants,” while a company of fifteen or fewer men had “not more than one
                  ensign, and one serjeant.”   (Hening 7:114)

                  When the military operation was over, the Burgesses would, the next time convened, appoint commissioners to determine if the colony paid the troops and for military expenses.  If you read some of the correspondence, Governor Dunmore and the county lieutenants discuss that recruiting of volunteers for the expedition had to be done, and to assure the men that the Burgesses would certainly approve the pay for them at the next session.  The commission's report would also cover the men drafted for local defense and for rangers, spies and scouts.  Militiamen called out on alarm were not entitled top pay, usually retroactively, until they had been on duty in excess of six days.   
                   
                  I hope this helps (or at least does not make it any MORE confusing.
                   
                  Best Regards,
                   
                  Glenn
                   
                    

                  ________________________________
                  From: "umfspock87@..." umfspock87@...
                  Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:54 AM
                  Subject: Re: [Revlist] Dunmore's War
                   
                   

                  Hi David and Ron, Thanks for responding guys. I have some follow up questions. I found in the House of Burgesses journal (p. 93) that on May 12th the assembly instructed Governor Dunmore to, "exert the Powers vested in him, by the Act of Assembly, for making Provisions against Invasions and Insurrections, which we doubt not, will besufficient for the present to repel the Attacks of the Indians, who haveperfidiously commenced Hostilities against his Majesty’s Colonies." I think Ron that you are spot on in your speculation that the House assumed the expired militia law (of 1771) was going to finally be renewed (it expired in 1773) and thus, instructing the Governor to "exert the Powers vested in him" was no big deal. But the law wasn't renewed (as you noted) because of the sudden dismissal of the House in late May. So the question remains, under what legal authority did Governor Dunmore act when he , "directed that the Militia of [ Augusta,
                  Botetourt, and Fincastle] Counties be draughted out, in order to compose a body of Men sufficient to go against the Indian Towns and drive off, or extirpate, the Blood-thirst and savage Inhabitants." ( Purdie & Dixon July 14, 1774, p. 2 col. 3) By this time they all knew the militia law had not been renewed, so I wonder how this action was legally justified. By the way, I found in Henings on April 30, 1757 that the House of Burgesses, in renewing an earlier militia law, specifically authorized the governor to muster the militia in times of invasion or insurrection... p 106. This act was to be renewed in two years, and was done so a number of times after that until 1773. The fact that renewal of this law was required, tells me that the governor did not have a blanket authority to call out the militia. It also suggests that since the law was renewed after 1771, then technically speaking, Governor Dunmore had no legal authority to call out the
                  militia of the frontier counties. Of course, with their lives and property on the line, the men out west didn't probably split hairs on the issue, but it appears to me that, strictly legally speaking, Dunmore had exceeded his authority. This brings me to another question. The militia law that was frequently renewed did authorize County Lieutenants and company commanders to muster and drill a few times a year, but I haven't actually seen any authorization for these officials to call out the militia in a crisis. I assume that authority existed with at least the County Lieutenant (because one duty of the militia was clearly to suppress possible slave insurrections). Does anyone know for sure that county level officials had the power to call out the militia? And here is another thing. I've always kind of assumed that the expiration of the Militia Law in 1773 meant that County-Lieutenants and other designated officials who formerly had the
                  authorization to call out (and compel) the militia to muster/serve, no longer had that authority. But does that mean that they actually did not have the authority to call out the militia and to do so would have been similar to an act of rebellion, or does it really mean that they did not have the authority to COMPEL the militia to serve..... This is an important distinction because the latter interpretation allows for volunteers to muster and train ( aka Fairfax County in Sept. 1774) but the first interpretation would view even that sort of voluntary activity as illegal. I'm curious to know your views on the significance of the militia law's expiration. Thanks, Mike Cecere 7th VA [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.