AWR Hawkins: Without Armed Militia Members, No Victory in American Revolution
by AWR Hawkins
During Breitbart News Daily’s Fourth of July Special, Breitbart’s Dr. AWR Hawkins discussed the indispensability of armed militia members, coupled with the irregular tactics of theirs militias, in regards to victory in the American Revolution.
He also described the way the militia complimented George Washington’s Continental Army and the important lessons the militia has to offer on gun ownership.
Host Stephen K. Bannon directed the conversation toward how the American Revolution was fought “and the concept of militias.” He pointed out that militias were popular in the minds of some 18th century military leaders, not popular in the minds of others. Yet it is inarguable that the militias won the war as it “turned down to the South.”
He then asked Hawkins to explain the difference between “what the militia was and what the Continental Army was.”
Regarding the difference between the Continental Army and the militia we just need to remember that the militia is a very local organization from its start; it goes through various cycles from the 1600s to the time of the revolutionary war–the American Revolution. It was local throughout its history while the Continental Army was, as it sounds, national.
The Continental Army was under George Washington and was more organized–I should say, more militarized, by which I mean better disciplined in the type of military tactics they used.
In the militia you’re going to have a lot of hit and run tactics, a lot of what we refer to as guerrilla warfare. So the militia gave the British fits. Instead of lining up against them as a regular army–like the Continental Army would–you have the militia coming in behind, coming in beside, taking a hit then running. Ambushes and different things. Shooting at officers instead of shooting at rank and file. In short, doing what they had to do to win.
Bannon referenced asymmetric warfare–the type of warfare evidenced by militia methodology–emphasizing too how that type of warfare presented the British with something other than what they expected.