|
If History Interests You, then This Section of the
Site is For You |
|
Back |
Federalist
No. 29
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, January 10, 1788 |
Next |
|
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its
services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural
incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense,
and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that
uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia
would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever
they were called into service for the public defense. It would
enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field
with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar
moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much
sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military
functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This
desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the
regulation of the militia to the direction of the national
authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety,
that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union
``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed
in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY
OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED
BY CONGRESS.''
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to
the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to
have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one
from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a
well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free
country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at
the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of
the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to
liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to
whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as
far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to
such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can
command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call
for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can
the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of
force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be
obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary,
will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a
thousand prohibitions upon paper.
In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked
that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution
for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in
the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that
military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a
striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and
sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to
inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair
dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one
breath, that the powers of the federal government will be
despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not
authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The
latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former
exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass
all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers,
would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens
to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those
laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws
necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes
would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the
alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by
jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that
the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the
POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow,
that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its
application to the authority of the federal government over the
militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could
there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole
instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make
use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives
which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How
shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy,
we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself,
in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that
select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent,
who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by
the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so
far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who
object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution
ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the
federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia
establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following
discourse:
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United
States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable
of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in
military movements is a business that requires time and
practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for
the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry,
and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for
the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions,
as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people,
and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an
annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an
amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the
people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the
civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which
would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable
an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could
not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more
can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large,
than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to
see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble
them once or twice in the course of a year.
``But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of
the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon
as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the
militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to
be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate
extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service
in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be
possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia,
ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall
require it. This will not only lessen the call for military
establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige
the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can
never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there
is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them
in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend
their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a
standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it
should exist.''
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed
Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing
arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent
as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national
legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither
they nor I can foresee.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea
of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss
whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to
consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of
rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at
any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism.
Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we
may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our
fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who
are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who
participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits
and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be
inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for
the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while
the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to
indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable
establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of
the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at
once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this
circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating
influence over the militia.
In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a
man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale
or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images,
exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes
``Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire''; discoloring and
disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything
it touches into a monster.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and
improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the
power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New
Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New
Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake
Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be
paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one
moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the
liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of
Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred
miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and
that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to
subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic
Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that
their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or
absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of
despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army,
whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to
undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of
riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen,
direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had
meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush
them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them
an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed
people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion
over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by
exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their
intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by
wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no
end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and
execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions
of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the
inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts?
If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the
most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that
they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their
designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and
proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched
into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic
against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently
the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the
late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of
our political association. If the power of affording it be
placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger
of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a
neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements
of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and
sympathy.
PUBLIUS. |
|
|
|
|