| 
			
				|  |  
				| 
					
						| 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.
 |  
				|  |  
				|  |  
				|  |  |