FEDERALIST No. 29

Concerning the Militia
From the New York Packet.
Wednesday, January 9, 1788

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  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
conviction?

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 entrenchments 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 self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS
Text supplied by
Project Gutenberg
The Constitution Society
& The Avalon Project
Philosophy of
Evil
Socialism in America

"The struggle of History is not
between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat; it is between government
and the governed."

Jerry McDaniel
The Illinois Conservative