Federalist 29: Congress Must Fund and the President Must Control State Militias
The Federal Government Should Regulate State Militias
IF WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS are the most natural defenders of a free country, they certainly ought to be regulated by and be at the disposal of the Federal government, which the Constitution establishes as the guardian of the national security. The power of regulating State militias – and of commanding their services in times of insurrection and invasion – are natural incidents to the power and duty of the Federal government to superintend the common defense and watch over the internal peace of the United States.
The State Militias Should Be Uniform and Ready to Defend
Even a person unskilled in the science of war can discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militias naturally would lead to the most beneficial effects whenever it was called to serve for the public defense. Uniformity in organization and discipline of the State militias would fit them much sooner to the degree of military proficiency needed to discharge the duties of the camp and field with mutual intelligence.
The Constitution Expressly Provides for the Congress to Fund and Arm State Militias and for the President to Lead Them
Such uniformity can be accomplished only by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the Federal government. Thus, the Constitution empowers the Federal government “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.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 16 (emphasis added).
And the President “shall” be their Commander in Chief, which is in accordance with an enumerated power: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
State Militias Are a Natural Bulwark Against Federal Tyranny
Militias are the bodies to whom we commit the protection of the individual States. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, a Federal power over the militias will lessen the inducement and the pretext to such armies. If the Federal government cannot command the aid of State militias in those emergencies which call for military support of the President, it will more likely employ a different type of force, such as a standing army. The most certain method of preventing a standing army is to render its existence unnecessary – a method more sure than a thousand prohibitions on paper.
The Absence of a Posse Comitatus Provision Proves Nothing
Those opposed to a power in the Federal government to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the United States point to the absence of any constitutional provision granting a Federal power to summon the posse comitatus of able-bodied individuals to assist with the execution of the President’s duties. From this they infer the President’s only auxiliary is military force.
There appears a striking incoherence to an argument that in one breath tells us the power of the Federal government will be despotic and unlimited due to its military force, and in the next that the same government has not authority sufficient even to call out the posse comitatus.
The right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the Federal government’s declared powers undoubtedly includes requiring citizens to assist the officers entrusted with the execution of those laws. There is no reason to infer the expression of a power to use a military force includes an intent that such force be the sole instrument of authority.
* * *
To summarize: the most to be reasonably aimed at with respect to the People at large is to see that they are properly armed and equipped. So this is not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
* * *
The Citizenry Should Be Armed and Equipped Annually
It is unlikely the Federal power to discipline the militia would extend in practice to all the individual citizens of the United States. The project would be as futile as it would be injurious, even if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. Neither a day nor a week would suffice to attain it. It would be a real grievance to the People – and a serious public inconvenience and loss – to oblige all classes of citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as necessary to acquire the degree of perfection that characterizes a well-regulated militia. Even to attempt the thing would abridge the mass of labor and industry so considerably as to be unwise. And if the experiment were made, it would fail as soon as endurance gave out.
To summarize: the most to be reasonably aimed at with respect to the People at large is to see that they are properly armed and equipped. So this is not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Misuse of State Militias to Execute Federal Tyranny Is Unlikely
Another improbable and exaggerated claim is the Federal government will march one or more State militias to a distant State or States. It is announced the militia 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. It is said that even the wartime debts due the French and Dutch are not to be paid in their native currencies but instead with able-bodied American militiamen. At one moment the critics of the Constitution envisage a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the People, and at another they foresee the militia of Virginia being dragged from their homes to tame that obstinate resistance to authority habitual to the citizens of Massachusetts. And then again the militia of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Can such mad and delirious arguments be expected to persuade the People of America to abandon infallible truth?
* * *
Assuming a State militia were called to undertake a distant and hopeless Federal expedition to rivet the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, said militia – properly irritated by the order of so foolish and wicked a project – would more likely direct its course to the seat of the tyrants, in order to crush their grasping and imagined power, and make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed People.
* * *
A Misused Militia Would Probably First March on the Federal Capital
If a Federal standing army is to be made the engine of Federal despotism, what need is there of State militias to assist this scheme of tyranny? If there be no Federal standing army, the chances of oppression are even less. Assuming a State militia were called to undertake a distant and hopeless Federal expedition to rivet the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, said militia – properly irritated by the order of so foolish and wicked a project – would more likely direct its course to the seat of the tyrants, in order to crush their grasping and imagined power, and make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed People.
State Militias Should Have a Ready Body of Individuals Who Can Serve
As for the composition of State militias, they should have an excellent body of well-trained members ready to take the field whenever the defense of a State requires it. This will lessen the call for military establishments. If circumstances should oblige the Federal government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People so long as a large body of individual citizens – little if at all inferior to the army in discipline and the use of arms – stand ready to defend their own rights and those of the People. Well-regulated State militias are the only substitutes for a Federal standing army, and the best possible security against such an army should it exist.
* * *
As for the far-fetched fear that conjures danger to liberty from militias, one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Is the argument a mere trial of skill – like the paradoxes of rhetoricians – a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price? Or is it simply the offspring of political fanaticism?
* * *
State Militias Must Be Available to Quell Neighboring Disturbances
When we finally arrive at the true facts, it would be natural and proper – in times of insurrection or invasion – for the militia of a State to be marched into a neighboring State in order to resist a common enemy or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. Resisting a common enemy was frequently the case for utilizing State militias in the course of the Revolutionary War. This mutual succor is indeed a principal end of our political association. Placing the power over such forces in Federal hands will lessen the risk State governments will lapse into a listless inattention to the dangers of a neighboring force until its near approach had awakened the feeble impulses of duty and the urge to self-preservation.
As for the far-fetched fear that conjures danger to liberty from militias, one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Is the argument a mere trial of skill – like the paradoxes of rhetoricians – a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price? Or is it simply the offspring of political fanaticism?
The States Retain the Important Power of Appointing All Officers to Their Militias
In the name of common sense, where are our fears to end if we cannot trust our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors, and fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can be cast from individuals daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen, and who experience the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? How can the Federal power over State militias be a vehicle to tyranny while the particular States have the sole and exclusive appointment of its officers, as the Constitution declares? The appointment of militia officers by the States should extinguish any fear the Federal government will establish tyranny by means of State militias. By reserving to the States the sole and exclusive power to appoint officers, the States will always maintain a preponderating influence over their respective militias.
Hamiltonoriginal Federalist 29