The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 29:

Written by Alexander Hamilton

The power of regulating the militia, and of calling them in times of insurrection and invasion, are a part of the responsibilities of making sure the country is protected and keeping peace within the group of states.

It’s easy to see that if, when needed to protect the country, the militia were all organized and trained the same way. They would be able to work together and understand each other, which is very important in an army. They would also be able to learn how to do their job better and faster. This kind of uniformity can only be done if the national government is in charge of organizing and training them. This is why the constitution proposes that the national government should “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.”

There are few oppositions to the constitution as unexpected and untenable as this particular one. If a well regulated militia is the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly be under the control of the guardian of national security. By giving federal government control over the militia, then the need for a standing army could be minimized. Having this power would remove the pretext for creating potentially dangerous standing armies in the first place. To render a standing army unnecessary will more certainly prevent its existence than a thousand prohibitions on paper.

Some people object that the constitution gives too much power to the national government because it doesn’t have a provision to use posse comitatus—an armed group of citizens—to help civil officials enforce the laws. This is a weak argument because the same people who say the national government has too much power also say that it doesn’t have enough power to use posse comitatus. This makes no sense. The national government has the right to pass any laws necessary to carry out its responsibilities, and this includes the right to ask citizens for help. To deny this would be as absurd as implying that the right to pass laws of taxation would involve varying property laws or of abolishing one’s right to trial by jury. It’s clear that the national government does have the power to use the posse comitatus if needed. These objections are illogical, and it is hard to understand the motives behind them.

In the spirit of republicanism, we may be taught to expect tyrannical danger from even the militia itself in the hands of the federal government. As the argument goes, the militia may be formed by the young and passionate who may be rendered subservient to the views of any power. While a national government’s plans to regulate the militia can’t be foreseen, I don’t agree that it’s dangerous. If the constitutional plan is accepted and I were to give my opinion on how to organize this national militia, I would say something like this:

“Training the entire militia of the United States would be impossible and harmful. It takes too much time and effort, not just a few days or weeks. Requiring certain classes of citizen militiamen to participate in military drills would become burdensome to both individuals and the nation. The lost economic productivity would amount to more than a million pounds. It would not be a wise decision to try to reduce the labor of the country like this. And it would not succeed because the people wouldn’t want it. The best that can be hoped for is for all citizens to be properly armed and equipped. To make sure this happens, citizens should be assembled for training once or twice a year.”

I would continue: “Even though we ought abandon the goal of training the whole nation’s militias, it is still very important to come up with a good plan to organize the militia. The government should focus on creating a smaller group of citizens who are trained well and can be used if needed. This way, it is possible to have an excellently trained militia ready to take the field when required. This will not only lessen the need for a standing army, but if circumstances should require an army of any magnitude, that army can never be very oppressive to the liberties of the people. This, because, the citizens will be barely inferior to them at all in the use of their weapons when they seek to defend their own rights. This is the best way to make sure that a permanent army is not needed.”

• Discussion: How do you think this argument holds up with modern militaries and weaponry? How might modern realities strengthen or weaken Hamilton’s philosophy?

The opponents of the proposed plan argue that it would be dangerous and lead to bad outcomes, while I argue that it would be beneficial and lead to safety. How a national legislature may reason on this point is yet to be seen.

The idea that the militia would be a threat to freedom is so unrealistic and extreme that it’s hard to know how to respond to it. It’s hard to tell if this argument is just a way to show off rhetorical skills, or if it’s disinformation, or if it’s a serious belief of a politically extremist. Where would our fears end if we are afraid of our own children, family, neighbors, and fellow citizens? How could we possibly be in danger from people who we see every day and who share the same feelings, opinions, habits, and interests as us? There is no reason to be afraid of the national government regulating the militia, especially since the states will choose the militia’s officers. This power secures the states a majority influence over the militia.

In reading the criticisms against the constitution, a man may think he is reading a fairy tale, instead of being presented with objects of reality, instead frightful monsters: dangerous Gorgons, Hydras, and Chimeras!

An example of this is seen in the exaggerated suggestions respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia, suggesting that citizens of one state would be sent to defend states far away, or to be used to pay debts to other countries. At one moment, they argue that the government would use the militia to take away the people’s freedom, and at another moment, they argue that the militia from one state would be sent to another distant state to force them to subdue them! It’s hard to believe that anyone would think that these arguments would be convincing to the people of America.

If the government intended to use an army for tyranny, why would they need the militia? And if there is no army, where would the militia—angry at the horrible mission of enslaving their countrymen—go but to overthrow the leaders who came up with such a foolish and evil plan? Does this sound like how usurpers would act? Would they start by making the militia or army, the tools of their power, hate them? Are these ideas seriously the warnings of wise leaders, or are they actually the wild and dangerous ideas of the angry and unstable? Even if we assume that the leaders in charge have the worst intentions, it’s hard to believe they would use such ridiculous and ineffective methods to achieve their goals.

In times of danger, like uprising or invasion, it makes sense for the militia of one state to help another. This happened often during the last war. Helping each other is one of the main reasons for forming a country. If the national government is in charge of deciding when to help, then there is less chance that a neighboring state will ignore a threat until it is too late and endangers them as well.

---