Federalist #29

Concerning the Militia  (Hamilton) 

Federalist paper number 29 is about the regulating of the militia.  The paper discuses the control of the militia being in the hands of the national government, rather then the hands of the State.  It is a power, according to the paper, that the national government should have, like having the power to make and execute laws.  The paper goes on to state why having the militia that serves twice a year would prevent any liberties from being abused.  It concludes by stating that the militia being in control of the national government would ensure that invasions and acts of sedition would be curtailed.

The militia should be a unified unit that is controlled by the national government.  The Union, the paper, argues, should have full control over the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia.  The reason for this is they should be employed in the service of the Union, so the Union would naturally want to control the militia.  The appointment of the officers and the training of the militia would be in the hands of the State.

Critics believe that the national government would be tyrannical believe that the Constitution does not give them the authority to call out the militia.  The national government, the paper argues, would not have too much power, as feared by the critics.  At the same time, it would have sufficient power to call the militia.  The use of force is solely under the authority of the national government.

The critics fear the militia being in the hands of the national government.  They would rather it be in the hands of the State.  They do not know what the national government would do with the militia.  However, the paper argues that the militia would not have so much power.  It would not be a standing army with the sole purpose of committing to military actions.  It would be unwise to have a standing army.  It would be a loss of labor production and it would not be tolerated for long.  Having them assemble one or two times a year would be advisable.  Having them be well trained would be great for the defense of the nation, but having them not be a standing army would be great for the defense of liberty.

The critics should be able to trust the national government with the control of the militia.  The paper argues that it would be made up of brothers, sons, neighbors, and fellow citizens.  The paper asks, how can the people not trust the militia considering their make up?  Another question that is asked by the paper is, how can there be fear of the militia being regulated by the federal government when the State appoints the officers?

The paper concludes with the main reason for the regulation of the militia by the national government which is the preservation of the union.  If there is a conflict in a state, a state controlled militia of another state would have no reason to interfere.  The militia would not have an obligation and duty to interfere in the affairs of another State.  Even though the enemy of one State would be an enemy of all the States, the militia would not be able to combat this evil.  If the militia is controlled by the federal government, any act of conflict or sedition in one State would become an act of conflict and sedition all the States.  The militia of another State would then be obliged to interfere and assist any State that is in conflict or has an act of sedition.  In summery, the control of the militia by the federal government would be in the best interest of all citizens in order to preserve the Union.