Antifederalist No. 29
OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
"A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST," appeared in "the Pennsylvania Packet,"
October 23, 1787; following #29, #30 is excerpted from THE
ADDRESS AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY OF THE CONVENTION
OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, December 12,
1787.
Hume, an aristocratical writer, has candidly confessed that
an army is a moral distemper in a government, of which it must at
last inevitably perish (2d Burgh, 349); and the Earl of Oxford
(Oxford the friend of France and the Pretender, the attainted
Oxford), said in the British parliament, in a speech on the
mutiny bill, that, "While he had breath he would speak for the
liberties of his country, and against courts martial and a
standing army in peace, as dangerous to the Constitution."
(Ibid., page 455.) Such were the speeches even of the enemies of
liberty when Britain had yet a right to be called free. But,
says Mr. [James] Wilson, "It is necessary to maintain the
appearance of strength even in times of the most profound
tranquillity." And what is this more than a threadbare hackneyed
argument, which has been answered over and over in different
ages, and does not deserve even the smallest consideration? Had
we a standing army when the British invaded our peaceful shores?
Was it a standing army that gained the battles of Lexington and
Bunker Hill, and took the ill-fated Burgoyne? Is not a well-
regulated militia sufficient for every purpose of internal
defense? And which of you, my fellow citizens, is afraid of any
invasion from foreign powers that our brave militia would not be
able immediately to repel?
Mr. Wilson says, that he does not know of any nation in the
world which has not found it necessary to maintain the appearance
of strength in a season of the most profound tranquillity. If by
this equivocal assertion he has meant to say that there is no
nation in the world without a standing army in time of peace, he
has been mistaken. I need only adduce the example of
Switzerland, which, like us, is a republic, whose thirteen
cantons, like our thirteen States, are under a federal
government, and which besides is surrounded by the most powerful
nations in Europe, all jealous of its liberty and prosperity.
And yet that nation has preserved its freedom for many ages, with
the sole help of a militia, and has never been known to have a
standing army, except when in actual war. Why should we not
follow so glorious an example; and are we less able to defend our
liberty without an army, than that brave but small nation which,
with its militia alone has hitherto defied all Europe?
A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST
The framers of this constitution appear to have been . . .
sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for
their support; but on the contrary, that the government must be
executed by force. They have therefore made a provision for this
purpose in a permanent standing army and a militia that may be
objected to as strict discipline and government.
A standing army in the hands of a government placed so
independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to
overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the
collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into
execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may
have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and
seize upon absolute power.
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have over the
militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all
liberty both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or
religious nature.
First, the personal liberty of every man, probably from
sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by the power
Congress have in organizing and governing of the militia. As
militia they may be subjected to fines to any amount, levied in a
military manner; they may be subjected to corporal punishments of
the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death itself,
by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men will
be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of
them, will best answer the purposes of government.
Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as there
is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously
scrupulous of hearing arms. These compose a respectable
proportion of the community in the State [Pennsylvania]. This is
the more remarkable, because even when the distresses of the late
war and the evident disaffection of many citizens of that
description inflamed our passions, and when every person who was
obliged to risk his own life must have been exasperated against
such as on any account kept back from the common danger, yet even
then, when outrage and violence might have been expected, the
rights of conscience were held sacred.
At this momentous crisis, the framers of our State
Constitution made the most express and decided declaration and
stipulations in favor of the rights of conscience; but now, when
no necessity exists, those dearest rights of men are left
insecure.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia
may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of
an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling
instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be
marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection
occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the
standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their
liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the
magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner
passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these
in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism
to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance.
Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last
efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism
on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be
exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in
strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express
purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the
people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and
burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and
as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to
multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-
gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will
swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the
industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating
all before them. . . .