Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

State or Territory who furnish them, and the limits of an adjoining State or Territory, with the exception of Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Sir, I have always imagined that the United States composed one great family for the purposes of national defence; that if an enemy should invade the State of Maryland, and the forces of the militia of Massachusetts were necessary to repel such invasion, that we were bound to afford our aid, and so vice versa; but, sir, if the Senate are tenacious of retaining the principles of this section, I must submit to their decision.

The eighth section of the bill I consider to be necessary and proper.

In the ninth section of the bill it is provided, that any three classes which will furnish two men for the war, shall be exempt from the militia duty required by the bill. Here I must be permitted, sir, to ask gentlemen if this provision does not come in direct contact with your recruiting service for the war? Your men which you may calculate on recruiting for the war are shrewd, calculating men, and the moment this bill shall be published they will have an eye to the bounty which they may acquire from the classes, in addition to that given by the public; and, sir, will not this retard, if not entirely suspend the recruiting service for the war, until it shall be ascertained what bounty can be obtained from the classes? I apprehend that it will, sir; and if that should prove to be the case, the supension will be attended with very inconvenient, if not fatal consequences. The bill allows the States or Territories three months to furnish the men in their own way; if not so furnished within that period, it contemplates that, if the classification takes place, the classes are allowed twenty days to procure the man by contract before the draught can take place; then, sir, allowing that the men are to be classed immediately upon the transmission of the bill to the States and Territories, (which I can by no means conceive will be the case,) the recruiting service for the war and the operations of this bill are postponed for at least one hundred and ten days before you commence the operation of law for filling the ranks of the regular army, or for the detachment from the militia provided for by the bill, which will carry you far into April, when in fact the situation of the country requires that the regular army should be filled, and the militia contemplated by this act organized and ready to take the field, before the commencement of the operation of the one or the other system. But, sir, if all the effects contemplated by the friends to this bill, in regard to filling the ranks of the regular army, should be realized, what would be the consequence? Why, sir, instead of the force of 142,000 men. contemplated by the committee as the necessary force with which you ought to open the next campaign, you have 109,000 only; for, sir, taking it for granted, that we have now only 40,000 regular troops in the field, 22,000 is wanting to fill up that establishment; consequently, if 22,000 men should be procured by the classes pointed out in this bill, 33,000 classes

NOVEMBER, 1814.

would be exempt from the services required by this bill, which would reduce the whole number of men to be brought into the field, as I have stated, to 109,000. The tenth section provides for the supposition contained in it, that more than men enough to fill the regular army may be raised for the war under the provisions of this bill. That I imagine, sir, is a supposition which it is scarely necessary to provide for; but it is to be remembered, that should the idea be realized, it is calculated to reduce the number of men contemplated for the field the next campaign, to the amount of one-third of the whole number contained in the surplus so raised, and consequently, instead of your having 109,000 men-which I must agree, according to the principles of the first section of the bill, is an adequate number-no man can divine how far below that number your force is to be reduced, by the very uncertain operation of this bill. Sir, while I am upon this part of the subject, permit me again to revert to the third section of the bill, which is, in a considerable degree, connected with it. That section, in violation of the principles of the law of 1795, which I have quoted and which is now in force, and been uniformly practised upon from the passage of the law to this time, subjects all the militiamen who have rendered service in the present war, be it ever so eminent, to the same chance of the draught, as it does those who have never rendered any service, totally subverting the precious principle of that law which provides for a general rotation of service: and, sir, this vital error in the bill seems to be acknowledged by the same section, inasmuch as it goes on to provide that all former services shall be deducted from the term of service for which they may be draughted under this bill. Well, sir, what becomes of the permanency of the troops to be raised under the bill? Why, sir, it vanishes like a vapor, and leaves no real substance behind. The militiamen which are made subject to this draught, and which have rendered services, are many; probably some of them may have served for two years, and some for eighteen months. And I know, sir, that many of them have served for one year, some for nine, six, and three months. Then you go on to make your organization upon the principles of the bill, your officers are all detailed to command the detachment, according to the principles of the organization. It may appear that some of the men detached have already served for two years; they must immediately be discharged, some must no doubt be discharged in six months, and I know that many must be discharged at the end of one year, at the end of eighteen months, and at the end of twenty-one months. Thus, sir, the permanency of your establishment will be gradually reduced as it relates to the men; but no provision is made for reducing the officers in the same proportion. No, sir, they are to remain in the service, and consequently in the pay of the nation, until the end of the term for which they were detailed, unless the President of the United States should undertake to discharge them, without imputing to them any fault within their power to

[blocks in formation]

control, which I should not imagine would be likely to take place. This is the pretended system of permanency in your Military Establishment, reduced by the bill itself to insignificance and uncertainty. Besides, sir, it is provided that the officer making the draught shall make report to the Department of War of all persons draught ed by him, who have performed a tour of duty specified in the act. But who is the officer who is to make this return to the Secretary of War? I find no officer designated to make the draught; consequently none can be authorized to make return to the Secretary of War. It must therefore be left with the classes to do it, in which case a correspondence of eighty thousand may be opened, and in all probability of not less than twenty thousand will be opened between the classes and the Secretary of War upon this particular subject, when according to the mode of raising the men which I have had the honor to name, should it be adopted, each captain would be under obligation to make this statement in his return, through the proper channel, to the Governors. The Governors might direct the adjutant generals to make out an abstract of these returns from the captains, and transmit it to the Secretary of War, which would open with him a little over twenty correspondents, instead of at least twenty thousand. And for my own part, sir, I cannot see why the Governors of the States and Territories should not be vested with the authority of deciding this question, without troubling the Secretary of War with it, upon their being responsible for the return being made of their doings to the Secretary of War, for the information of the General Government.

Sir, I have thought it my duty to point out to the Senate my own ideas of what I conceive to be errors, both in principle and detail, contained in the bill. If it should pass the Senate in its present form, I shall very much regret it.

I should be extremely sorry to give my vote against any measure calculated to promote the object of general defence; but, sir, I do not conceive that this bill is calculated to further that object in the most desirable and practicable

manner.

SENATE.

have in view. In its most prominent features, I conceive that every discerning eye, not a member of this Senate, will, at first view, perceive the most manifest injustice exhibited to individuals of the militia-they are indiscriminately to be subjected to the draught for two years, whatever may be their situation or circumstances in life. Those who have heretofore rendered services have the miserable consolation only, of being told, that their former term of service shall be deducted from the two years, while the honorable principle of rotation, now existing by law, is totally disregarded. And inasmuch as the militia, not possessing more than one-third of the property of the nation, are called on to furnish all the pecuniary means of procuring the men, if procured by contract; and all others, possessing two-thirds of the property of the nation, and not subject to be called on to render personal service, are entirely exonerated from the burdens of this draught.

And, sir, notwithstanding the high, unusual ground which it assumes to take, I must confess that in my opinion it has sown in it the seeds of its own destruction, which are so deep rooted, that I imagine they cannot fail to effect that ob ject. It dispenses with all the responsibility of your principal militia officers, as has been before observed; it inflicts no penalty on the classes for omitting to raise men for the war, for omitting to raise men by contract, nor for omitting to raise them by draught; and as no officer or other person is authorized to make the draught, besides the classes, I consider the whole system as resolving into a recommendation, upon the patriotism of the States and Territories, and upon the patriotism of the classes, which I am apprehensive must fail of furnishing you eighty thousand men. The system, therefore, appears to me to be inefficient, and totally incompetent to effect the object which I am sure the Senate have in view. Mr. President, from the view which I have taken of this subject, I think the Senate must perceive that it is impracticable for me to vote in favor of it in its present shape. Unless it shall undergo a radical change in its principles and details, I must vote against the bill.

Mr. DAGGETT, of Connecticut, addressed the Chair as follows:

I do consider, sir, that the bill commences with unusual and arbitrary principles, never before at- Mr. President: By this bill, the President is tempted to be imposed on the militia of this coun-authorized to call upon the several States and try since its first settlement by civilized man. Territories for their respective quotas of 80,430 It appears to me, sir, as I have endeavored to militia, to serve for two years, unless sooner disshow, that it contains principles of the most deadly charged. They are to constitute part of the reg. hostility to the correct military principles, now ular Army of the United States, and to be treated in practice in the militia, for raising men for pub-in every respect as such, with the exception that lic service. It dispenses with the responsibility of the principal militia officers in raising men, and thereby leaves the Government at all times in a state of entire uncertainty relative to the number engaged for the service. It is an extremely impolitic measure, inasmuch as it takes new and unexplored ground for its basis, which may, and I presume will, be disgusting to the people, at a time, too, when their most cordial co-operation with the Government is eminently necessary, to enable you to effect the great object which you

they cannot be compelled to serve beyond the limits of the State or Territory furnishing them, and the limits of an adjoining State or Territory, and that the officers are to be appointed by the State or Territorial authorities. The object of this force is declared to be "the defence of the frontiers of the United States." [The words at the end of the title, "against invasion," were inserted after the bill had passed.]

The principle is assumed, that Congress may by law, order the militia of the several State

SENATE.

Militia of the United States.

NOVEMBER, 1814.

just meaning of the clause. Again: "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." In these articles of the Constitution, Congress and the President are every where limited, and everywhere the power of the States is apparent. The militia cannot be called forth as a regular army at all be trained or officered, in any case, except under the authority of the States, nor commanded even by the President, except when called forth in the exigencies specified. Who can discover in these provisions a pretence for asserting that the militia are constitutionally subjected to the general control of Congress?

into the service of the United States, to defend their frontiers and garrison their fortresses for two years, or for any other definite period, or during the war, provided the country is invaded, or in imminent danger of invasion. This country, while engaged in war with any nation which can send either fleets or armies against it, will always be in such condition, and consequently the militia are subject to the control of Congress. There is no limit, say the advocates of this law, to the-they may be called as a militia. They cannot power of Congress over the militia, in time of war, except that they must be officered by the States. A conscription is thus justified. It is openly avowed by the same gentlemen as proper, just, and legal. I think these conclusions are fairly deduced from the premises. If the power of this Government over the militia is in time of war unlimited, it does indeed follow, that the free- But, sir, to prove the constitutionality of this men of this country, who are subject to the duties bill, its friends rely on those clauses which give of militiamen, may be converted into soldiers of to Congress the right "to raise and support the Army of the United States during the war, or armies" and "to provide for calling forth the mifor any definite period. The exception that they litia in the cases mentioned." These are distinct shall not be obliged to go from the State, or an and independent powers and are always so conadjoining State, is a matter of form, and not of sidered. If the first gave to Congress any auright. They may be ordered to Canada, or to thority over the militia as such, it gave a geneany more remote region. But, sir, this whole doc-ral authority, and if so, the subsequent provisions trine is unconstitutional; it is an outrage, upon regarding them, are worse than useless-they its face and its principles and provisions, upon the tend only to perplex and bewilder. The truth undoubted rights of freemen, and upon the char- is, this clause has no reference to the militia any ter of our liberties." more than to physicians, lawyers, or merchants. It authorizes Congress to raise and support armies, in a manner and by means consistent with the great principles of civil liberty, known to the people of this country, and adopted and deemed sacred in all free Governments. But it is utterly inconsistent with those principles to compel any man to become a soldier for life, during a war, or for any fixed time. In Great Britain, a warlike nation, a nation often the theme of reproach here for the tyranny of the Government, no such practice is, or can be, resorted to; the people would revolt at it; they would shake a throne which should attempt it. It is alike odious here, and I hope it will remain so.

That the powers of this Government are limited that those not granted are reserved-are positions sanctioned by an amendment to the Constitution, and universally admitted. The entire control over the militia, previous to the adoption of the Constitution, was in the States. All that control, except what has been delegated to the United States, remains. There is no article in the Constitution delegating a general power. Every word employed on the subject shows that it is limited. "Congress shall have power to pro'vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and ' repel invasions." Why give power to call forth the militia in those exigencies, if the entire authority over them was elsewhere given? The absurdity is too apparent to admit of argu. ment or illustration. Again: "Congress shall have power 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 Con'gress." In other language, it may provide for arranging them into companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, and divisions. It may provide that they shall be armed, and the manner in which it shall be done prescribe the discipline to be pursued, and make laws for governing them while in that service of the United States, to which they might be called forth, in the cases before specified. All this Congress may do, to establish that uniformity and order which are so essential to a well-regulated militia. This is the obvious and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It is said, however, that the nation is invaded; a case of invasion-a specified case exists, and, by the second mentioned power, the militia may be called forth. It is true the militia may be called forth to "repel invasions." It cannot escape observation, that the words employed by the Constitution, "to repel invasions," seem quite unlike the words in this bill, "for the defence of the frontiers," still less are they descriptive of the object for which the gentlemen are obliged to contend the militia may be called forth. They declare that so long as there is invasion or imminent danger of invasion, and this will be our condition during the existence of the war, the militia may be converted into an army for the defence of the country, and support the war. Why did not the great, wise, and good men, as they are justly characterized by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES.) use language expressive of such an idea? Why did they not say, that in time of war, Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to support it?

NOVEMBER, 1814.

Militia of the United States.

SENATE.

Again, sir, the militia may be called forth to repel invasions, to execute the laws of the Union, and to suppress insurrections. These occasions are, with good reasons, joined. In their nature, upon the soundest and fairest definitions, they are emergencies, sudden and unexpected, and therefore incapable of being met by a regular army. The wisdom of the Convention dictated provision in case of such occurrences. To make such provision by a standing army, always to be dreaded, and the subject of unceasing reprobation by the people of the United States, would have been unwise and impracticable. These were the views of the venerable men who formed and adopted the Constitution. It never entered their minds, that in providing to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and to execute the laws, they were furnishing the nation with the means of sustaining a war, especially an offensive war.part of the community, a burden is imposed of In this light was the subject considered in the State conventions, and had the doctrines here advanced been deemed the legitimate interpretations of that Constitution, it would have been rejected by every State in the Union.

Again, sir, did the Convention intend to give to Congress the power of converting the militia into an army, and yet reserve to the States the power of appointing the officers? It is unquestionable that neither the President nor Congress can grant a commission. You have then an army without the power of giving to it officers, an army which may be kept together, or disbanded for the defect of officers, at the pleasure of eighteen sovereign States. With such an army, you might repel an invasion, or suppress insurrections, or cause the laws to be executed, but you cannot carry on

a war.

This bill is not only unconstitutional, but it is unequal, unjust, and oppressive. By the second section, the militia are to be divided into classes, and each class is compelled to furnish a man, one of their number, or a substitute, to serve as a soldier for two years. It affects no citizen who is over forty-five years of age-no exempt from military duty, no commissioned officer, except such as the State shall select to command, and those it obliges to serve, in all events; it includes apprentices, poor men, and those of every occupation, between eighteen and forty-five years of age. To illustrate these ideas, I will ask the attention of the Senate to its operation upon the State of Connecticut. The quota of that State is about three thousand and ten. Its militia consists of about twenty thousand non-commissioned officers and privates; there are not less than fortyeight thousand males above eighteen, and under forty-five; add to these the males over forty-five, and it will be seen what proportion of the male population over eighteen is subjected to this draught. Of the property, I believe, five-sixths, or more, is possessed by the exempts. In these twenty thousand militia are to be found apprentices, day laborers, mechanics, and farmers. Of these, one in seven is, by this bill, forced into the army for two years, or the seven are compelled to procure a substitute. The soldier is allowed

no bounty, either in land or money. He is to receive his clothing, subsistence, and eight dollars per month; not more than half the sum to be obtained by laboring peacefully in the ordinary occupations at home. It will be readily seen, that while the United State give a bounty of three hundred and twenty acres of land, as is established in the bill which has just passed the Senate, and one hundred and twenty-four dollars in money, no substitute can be obtained for less than two hundred and fifty or three hundred dollars. Seven of the militia, in this view of the subject, are compelled to pay from thirty to forty dollars each, or one of their number is to become a soldier for two years, while the wealthy exempt is no otherwise affected than he is obliged, with them, to bear his proportion of public taxes; and thus on twenty thousand, of the least affluent about $75,000. The officer, also, who is appointed by the authority of the State, and detailed to this service, is not at liberty to procure a substitute; he must become an inmate of a camp for two years. Thus the apprentice may be forced away from his work-shop, for a period which will affect his whole future life, the poor man must leave his family helpless, the young farmer or mechanic relinquish his business, to be neglected or ruined, or pay an enormous tax, and the officer, be his condition what it may, is to spend two years in an army, subject to the rules and articles of war. Is this equality? Is this justice? Is it not oppression and tyranny of no ordinary character? If any position be so true as to admit of no doubt, it is, that, in support of burdens created by war, the people should be taxed according to their property. This bill is a palpable departure from that rule of political justice.

It is said, however, that our country is in great peril; men must be had, the Army must be filled. What then? Are these reasons for resorting to unconstitutional and oppressive measures? The plea of necessity is too old, too well characterized, too well understood to be admitted. This people have seen times of imminent danger. In the war of the Revolution where destruction assailed us on all sides, when did we, for a moment, admit these doctrines! The people were, in some States, classed and draughted, but for only short periods, and upon principles totally dissimilar to those contained in this bill. Every man was included and obliged to contribute. In Great Britain, whence we derive many of our maxims, usages, and laws, and whence too we have derived the law for calling forth the militia in the cases specified, every poor man with one child or more, all apprentices, and many others, are exempted from liability to be called out to repel invasions. Are we less attentive to the rights and interests of the people, than the nation towards which so much invective is constantly uttered?

The bill is incapable of being executed, as well as unconstitutional and unjust. It proceeds entirely upon the idea that the State governments will lend their aid to carry it into effect. If they

SENATE.

Militia of the United States.

NOVEMBER, 1814.

edge the militia as in the service of the United States, or to pay or subsist them, assigning as a reason, that a major general could not be recog nised when any number less than four thousand is required; though. on the first of July, as before stated, three thousand with a major general had been called for and detached, and though the brigadier assigning this reason had not then men sufficient to constitute a colonel's command. This course was in obedience to the orders of the Secretary of War. The militia however, did not abandon the defence of the State and nation, but remained in obedience to the orders of the en

refuse, it becomes inoperative. Now, sir, will the Executives who believe it a violation of the Constitution, assist in its execution? I tell you they will not. No one denies that the State governments have some power over their militia; all admit that they have, at least, a power concurrent with that of the United States. It is so admitted in this debate; the limits, however, it is said, are not, and cannot be denied. Of one thing you may be certain, that the captain general and commander-in-chief of the military force of a State, will not readily yield the whole or any portion of that force to the United States, to become a part of a regular army, and thus consent to an-lightened and patriotic Chief Magistrate of that nihilate the power of the State over its militia. State, and have been subsisted and paid out of its For such a claim you must show him a warrant treasury. I will not consent to any bill like that in the Constitution. If you differ with him as to on your table, till justice shall have been done to the interpretation of that instrument, he is at lib-a State which has ever been among the first to erty to construe it for himself; yours is a limited perform all her Constitutional engagements. authority over the subject, the general authority is in the State. He is bound to maintain its lawful rights and privileges. He would be unworthy of his station if he surrendered them. It would be a flagrant violation of duty to execute an order which he deemed repugnant to the Constitution. We are told, however, by the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GILES) that this bill will be popular. Let me assure that gentleman he is mistaken; in New England it will be viewed with extreme horror. An opinion there prevails, is engraven on every heart, it will live, you cannot destroy it, that no freeman is to be made a soldier in your army by compulsion. It is abhorrent to all the enlightened and independent people, of all parties and sects. They too well know and too highly appreciate the privileges of freemen to approve a conscription, however disguised.

Once more: Massachusetts and Connecticut have peculiar reasons for withholding their assent to laws, for calling out their militia. Those already draughted into your service, have neither been subsisted nor paid by the United States. I will speak particularly of Connecticut. On the first of July last, the President requested of the Executive of that State to furnish three hundred thousand men, with a major general and other officers, as its proportion of ninety-three thousand militia required from the several States and Territories. The quota was detached and organized. On the first of August following, Brigadier General Cushing, of the Army of the United States, commanding at New London, requested of the Executive the major part of the detachment thus organized, and that they might be under a brigadier general, and subjected to his (General Cushing's) command. As there was then in the service of the United States, of the militia, more than a brigadier's command, and as a majority of the major general's command was now called for, the major general was, with manifest propriety, directed to accompany his men, and of course it became his duty to command. General Cushing, commanding in that district, (how, and by what authority established as a military district is not now the subject of inquiry,) refused to acknowl

I shall vote against this bill on another ground. It is declared to be its object, to relieve the regular Army from the defence of the frontiers, that it may be employed in the conquest of the Canadas. I doubt if this object can be effected without first securing the command of the St. Lawrence. Our success as yet is not very flattering. Without detracting from the hard-earned fame of our Army, or the brilliant achievements of our Navy on the Lakes, that country remains entirely in full possession of the enemy. After an immense loss of money and life, the great work is yet undone.

The project, in my judgment, is inexpedient if practicable. The result would not be worth the sacrifice-it would not contribute towards a peace, an object near the heart of every good man. Great Britain is pronounced by gentlemen to be a wise, powerful, and haughty nation. True, sir, and when has she been driven into terms of peace by the invasion of one of her provinces? Should we succeed in this attempt, would her pride be so far subdued as to lessen her demands? Is it not far more probable that such an event might induce her to lay in wide and dreadful destruction an invaluable seacoast? At such a price the Canadas would be purchased at too great a sacrifice. She retaliates by no strict rules. It is not with her, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;" but a head for an eye, a body for a tooth. The Parliament House at Little York was destroyed, and she burnt your Capitol.

We are solemnly warned of our danger by the friends of this measure, and asked, if we shall stand still and suffer our country to be desolated? We answer, no; raise armies if you please, to any extent, by equal and Constitutional methods-arm every stick of timber that can float. Let the Navy, once despised, give new proofs, if possible, of her skill and valor; strike home at the commerce of the enemy. This is our true course. This will be felt by the merchant and manufacturer, and their voices will be heard and regarded in the British cabinet. This is the only effectual warfare which we can maintain offensively against that nation. I fear not the conquest of our territory. The attempt would be idle. In

« ПретходнаНастави »