Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Toronto

(183 posts)
5. Background to the "well regulated militia" ....
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:21 PM
Dec 2012

Federalist No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia."

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:


This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."


A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".


Please note that the 2nd Amendment was not drafted until 1791

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Where are the facts? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
I have a hard time wrapping my head around yellerpup Dec 2012 #3
I'd actually EXPECT tham to do precisely that. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8
Why sure, after losing so many lives in the Revolution yellerpup Dec 2012 #31
The idea, I believe, was to have a well armed and responsive populace letemrot Dec 2012 #34
You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #40
Here you go.. letemrot Dec 2012 #17
Everyone have the same talking points to share? yellerpup Dec 2012 #20
I don't trust them.. letemrot Dec 2012 #23
I called it a talking point because yellerpup Dec 2012 #25
Oh you have.. letemrot Dec 2012 #26
Are there any regulations you feel would be acceptable yellerpup Dec 2012 #29
I am sorry.. Your post wasn't about the founding fathers? letemrot Dec 2012 #32
Then alert on me if you feel I done you wrong. yellerpup Dec 2012 #35
and I didn't respond to the op. letemrot Dec 2012 #39
I didn't ask a question in that post either. yellerpup Dec 2012 #42
Oh ok..,. letemrot Dec 2012 #43
The founders had just finished sarisataka Dec 2012 #24
Background to the "well regulated militia" .... Toronto Dec 2012 #5
FP 29 was a treatise on how best to maintain the militia.. so? X_Digger Dec 2012 #6
I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment Toronto Dec 2012 #7
I can't see 'ensures' as a valid substitution.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #9
You ignore the fact that the right to bear arms Toronto Dec 2012 #10
Commas and semi-colons when there *were* no rules of grammar at the time? X_Digger Dec 2012 #11
The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, Toronto Dec 2012 #13
Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it? X_Digger Dec 2012 #15
In defense of himself (self, family, home) and the State. yellerpup Dec 2012 #18
All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state) X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
Nope. n/t yellerpup Dec 2012 #21
Sigh.... Toronto Dec 2012 #28
Thanks for your contributions to this thread. yellerpup Dec 2012 #30
My pleasure - I also appreciate sanity... Toronto Dec 2012 #33
Yes, I think the time is now. yellerpup Dec 2012 #37
I am not afraid to go to the mall, or send my kids to school letemrot Dec 2012 #44
I salute your bravery. yellerpup Dec 2012 #45
Well then just live.. letemrot Dec 2012 #46
The kids at Sandy Hook went to school on December 14th yellerpup Dec 2012 #47
I am glad you are not afraid... letemrot Dec 2012 #49
Then you missed my point yellerpup Dec 2012 #50
Yes BobbyBoring Dec 2012 #51
Time for change. yellerpup Dec 2012 #52
Ignoring of course that the Congress had NO power to re-create a new militia. jmg257 Dec 2012 #22
Doesn't the existence of the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #2
I believe we are covered yellerpup Dec 2012 #4
No. letemrot Dec 2012 #27
Yes. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38
Actually it does not.. letemrot Dec 2012 #41
The State Military Reserves have developed Toronto Dec 2012 #48
You forgot the FACT that the Militia Laws passed by Congress in support jmg257 Dec 2012 #12
Yes, and the State Militias eventually evolved into the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #14
Luckily - otherwise the Militia declaration would have more merrit, and jmg257 Dec 2012 #16
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Control Now - Fact Dr...»Reply #5