In 1823, the Militia system was beginning to collapse and the second amendment along with it. The first evidence of this was the inability for the federal government to enforce it's latest Militia act and arm the civilian soldiers among the many states. The difficulty was due to lack of cooperation between the federal and state governments. According to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress was given the right to call forth the militia, as well as the right to organize, arm and discipline, but not the governing of them unless they are employed in service. This was left to the states.
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;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;
Based upon Constitutional interpretation, it was generally understood that Congress could make general rules regarding the militia, but details of managing and organizing the militia was the responsibility of State governments. On May 12, 1820 to further define what was expected of the Militia from the states, Congress enacted "An Act to establish an uniform mode of discipline and field exercises for the militia of the United States. The law detailed the general rules for a uniform militia system that called for a system of discipline and field exercise matching that observed in the regular army. The act repealed the original Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792. According to President James Monroe, as part of this act, it was understood that if the militia was to follow the same "system of tactics and regulations" of the "Regular Army" than they needed to be properly armed. Yet, in his 1823 State of the Union Address, Monroe stated that there was "much difficulty" in distributing the arms to the Militia. Monroe blamed the States who failed to "make regular returns". According to authors Richard Uviller and William Merkel, census taken at the time show that the "proportion of citizen-soldiers armed with muskets or rifles in compliance with the Militia act fell sharply from 1820 to 1830 from about 50% to approximately 32%". The Militia system was falling apart as the Militia Act "has been very imperfectly executed", and Monroe urged Congress to act.
"The report of the Secretary of War shews the progress made during the three first quarters of the present year by the application of the fund appropriated for arming the militia. Much difficulty is found in distributing the arms according to the act of Congress providing for it from the failure of the proper departments in many of the States to make regular returns. The act of [1820-05-12] provides that the system of tactics and regulations of the various corps of the Regular Army shall be extended to the militia. This act has been very imperfectly executed from the want of uniformity in the organization of the militia, proceeding from the defects of the system itself, and especially in its application to that main arm of the public defense. It is thought that this important subject in all its branches merits the attention of Congress."In 1833, the Militia system had grown so unorganized that Justice Joseph Story wrote that the American people had grown indifferent to any regulations at all.
"the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations"note on second amendment: To understand the connection here to our second amendment rights, you have to understand that our founders were afraid of standing armies. The fear was that if the federal government maintained a standing army then the nation might eventually fall into despotism. But how do you maintain sovereignty without a strong military force? The state militias were the answer. At our founding, I don't think anyone envisioned politicians trying to take away a farmer's rifle, rather, they were concerned about maintaining a strong defense of our nation without infringing on states rights, like a standing army would. So in this respect, there is a direct correlation between the militia and the second amendment. Furthermore, the collapse of the militia also meant that the citizen soldiers were no longer being armed which led to a decrease in the support of the second amendment.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29465
Official Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States: Advising the President and Heads of Departments in Relation to Their Official Duties, Volume 10 R. Franham (1868), pgs 12-13
The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, H. Richard Uviller, William G. Merkel, Duke University Press (2002) pg 286
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/16th-congress/c16.pdf
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Military_Uniforms_American_Militia_10c_1975_issue_U.S._stamp.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment