Militia

by withholding the right of ordering the militia without the United States:

How is it possible, that the United States, having trebled their militia and strength, should yet require an army thrice as large, as in the time of Washington?

That congress should for a moment risque the friendship of the states, a federal militia fighting without pay, to cultivate that of a few mercenary troops, sure to desert unless allowed to plunder, is a policy for which I cannot discern a motive.

This right of a man “to keep and bear arms,” is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave.

“The Congress shall have power to provide for the 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.

Have not Congress, under these powers, as undoubted authority to enroll in the militia, and “arm” those whom the States call slaves, and authorize them always to keep their arms by them, even when not on duty, (that they may at all times be ready to be “called forth” “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,”) as they have thus to enroll and arm those whom the States call free?

but I have decided to send satraps there, besides, to govern the people, receive the tribute, pay the militia, and attend to any other business that needs attention.