consent of the Senate, to appoint all the company, field, and general officers who were to have the same pay and emoluments as officers in the Regular Army.

Although nominally called "volunteers," had this force been raised as contemplated, it would have constituted, but for the limitation of their service to twelve months, a second Regular Army. The measure, however, did not succeed, and its sole effect, like that of all similar expedients during the Revolution, was to deter enlistments in the one organization that could have been effective.

Had Congress, on the 11th of January, declared that all men owed their country military service, and decided to raise the Army immediately, by volunteering or by draft, to 35,000 men, to be held for the term of five years or during the war, it scarcely admits of a doubt that after six months' training and discipline this force could have occupied Canada and ended the war in a single campaign.

REFUSAL OF MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT TO FURNISH MILITIA.

The wisdom of the Constitution in giving Congress the sole power of raising and supporting armies, was demonstrated at the beginning of this war by the refusal of the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut to furnish their quotas of the 100,000 militia, authorized by the act of April 10, 1812. This force was called out to relieve the regular troops in the seacoast fortifications, so that these might be sent to the northern frontier to take part in an invasion of Canada.

The governors were thus able to paralyze for the time being the military power of their respective States, and defeat the plans of the General Government. In Massachusetts the grounds upon which this refusal was based, are clearly set forth in the following opinion of three of the members of its supreme judicial court, to whom the quesion was referred:

As the militia of the several States may be employed in the service of the United States, for the three specific purposes of executing the laws of the Union, of suppressing insurrection, and of repelling invasions, the opinion of the judges is requested whether the commanders in chief of the militia of the several States have a right to determine whether any of the exigencies aforesaid exist, so as to require them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, at the request of the President, to be commanded by him pursuant to acts of Congress.

It is the opinion of the undersigned that this right is vested in the commanders in chief of the militia of the several States.

The Federal Constitution provides that whenever either of these exigencies exist, the militia may be employed, pursuant to some act of Congress, in the service of the United States; but no power is given either to the President or to the Congress to determine that either of the said exigencies do in fact exist. As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the United States, it is reserved to the States, respectively; and from the nature of the power it must be exercised by those with whom the States have, respectively, intrusted the chief command of the militia.

It is the duty of these commanders to execute this important trust agreeably to the laws of their several States without reference to the laws or officers of the United States in all cases, except those specially provided in the Federal Constitution. They must, therefore, determine when either of the special cases exist, obliging them to relinquish the execution of this trust, and to render themselves and the militia subject to the command of the President. A different constitution, giving to Congress the right to determine when these special cases exist, authorizing them to call forth the whole of the militia, and taking them from the commanders in chief of the several States, and subjecting them to the command of the President, would place all the militia, in effect, at the will of Congress, and produce a military consolidation of the States without any constitutional remedy, against the intentions of the

people when ratifying the Constitution. Indeed, since passing the act of Congress of February 28, 1795, C. 101, vesting in the President the power of calling forth the militia when the exigencies mentioned in the Constitution shall exist, if the President has the power of determining when those exigencies exist, the militia of the several States is in effect at his command and subject to his control.

No inconvenience can reasonably be presumed to result from the construction, which vests in the commanders in chief of the militia of the several States the right of determining when the exigencies exist, obliging them to place the militia in the service of the United States. a

In Connecticut the governor gave substantially the same reasons for his refusal, while, in addition, both States raised the question whether, after the militia troops were ordered into the service of the United States, the President had the right to assign officers of the Army to command them.

In his annual message to Congress, President Madison commented as follows on the course taken by the governors of the two States:

The refusal was founded on a novel and unfortunate exposition of the provisions of the Constitution relating to the militia. The correspondence which will be laid before you contain the requisite information on the subject. It is obvious that if the authority of the United States to call into service and command the militia for the public defense can be thus frustrated even in a state of declared war, and, of course, under apprehensions of invasion preceding war, they are not one nation for the purpose most of all requiring it.b

Passing by without discussion the political question involved in this particular case, it is only necessary to point out the fact that the opinions of the two governors as to the rights and powers of their States, would have had no practical bearing had not the Government undertaken to wage offensive warfare by the aid of the States, precisely as if the confederation was still in being. In truth, however, no other course was possible, for Congress by the act of 1792 had virtually handed over its war powers to the States, and was as completely at their mercy as during the darkest days of the Revolution.

To appreciate the gravity of this oversight, it must be borne in mind that the first section of the law of 1792 required every ablebodied white male citizen of the respective States to be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company within whose district the citizen might reside.

As every citizen fit for military duty was incorporated in the militia, it is evident that Congress could not avail itself of the services of any militia organization, in opposition to the commands of the governor, without forcing its members to disobey orders. Nor could Congress accept the services of individuals, either as volunteers or regulars, without encouraging the crime of desertion, for the law made no exceptions in favor of citizens belonging to the military force of the United States.

A partial repeal of the act of 1792 was the only way in which Congress could have extricated itself from this dilemma. Such a course,

a American State Papers, vol. 1, p. 324.

These embarrassing questions, and the high authority by which each side of the argument was supported, remained unsettled by the proper and final decision of the tribunal that is competent to put them to rest until the case of Martin v. Mott, in 1827. In that case it was decided and settled by the Supreme Court of the United States that it belonged exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he had authority under the Constitution to call forth the militia, and that his decision was conclusive upon all other persons. (Kent's Commentaries, vol. 1, p. 279.)

932°-17-7

however, would have amounted to a confession of the failure of that elaborate system of national defense, based upon the conversion of our people into a vast array of citizen soldiers. Nevertheless, it is clear that every political consideration demanded the abandonment of a system under which any State or States not in sympathy with the purposes of the General Government, could successfully thwart the will of the nation.

Under one particular form of government, and in a country of such vast extent, the possible lukewarmness or opposition of one or more of the States, makes it the more important that the whole war power of the nation should be wielded exclusively by the direct representatives of the States and of the people, in Congress assembled.

MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE WEST.

In later wars, we have demonstrated so satisfactorily the powers of the American soldier, that we can now endure with more complacency the lamentable story of our weakness and failures in 1812. As soon as war was declared, the cry of "On to Canada" resounded from one end of the land to the other. Instant invasion was loudly advocated by the orators of the day, and many of our statesmen, profoundly ignorant of the preparations needed for meeting a disciplined foe, did not hesitate to insist that a small body of volunteers and militia would amply suffice for the end in view.

In July, General Hull, with a mixed force of some 300 regulars and 1,500 volunteers and militia, crossed over from Detroit to the Canadian side. Without inflicting any damage whatever, our troops withdrew, on the 8th of August, when the enemy, emboldened by their sudden retreat, crossed the river, in turn, to our territory and invested Detroit On the 16th of August, without firing a shot, the entire garrison surrendered to the British, who numbered about 320 regulars, 400 militia, and 600 Indians. We thus lost within a month the control of the whole Northwest, together with the advantages of the initiative, which passed into the hands of the British, who were joined at once by nearly all the Indians of that region.

Amid the national humiliation caused by this surrender, the popular mind sought comfort and the Administration relief in charges of treason and cowardice preferred against Hull. Although the latter charge was sustained before a court-martial, the surrender must be attributed in part to the effect produced on the mind of the commander by the knowledge that the larger portion of his force was ill-equipped, unreliable, and insubordinate.

General Hull, who was a tried hero of the Revolution and a favorite of Washington, in his appeal to the public, after he had passed the age of three score and ten, makes the following mention of the discipline of his troops:

After the junction of the Fourth United States Regiment, which consisted of 300 effective men, with the 1,200 militia at Urbana, I commenced the march early in June from that place, a frontier town in the State of Ohio, for Detroit, the distance of more than 200 miles. After the disposition was made for the march, I was

@ Armstrong, in his Notices of the War of 1812, p. 36, gives Hull's effective strength at 1,060, exclusive of a detachment of 600 militia and over, who, on their return, were included in the capitulation. Brock's effective strength he estimates (p. 35) at 700, which is, doubtless, exclusive of Indians. Many of the militia were disguised in regular uniforms.

informed that part of the militia refused to obey the order. In the first place, I directed their own officers to give them positive orders to march, and informed them if they did not obey the Fourth United States Regiment would be sent to compel them. They still refused, and a part of the Fourth Regiment was marched to their station, and they obeyed."

This fact is proved by the testimony of Colonel Miller, of that regiment, and I have stated it to show, when I first took the command of these troops, the want of discipline and the mutinous spirit which prevailed, and that the authority of their officers was not sufficient to command their obedience, and that nothing but the bayonets of the Fourth Regiment could have the effect, a

66

He also states that 180 of the Ohio militia refused to cross the river at Detroit, alleging as a reason that they were not obliged to serve outside of the United States."

The value set upon the militia by our opponents was shown by the fact that they permitted them to return to their homes, while the regulars were sent as prisoners to Montreal.

Instead of depressing our people, the aisagraceful close of Hull's expedition only strengthened their determination to expel the invaders and carry the war into Canada, the first step to be taken being the punishment of the Indian tribes in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

As illustrating the reckless extravagance with which hostilities were carried on, one of the expeditions, set on foot for this purpose, deserves special mention. It was commanded by General Hopkins and consisted of 4,000 Kentucky mounted militia, who reached Fort Harrison' on the 10th of October, whence four days later they set out for the Indian villages on the Wabash and Illinois rivers. Once on the march the ardor of these troops began to cool and insubordination quickly followed; on the fourth day a fire on the prairie was mistaken for a ruse of the enemy; on the fifth day, totally ignoring the authority of their officers, the disorderly mass abandoned their general, and, retracing their steps, dispersed to their homes.

While these movements against the Indians were going on, preparations were made for collecting another army under General William Henry Harrison for the special purpose of effacing the stain of Hull's surrender. To this end volunteers, and more especially militia, came forward with the greatest enthusiasm and offered themselves in such numbers, that it became necessary to decline the services of the larger part, who returned to their homes grievously disappointed.

The militia of Kentucky and of Tennessee assembled at Louisville and at Newport; those from Virginia, at Urbana; those of Pennsylvania, at Erie. From these several points the troops were organized into three columns with a supposed total of not less than 10,000 men. Their first destination was the Rapids of the Maumee, a point that was not reached in this year's campaign, for no sooner had the several columns moved, than hunger, nakedness, and mutiny began the work of dissolution. The left column from Kentucky, when a few days out, was only prevailed upon to remain by the personal entreaties of the general and other officers. The middle column from Urbana, after a slight engagement with the Indians, refused to obey orders for a further pursuit, and deliberately returned to their camp. This ended the autumn campaign, though Harrison was not willing to acknowledge its failure, and proposed to continue operations by means of a winter expedition which led soon after to a painful defeat.

a Hull's Memoirs, pp. 34, 35.

About 2 miles from the present city of Terre Haute, Ind.

MILITARY OPERATIONS ON THE NIAGARA FRONTIER.

Our military operations along the Niagara River were as fruitless as those in the West. On the 13th of July, 1812, Gen. Stephen Van Rensselaer assumed command of the forces there assembled, mainly consisting of militia. An armistice concluded by General Dearborn, but disapproved by the Government at Washington, precluded active operations until nearly the end of August. How little, however, this armistice really interfered with General Van Rensselaer's movements may be inferred from the returns of his command, which showed an effective strength on the 1st of September of 691 men, "many of them without shoes, and all clamorous for pay." a

On the 12th of October his force, in the vicinity of Lewiston and Fort Niagara, consisted of 900 regulars and 2,270 militia," and with this mixed mass-part iron and part clay-the regulars themselves being comparatively raw troops, he fought next day the battle of Queenstown.

General Van Rensselaer's plan was to begin the action by throwing across the river some 600 men, regulars and militia, under Col. Solomon Van Rensselaer of the militia. As there was, however, but one path leading to the water, the regulars, 225 strong, reached the boats first and crossed over alone, accompanied by Colonel Van Rensselaer. Fortunately for the detachment, this brave officer had formerly served with distinction in our Regular Army, and, though four times wounded, his coolness and skill never forsook him. Perceiving the dangerous position of his men, after their first engagement at the landing, he ordered them to charge, and a few moments afterwards their shouts of victory announced the capture of the heights.

In his narrative of the battle, entitled "The Affair of Queenstown,' Colonel Van Rensselaer says of this charge:

99

Having thus accomplished the work with 225 men for which 640 had been detailed, nothing further was necessary for the full attainment of the objects of the enterprise than to secure the advantages gained. ©

The importance of dislodging these troops at once engaged the attention of General Brock, the British commander, who fell mortally wounded while leading an unsuccessful assault. In the meantime, most of the militia detachment which was to have taken part in the movement, as well as the remainder of the regulars, had crossed the Niagara and reached the heights. The rest of the militia on our side of the river, although ordered and implored by their commander, absolutely refused to cross over, under the plea that according to the Constitution of the United States they could only be called out to resist an "invasion." After having stormed and captured the enemy's batteries and repulsed his efforts to regain them, our troops stood for hours masters of the field, but the British being largely reenforced made another attack about 4 p. m., retook the heights and drove our troops down to the river, where for want of boats they were forced to surrender. According to the figures at the Adjutant-General's Office, our loss was 250 killed and wounded and 700 prisoners. Of the killed and wounded, 160 were regulars and 90 militia. The total force engaged did not exceed 1,000 men.

a Van Rensselaer's Affair of Queenstown, p. 10.

Return of Troops, Wilkinson's Memoirs, vol. 1, p. 580. c Van Rensselaer's Affair of Queenstown. p. 27.