The Federalist No. 29
Concerning the Militia
Historical Context
Federalist No. 29 addresses Anti-Federalist fears that federal control over the militia would lead to tyranny. Hamilton argues that a well-regulated militia under federal standards, while remaining under state control, provides the best defense against both foreign threats and domestic tyranny.
Key Arguments
- Uniformity Necessary: Federal standards ensure effective militia
- State Control Retained: States appoint officers and conduct training
- Armed Citizens Prevent Tyranny: Large body of armed citizens checks government power
- Select Corps Practical: Smaller trained group more feasible than universal training
Second Amendment Connection
This essay is frequently cited in Second Amendment cases for Hamilton's discussion of an armed citizenry as a check on government tyranny and his explanation of what "well regulated" meant in the founding era.
Key Excerpts
On Federal Regulation of the Militia
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness.
On "Well Regulated" Militia
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.
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Note on "Well Regulated"
Hamilton uses "well-regulated" to mean properly trained and disciplined, not government-controlled. He acknowledges the impracticality of achieving perfect regulation of the entire militia.
On Armed Citizens as Check on Tyranny
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Critical Passage
This passage is frequently cited as evidence that the Founders saw an armed citizenry as the ultimate check on government tyranny, not merely as a military resource.
On Select Corps vs. General Militia
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. 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...
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
Response to Tyranny Fears
Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?
What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS?
On Posse Comitatus
The militia of the country ... may be usefully and successfully employed against sudden invasions or dangerous insurrections. In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition.
Significance for Second Amendment
Key Takeaways
- "Well Regulated": Means properly trained and equipped, not heavily restricted
- Armed Citizens: Viewed as essential check on standing armies
- Individual Preparedness: Citizens expected to be "properly armed and equipped"
- State-Federal Balance: Federal standards, state implementation
- Practical Limits: Universal military training seen as impractical
Supreme Court Citations
Federalist No. 29 has been cited in several Second Amendment cases:
DC v. Heller (2008)
Cited for the meaning of "well regulated" and the relationship between militia and armed citizens:
"Hamilton's understanding of the militia [in Federalist 29] is fully consistent with ours: the militia is 'the people'—not the 'select corps' that some wanted—and all the people were expected to be armed."
— Justice Scalia, DC v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
Referenced regarding the founding generation's view of armed citizens as protection against tyranny.
Modern Relevance
Federalist No. 29 remains relevant for understanding:
- The founding generation's expectation that citizens would be armed
- The relationship between individual arms bearing and militia service
- The meaning of "well regulated" in the Second Amendment
- The balance between federal standards and state control
Anti-Federalist Response
Anti-Federalists remained skeptical of Hamilton's assurances:
"Brutus" (likely Robert Yates)
"What defence can the people make against the oppression of government? None, I presume, but by the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which... when it cannot be effected by constitutional means, may be by resistance."
Federal Farmer (likely Richard Henry Lee)
Argued that federal control over militia discipline would lead to disarmament:
"Should one fifth or one eighth part of the men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia... the yeomanry of the country would be without defence."
Result: The Second Amendment
These concerns led directly to the Second Amendment's adoption, ensuring that the right to keep and bear arms would be explicitly protected from federal interference.
How to Cite This Document
Primary Source: Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist No. 29." The Independent Journal, January 9, 1788.
Modern Edition: The Federalist Papers, No. 29 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
This Page: SecondAmendment.net. (2024). Federalist No. 29 - Concerning the Militia. Retrieved from https://secondamendment.net/primary-sources/federalist-29/