# State Documents on Federal Relations/28n

Massachusetts and the Militia Question.
1812–1814.
When war was declared against Great Britain, June 18, 1812, (U. S. Stat. at Large, II, 755) the Federalist minority issued an Address to their Constituents, protesting both against the war and the manner in which the ​declaration of war had been secured. That this war was "a party and not a national war" and entered upon by the United States "as a divided people" was soon evident by the position taken by the authorities of several of the New England States, relative to the power of the Federal Government over the State Militia. By authority of the President, General Dearborn, on June 22, addressed the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, making requisition for certain detachments of their militia, for service in the defence of the coast, but did not include in the call any officer of high rank. Governor Strong, of Massachusetts, not considering the call warranted by the Constitution, did not comply with the requisition, for reasons set forth in his correspondence with the Secretary of War, and as later stated in his Speech to the Legislature. Renewed requisitions from General Dearborn, and the Secretary of War during July, finally led to the submission of the questions involved to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State. An extract for their decision follows:
The attitude of Massachusetts and Connecticut was severely condemned by President Madison in his message of November 4, 1812. (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, I, 516.) The question still remained unsettled when in the summer of 1814 the coast of Maine was invaded, Governor Strong at the request of General Dearborn, called out the militia, but as they were placed under the command of a general of the State instead of the United States, the administration refused to be responsible for their maintenance (Secretary of War Monroe to Strong, Sept. 17, 1814, State Papers, Military Affairs, I, 614), and left Massachusetts and the other New England States to defend themselves largely at their own cost. It was this situation that immediately led to the issuing of the call for the Hartford Convention (See post, Nos. 36, 37.)
In 1817 the State of Massachusetts presented its claim to the Federal Government for reinbursement of the expenses contracted in maintaining the defence of the coast, and finally after an agitation of thirteen years, and the renunciation by the Governor and both branches of the Legislature of the principles maintained by the former authorities of the State, by act of May 31, 1830 (May session, 1823, Resolves of Mass., 1819–24, 634–636, 640, 641, 644, 645), Massachusetts was awarded about one-half of the amount of her claim. (U. S. Stat. at Large, IV, 428.) In 1827 the Supreme Court of the United States in Martin v. Mott (12 Wheaton, 19) decided adversely in a case involving the principles and position taken by the authorities of the New England States in regard to the constitutional rights of the Federal Government over the Militia.
References: Sources. An Address of Members of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States: To their Constituents on the subject of the War with Great Britain (Boston, 1812); also in the Annals, 12 Cong., I sess., 2196–2221; Niles' Register, II, 309–315. The Senate of the Mass. Legislature, which was Republican, issued an Address to the People of the Commonwealth (Boston, 1812, 8$^0$, 28 pages); also in Niles, II, 308, 309; in which they "say with assurance, that a deep and deadly design is formed against our happy Union." The House which was Federalist also issued An ​Address to the People of Massachusetts (n. t. p., 1812, 8$^0$, 14 pages); also in Niles, II, 417–419. The Correspondence between the Secretary of War, the Governor and United States military officers is given in the Annals, 12 Cong., 2 sess., Appx., 1295–1304; Amer. State Papers, Military Affairs, I, 321–325, 607–608, 610–614; Senate Doc., 18 Cong. I sess., II, No. 43, 135, 137–139, 142–164. All the important documents in connection with the Mass. claim are to be found in the above, and in Military Affairs, III, 8–10, 104–108; IV, 293–295; Resolves of Mass., 1828–31, 256–263; Cong. Debate, 1829–30, 357–359. General references: Adams VI, 305, 309, 399–402; VIII, 219–223, 272; Barry, Mass., III, 379–390; Dwight, Hartford Convention, 233–275 in passim, 282–285; Hildreth, VI, 319–325, 372–374, 484–500, 531; McMaster, III, 543–546; IV, 231, 244–247; Schouler, II, 356, 422–424; Von Holst, I, 233–246, 259–260; Adams, New Eng. Federalism; Kent, Commentaries (13th ed.), I, 263–265; Story (5th ed.), iI, 121–126; Winsor, Memorial Hist. of Boston, III, 211–215, 303–311.