American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1846-06-23
MEMORIAL
MILITIA OFFICERS OF BALTIMORE

-.
JUNE 3, 1886
Referred to the Committee on the Militia
and ordered TO be printed
To the Senate and House of Representatives. O.
the United States in Congress assembled
The memorial of the militia officers of the
State of Maryland residing in the city of Bal.
timore
! RESPECTFULLY SHoWETH:
That your memorialists, in common with
the whole people of the United States, feel
the deepest interest in the present condition oil
the foreign relations ofthe United States with
other countries, and the most earnest desire
Il that, under all circumstances, the honor of the
nation should be preserved. Residing in a
commercial city which was, during former
war, made the subject of severe attack, and
being, from their position, under especial re
sponsibility in case of another war with a
maritime power, your memorialists approach
your honorable bodies with entire respect,
for the purpose of suggesting some thoughts
! which have occurred TO them connected with
the public defence.
All the laws which have been passed by
Congress relating to the militia have had one
object only IN view, viz to embody force
TO carry on campaign in the field. Even the
law recently passed by your honorable body
provides for accepting the services of voun.
teers, or requiring the services of other classes
of the militia, for term of six months; look
ing, of course, to their taking the field regu-
larly in camps and abstracting themselves from
all other avocations whatever. Upon this
branch of the subject, your memorialists have
no remarks to make.
But there is another purpose to which the
militia can and ought to be applied, requiring
distinct system of laws, viz that of defend.
ing the commercial cities on the seaboard; and
for this purpose the existing laws are wholly
useless. ln case of war with a maritime
power owning territory adjoining the United
States, it is clear that large force would be
required upon the frontier, where the war
would be carried on by army against army,
and the chief attention of the government
would be directed 10 the enrolment and con-
tinuance of an effective force either for at
tack or defence. 1t would of course, become
necessary TO form camps, not only for the in
structon of the militia, but for their active
services in the field. To accomplish this, the
present laws are eminently proper.
But whilst all the troops at the disposal of
the government would thus be drawn to the
frontier, what would be the condition Of The
cities upon the seaboard, and what provision
could be made for their protection under the
laws as they now exist? To form camps, as
upon the frontier, composed of men called into
service for six months, would be impossible,
and unwise even if it were possible. The un-
certainty of the point of attack to be made by
an enemy who could sail along The coast and
select his scene of operations, would demand
that every city should be equally protected,
and the expense of this would render the plan
impracticable. Surprising that the expense
could be borne, no wise government would
desire 10 draw its agricultural population from
the interior of State to the neighborhood of
large city, to spend six months in compaTa-
tive idleness, without the incentive of clear
prospect of meeting the enemy. In the face
Of foe, the necessity of the case secures the
preservation of discipline; but in camps, like
The above, it would be impossible to prevent
the introduction of irregular habits--the causes
Of future and widespread misery. To sup
pose that volunteers would fill the ranks, ar
cues an ignorance of the spirit wi ich actuates
volunteer corps. Men will freely and cheer
fully give their services to their country,
where they see a probability of active en-
ployment; but they will not voluntarily leave
their homes and business to lounge away six
months in camp without reasonable pros
pect of being practically useful. Such camps
would, therefore, be composed almost wholly
of militia taken by draught from all parts Of
the State. And even if all these objections
were removed, there would remain the serious
one, that in six months these camps would be
broken up, to be succeeded by fresh levies,
| upon whom the work of instruction must be-
gin anew. A discreet enemy need only re-
frain from an attack, and we should exhaust
all our resources in combating the air.
In what condition, then, do the existing
laws leave the cities on the seaboard, with no
protection but one or more forts, with gar
rison perhaps just sufficient to scale the guns?
This question your memorialists propose to
answer.
Generally speaking, whenever the United
States have deemed it expedient to build and
arm fort, there will be found 10 its neigh
borhood an abundant population TO defend il,
because the forts are intended to protect large
commercial cities. Exceptions may be found,
as in the case of Fortress Monroe, at the
mouth of the Chesapeake, the large fort which
commands the harbor of Newport, Rhode Is.
land, and perhaps some Others But these ex.
ceptions, so far from opposing the plan which
will presently be suggested, strengthen the
reasons for its adoption; because, in proportion
to The importance of those forts, and the ina
bilty of the government to afford them ade-
quate protection, is the necessity of seeking
elsewhere for the appropriate defence. There
exist in the case these three circumstances:
/. That forts have been built for the pro-
lection of the cities on the seaboard.
2. That the government would have an ur-
gent demand on the frontiers on land for all |
possible dsposable force.
3. That in the neghborhood of these forts,
there is an abundance of men to garrison and
protect them in case of danger.
What should prevent these men from being
trained by the government to supply its wants
when an invasion occurs? None will dispute
the obligation of the United States 10 defend
those cities from which its reYenne is chiefly |