The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-08-04
The gntIana Daily 6Inbe
SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1877.
MILITIA AND REGULARS.

The constitution of Vermont, in assert
ing the right of the people 10 bear arms in
defense of themselves and the state, de-
clares that "standing armies, in time of
{" peace are dangerous to liberty" and that
they ought not to be kept up" but that
the "militia should be kept under strict
d" subordination to and be governed by the
" civil power" The idea is that the peo-
pie must depend upon themselves for pro-
lection, and that in cases of great and sud-
den danger must rely upon the body of the
militia, not upon a standing army, because
q standing army would be dangerous to
" liberty"
Our fathers, the amers of the constitu-
ton, were engaged in conflict with Great
Britain had seen and experienced all the
oppression which sovereign, having con-
troll of standing army, could exercise /;
had, so far, placed their sole reliance on the
people called into the military service upon
emergencies: and SO were justly jealous Of
standing armies and, perhaps, over conf
dent of the strength and protection afford
ed by the militia-that is, of the people
properly armed and ready to be called
into service at a moments notice. Is Is un-
deniable that the liberties of America are
due solely TO the "minutc men" of the revo-
lution-that is, of the militia-as contra
distinguished from the regulars or a
" standing army" 1t is equally true that
in all of our great conflicts, the country
has relied for its protection on the body of
the people, the militia, whether called out
as militia or as volunteers. To those
familiar with the history of the country it
needs no argument to show this. The war
of 1912, the Mexican war, and the " ar for
the suppression Of the rebellion all unite in
proving it. What would have been the
result of either of these wars had the coun-
try placed its sole, or main, reliance upon
the regular army2 The mere question is
sufficient of itself to show that our fathers
were not very much out of the way in in
sisting upon the right of the people to
bear arms, and in asserting that the safety
of the people and of the state depended
upon well regulated militia.
And right here we may suggest the
query, whether our present organization of
the militia is in substantial compliance with
either the letter or spirit of The state or
national constitutions? So far as the Or
ganization of the militia extends, it is all
that could be asked or expected. But
does the constitution intend that the MILL
tia of Vermont shall consist of only five
hundred men? What security could they
afford in case of instruction or rebellion
Surprising, for instance, an instruction or
rebellion had occurred in Rutland or Burl-
ington within the past ten days, what pro-
lection would the people have had2 Have
we any such "well regulated militia" as
the constitution and laws con- emplate
We profess to rely upon the militia, yet
what little militia We have does not cost
the tax payers single cent. Is this right?
Is IL honest2 Is it constitutional?
But this aside from our purpose. While
our fathers were undoubtedly right in their
fears of a standing army, recent events
have shown that the country has been
drifting to the very extreme of this doc
trine, and the danger now is, not from q
standing army, but from one not large
enough for ordinary emergencies. The
riots of the past few days have demonstra-
ted that for sudden emergencies the militia
cannot be depended upon, but that the
country must rely for its defense and pro-
lection upon the regular army. There Is,
to be sure, such thing as tod large an
army-and that, we take it, is what our
fathers feared-but recent events show
that any man who hereafter calls for a re-
duction of the army below the present
strength will appear as champion o: dis
order. If the recent riots haye proved
anything, it is that the regular army, when
callel into service, is supeii II 10 all other
means of enforcing order Whist this su-
periority consists in we will not pretend to
say-it is enough that it exists; and while
not advocating large standing Army, while
believing that in case Of actual war our main
reliance must be upon the body Of the peo-
ple-call them militia" or "vplunteers,
or whatever you will. they are what our
fathers meant by the term "militia"-yet
we agree with the Army and Macy Jour
nal that, while it may not be necessary to
raise new regiments, yet that it is an i'm
perative necessity that those we have
must be filled up to their full war
4" strength at once If we expect to have
ANY senie of safety in the future SO
much is plainly demanded ty common
'' sense and self preservation, and the dem
"agogy that will oppose such unreasonable
demand after the events of last week is
nothing but an appeal for revolution of