Could someone confirm my short analyzation of this document? I'm not the greatest in this class and I'm a little shaky on whether or not I understand this properly.
DOCUMENT:
Source: "Brutus," New York Journal, January 10, 1788
The power to raise armies, is indefinite and unlimited, and authorises the raising forces, as well in peace as in war. Whether the clause which impowers the Congress to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry this into execution, will not authorise them to impress men for the army, is a question well worthy consideration? If the general legislature deem it for the general welfare to raise a body of troops, and they cannot be procured by voluntary enlistments, it seems evident, that it will be proper and necessary to effect it, that men be impressed from the militia to make up the deficiency.
ANALYZATION:
An Anti Federalist wrote this, and he or she is against the fact that the new constitution allows voluntary enlistment. Their strongest reason for this in matters of deficiency, when they need the men the most.
Here's a question, is the author only referring impression when there is a deficiency or in all matters?
I'd really appreciate your thoughts. I've been working on this essay since 4am.
I think you misinterpret. The "necessary and proper" clause gives the Congress authority to do things not specifically called for in the Constitution in order to protect the nation or carry out other functions of the national government. "Impression" of soldiers/sailors (drafting people into service against their will) comes under the "necessary and proper" clause. The anti-Federalists were QUESTIONING whether or not such an interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause was correct or not. Some thought NOT, and objected to the idea that "impressing" men from the state militias into national service, in peacetime especially, was NOT proper. They did not object to voluntary service, enlistment of one's own free will.
Wow, thank you so much for taking the time to help me. You just saved my guts! Haha, thank you Reed. I appreciate it.
Are the anti-Federalists opposed to VOLUNTARY enlistment or 'IMPRESSION" of soldiers involuntarily? At the time, the word "impression" when applied to sailors or soldiers meant to draft them into service against their will, by law or any other means.
I say anti-Feds are opposed to voluntary enlistment. "they cannot be procured by voluntary enlistments, it seems evident, that it will be proper and necessary to effect it, that men be impressed from the militia to make up the deficiency." It seems as if the author is against this for terms of deficiency
The essay you copied (?) and pasted would seem to defend the right of Congress to draft men. I wonder if it is anti-Federalist or a response to the position taken by the anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists wanted "small government" and to limit the scope and power of the national government. They felt the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, et al., were over-stepping political boundaries the anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, wanted to see.
Based on the provided document, it seems that your understanding of the document is generally correct. The document is indeed written by an Anti-Federalist and expresses concern about the unlimited power given to the Congress to raise armies. The author questions whether the clause empowering Congress to pass laws necessary to execute this power might also allow them to impress men for the army.
In terms of your question about whether the author is only referring to impressment during deficiencies or in all matters, it is not explicitly stated in the document. However, the author argues that if the general legislature deems it necessary and troops cannot be obtained through voluntary enlistments, it would be proper and necessary to impress men from the militia to make up the deficiency. Therefore, it appears that the author is specifically referring to impressment in situations where voluntary enlistments are insufficient.
To strengthen the analysis of this document, you could also consider mentioning the broader context of the Anti-Federalist concerns during the ratification period of the United States Constitution. Anti-Federalists generally opposed granting too much power to the federal government, especially in relation to the military, as they feared it could lead to the abuse of individual rights and the centralization of power.
As a reminder, when confirming or analyzing any document or source, it is essential to provide specific evidence and quotes from the source to support your interpretations. This helps strengthen your analysis and ensure accuracy.