Last week we covered the US Army’s first major military loss when the Indians in the Northwest territory soundly defeated the army under General Arthur St. Clair. Today we will cover Congress’ response to that loss, and other legislation from 1792.
Military Appropriations
The defeat reinforced President Washington’s view that the nation needed a larger standing army. Many members of Congress still believed that a standing army in peacetime violated a fundamental tenet of the Revolution. A professional military that was large enough to compel the citizenry to comply, not out of voluntary acceptance, but fear of military reprisal was the tyranny that they had just shed under British rule.
 |
| First US Penny 1792 |
Washington and others calling for a larger army understood that concern, but also recognized that there were very real military threats, from both Indian tribes and foreign nations, that required substantial numbers of professionally trained soldiers to defend the new country.
The other big issue was cost. The country would be digging its way out of debt for decades because of the cost of the Continental Army during the war. The cost of a large peacetime army could cause that national debt to increase, no decrease.
Up until the time of the Battle of the Wabash in 1791, the US Army had never exceeded 1000 soldiers. In 1790 Congress had authorized raising a force of 1273, mostly to deal with Indians in the Ohio territory. Low pay and poor conditions had prevented reaching those enlistment goals. By the time General St. Clair went off to fight the total number of American regulars was only about 800 officers and men.
Following the loss on the Wabash, Congress was finally willing to approve a much larger army. Fortunately, they had some of the top talent in the administration to advise them. President Washington and Secretary of War Henry Knox had both played key roles in organizing the Continental Army. Congress also sought the advice of former Inspector General Friedrich von Steuben, who was by this time living on a large estate in upstate New York, granted to him for his services during the war.
After taking their advice, Congress adopted a plan to create the Legion of the United States. This would total over 5000 officers and men. The legion would be divided into four independent sub-legions that would normally operate independently. Each sub-legion would have a troop of dragoons, a company of artillery, two regiments of infantry and one regiment of riflemen. The total cost of maintaining this army would be about $1 million per year.
President Washington also appointed a new commander of the army Major General "Mad" Anthony Wayne had been one of Washington’s top generals during the war. He was known for tough discipline and aggressive action.
Although he was a Pennsylvania native, Wayne had moved from Georgia after the war. He had received a large land grant in appreciation for his work during the southern campaign. In 1791, the Georgia voters sent Wayne to Philadelphia as their representative in Congress. Washington had approached Wayne for a leadership role in the army as early as 1789, but Wayne was not interested.
However, by 1792, Wayne was struggling with his finances, and was facing accusations of election fraud for his election to the House of Representatives. By this time, Wayne put all of that behind him by accepting Washington’s appointment as commander of the US Army.
Wayne was in no hurry to rush into another battle. He set up a training ground on the banks of the Ohio River, just north of Pittsburgh. He spent months training and recruiting new recruits, who had enlisted for three years. He did not want to go into battle until his army was ready.
Militia Act
If the establishment of a large standing army had been controversial, Congress also tackled even more contentious issues in the Militia Act. Congress had been debating an act to regulate state militias since Congress had first met in 1789. The members kept tabling the matter because no one could agree on the Federal Government’s role in state militias.
State and local militias were considered the backbone of America’s fighting force. Given the relatively small size of the professional army, the country needed to have a well armed and well trained militia to step up in times of war or national emergency.
Many state officials, however, were skeptical of the idea that the federal government should control the militia. Many were still fearful that the federal government might become tyrannical, and it would be up to the state militias to challenge that tyranny.
During the Constitutional Convention, delegates had debated these issues. Foremost in their minds, however, was Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts, and the inability of both the state and the Confederation Congress to control that rebellion. In response, delegates gave congress the authority
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [and] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The new militia act was designed to fill in the details for that Congressional authorization. Congress’ Militia Act, passed on May 2, 1792, explicitly gave the president the power to call out the state militia doing any invasion or the imminent danger of invasion by any foreign nation or Indian tribe. It also gave the president authority to call out the militia if an insurgency grew so large that it could not be handled by regular judicial proceedings. Any militia member’s refusal to follow the orders of the president could result in a court martial and a fine of up to a year’s pay.
A week later, on May 8, Congress passed a second militia act. It required all able-bodied white men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five to be enrolled in a militia. All militia members were required to buy their own musket or rifle, ammunition, and equipment to keep on hand at all times. The law exempted certain professions from militia duty, including most federal officials, sailors, ferry operators. It also allowed states to create their own exemptions.
The state exemptions were particularly contentious. Congress debated whether to grant exemptions for religious reasons. Some states with many Quakers or other peace-oriented religions, strongly supported this exemption. Madison strongly advocated for a conscientious objector provision, but could not get it passed. Other members believed such a provision would create a loophole that would allow anyone who just wished to avoid service to claim an exemption. There were also arguments from manufacturers that militia duty would disrupt the productivity of apprentices. In the end, by allowing each state to adopt whatever exemptions it wanted, they sidestepped these contentious arguments and left it to state leaders to resolve on a state by state basis..
There was also some debate about whether a president might abuse the power to call up the militia to put down a rebellion. While no one expected President Washington to abuse the power, the same might not be said for future presidents. The result was a requirement that a federal judge had to affirm the need to call out the militia.
Congress also ended up limiting the power of the militia for three years. That would force them to reconsider whether this power was being used properly after some time had passed.
The law also defined carefully how a chain of command would work, with the President as commander in chief. It also limited militia service to a maximum of three months in a year.
Because the most controversial matters regarding conscientious objections were avoided in the final bill, both militia acts passed Congress pretty convincingly. President Washington signed them into law.
Tariff Act
I covered the Militia Act first because it led directly from our last episode’s events regarding the war with the Indians in the Ohio territory. But Congress was actively engaged in a number of other important laws at the same time. It passed the tariff Act in March, about two months before the Militia Act.
Congress had already begun authorizing tariffs in 1789. It was one of the first things that Congress did since it needed to start collecting money. The 1792 Act took tariffs in a new direction and brought more controversy.
The basis for the new tariffs came from Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, released in late 1791. Hamilton proposed increasing tariffs for the purpose of making it more expensive for consumers to import manufactured goods from abroad. This would allow local manufacturers, primarily based in New England and the mid-Atlantic states to become more competitive.
Back during the colonial era, the colonies were not permitted to engage in manufacturing. Britain wanted the colonies to focus on producing raw materials for British manufacturers. The independent US saw manufacturing grow at a phenomenal rate. Hamilton saw manufacturing as the key to making the United States into an independent world power, with less dependence on Europe.
To this end, Hamilton’s report recommended higher tariffs on imported goods. It also recommended reducing tariffs on certain raw materials, and even subsidies for certain industries. Many import duties were increased by about two percent. Certain items, including cotton, hemp, and iron, had massive duties in order to encourage domestic production
This plan also had its opponents. Merchants and shipowners, who thought they had fought a revolution to prevent officials from sticking them with tariffs to benefit certain groups over others, greatly opposed this plan. Opponents noted that the Constitution only allowed tariffs for raising revenue, not for the influencing of manufacturing. The distinction between regulatory and revenue tariffs had also been a hot button issue during the Revolutionary War.
Southern colonies balked at the idea of having to pay more for their imported goods in an effort to benefit moneyed interests in the north. Jefferson viewed America as an agricultural utopia, and that encouraging greater manufacturing and industry would destroy that. Southern leaders like Madison favored free trade. They did not want Hamilton using the government to benefit his rich supporters in northern cities. Rather, southern farmers should be permitted to buy from whatever source they wished. They saw Hamilton’s efforts as a form of corruption, using the government to enrich friends and the expense of everyone else.
Despite this strong opposition, the tariff act passed much along the lines that Hamilton had recommended. President Washington signed it into law.
Coinage Act
Congress also passed the Coinage Act in April. The Constitution required that the federal government established a mint for coining money. Washington had badgered Congress for several years to get this done. Finally, in 1792, Congress put it in place. The Coinage Act established the US Mint in Philadelphia. It authorized the creation of copper pennies and half-pennies, silver half-dimes, dimes, quarters, half-dollars and dollars, and gold pieces worth $2.50, $5, and $10.
The law went into great detail about the design and metal quality of the coins that I won’t get into here. I will say that Madison and Jefferson objected to Hamilton’s formula because Jefferson wanted the silver dollar to be exactly one ounce. While this was not a major public issue, the fact that Jefferson’s view beat Hamilton’s was one that greatly annoyed Hamilton. On thing that particularly galled Hamilton, Madison, who tended to serve as Washington's ghost writer on major speeches, attempted to put his own preferred wording of the metal content issue the President’s state of the Union address on this matter to be partisan intrigue. Hamilton later pointed this out and the President changed the wording to appear neutral on the matter.
The more public issue was the design. Hamilton wanted George Washington to appear on the coins, much like European coins included the images of the current monarch. Hamilton and other Federalists believed this would instill patriotism. The Republicans objected. They did not want the President to appear as a king and instead proposed more abstract symbols of liberty to appear on all the coins.
Washington stayed far away from this debate. Once again though, the Republicans prevailed. The Coinage Act specified the use of abstract imagery rather than that of any actual person.
Finally, Hamilton suffered a third blow in the passage of this act. It would seem logical that the mint would fall under the authority of the Treasury Department. Hamilton, however, had a great deal of responsibilities on his plate at this time. Jefferson had already held himself out as an expert on coinage, based on his tours of France’s mint. Washington ended up giving the responsibility for regulating and managing the mint to the Secretary of State.
Because the mint was a very specific facility, it became the first building built from scratch for the federal government. President Washington appointed Pennsylvania Treasurer David Rittenhouse to be the first director of the mint. Supposedly, Rittenhouse hand pressed the first half-dimes a few months later. He got his silver for these coins directly from President Washington, who donated his silverware for the experiment. It would not be until 1793 that the first mass produced coins, pennies would be distributed to the public.
More Assumption of Debt
During the 1792 term, Hamilton also pushed for greater federal assumption of state debts from the war. The first assumption bill, which had been part of the whole compromise to move the capital to Washington, DC, had left out many debts particularly in Massachusetts and South Carolina.
Some opponents argued that many states were abusing the assumption to get hundreds of thousands of more dollars than they actually deserved. To them, this was waste, fraud, and abuse. Later the government would appoint a commission to look into the matter. The commission found that many states, in fact, got more money than they should have.
Hamilton was not particularly concerned about the details. His focus was to have the nation’s entire financial system focused on the federal government, rather than the states, so that investors could get paid.
Related to all of this, Hamilton also pushed for a sinking fund to be adopted. This was a common financial strategy used in Britain. It ensured that certain tax revenues were dedicated to the reduction of debt and could not be used for other purposes.
Part of the act passed by Congress that year was the establishment of more sources of revenue to pay down the debt. An important one was a tax on whiskey.
Hamilton’s main focus was on investor confidence. He did not want US debt to be sold at a discount in the market. During several financial crises in 1791 and 1792, Hamilton had the Bank of the United States and the Bank of New York buy up securities to ensure they remained near par value. His goal was investor confidence so that foreign investors would invest in lower interest loans.
Opponents, however, saw it as a strategy to enrich Hamilton’s favored investor class, giving them healthy returns with no real risk. Once again, Hamilton got congress to pass the laws, but opponents like Madison continued to grow angrier. They saw the abuse and speculation among eastern investors that ended up harming many working people.
Apportionment Act
One of the biggest debates that year was over apportionment. Following the 1790 Census, Congress had to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives. Members of Congress had to determine how many representatives each state would get.
The Constitution required no more than one representative for every 30,000 people, except that every state would have at least one representative. You’d think this would be a simple math problem. But there was more than one way to do the math and certain states got advantages depending on what model was used.
Congress, using a formula that Hamilton had recommended, took the total population of the US (counting slaves as three-fifths of a person) and divided it by 30,000. This gave them a House of 120 representatives. Of course, some states had a fraction of a representative, so the states with the largest fraction got an extra representative.
As it turned out, most of those fractional bonus representatives went to northern states that were more heavily federalist. As a result, the southern states, which also tended to be dominated by Democratic-Republicans, objected to this formula.
Since the Federalists were in the majority, Congress passed the law using their formula and sent it to President Washington. The President found himself in a bind. He did not like controversial partisan decisions. Signing the bill would anger many southerners, particularly Virginians. Vetoing the bill might make him look provincial and supporting the position of his home state.
Washington asked for comments from his cabinet. Not surprisingly, Hamilton and Knox, both northerners, said he should sign the bill. Congress acted reasonably in this matter and the President should defer to Congress. Jefferson and Randolph, who were both from Virginia, both argued for a veto. They argued that the formula for apportionment should simply apply the ratio of 30,000 to 1 to each state population and give the state that number of representatives. There should be no bonus representative for any fraction that was higher based on the total national population.
In the end, Washington decided to veto the bill. He stuck to a more basic constitutional arguments. The Constitution said there should be no more than one representative for every 30,000 people. Under the Federalists’ formula, some states had more than that. One state had a representative for every 28,000 people, for example.
Washington vetoed the bill on April 5, 1792. He sent it back with two objections. The President noted that the Constitution required that representatives be apportioned based on the population of each state, not the national population. It also required no more than one representative for every 30,000 voters and that this bill violated that in some states.
After Congress failed to override the veto, it ended up using the other formula, and changing the distribution to one representative for every 33,000 people. In other words, the formula that the Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson and Madison wanted prevailed. This reduced the size of Congress from 120 members to 105 members, still much larger than the first congress, but not as large as some had hoped.
In the end, no state got more votes since Congress was 15 members smaller. The changed formula only affected two states. Delaware lost one representative and Virginia gained one using the Jefferson formula rather than the Hamilton formula.
Next week, the American flag gets a 15th star and a 15th stripe as Kentucky joins the Union.
- -
Next Episode 378 Kentucky Statehood
Previous Episode 376 Battle of the Wabash
 |
| Click here to donate |
 |
| Click here to see my Patreon Page |
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Signup for the AmRev Podcast Mail List
Further Reading
Websites
Militia Act of 1792 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792
The First Congressional Investigation: St. Clair's Military Disaster of 1791: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA517709.pdf
Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures Dec. 5, 1791: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-10-02-0001-0007
Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 https://www.usmint.gov/learn/history/historical-documents/coinage-act-of-april-2-1792
The 1790 Census and the First Veto: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2022/04/04/the-1790-census-and-the-first-veto
Balinski, M. L., and H. P. Young. “The Jefferson Method of Apportionment.” SIAM Review, vol. 20, no. 2, 1978, pp. 278–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2029901.
Free eBooks
(from archive.org unless noted)
Brant, Irving James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787-1800. Bobbs-Merrill Co. 1950 (borrow only).
Maas, John Defending a New Nation, 1783-1811, Center of Military History, 2013.
Malone, Dumas Jefferson and the Rights of Man, Little Brown and Co. 1951. (borrow only)
Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox, Harper & Brothers, 1959.
Preston, John H. A Gentleman Rebel: Mad Anthony Wayne, Garden City Publishing Co., 1930.
Books Worth Buying
(links to Amazon.com unless otherwise noted)*
Chernow, Ron Alexander Hamilton, Penguin Press, 2004.
Chernow, Ron Washington, A Life, Penguin Press, 2010.
Chervinsky, Lindsay M. The Cabinet: George Washington and the Creation of an American Institution, Belknap Press, 2020.
Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800, Oxford Univ. Press, 1993 (borrow on archive.org).
Ellis, Joseph J. His Excellency. George Washington, Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
Ferling, John Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation Hardcover, Bloomsbury Press, 2013.
Heidler, David S. & Jeanne T. Washington's Circle: The Creation of the President, Random House, 2015.
Hunger, Harlow Giles Mr. President: George Washington and the Making of the Nation's Highest Office, De Capo Press, 2013.
Leibiger, Stuart Founding Friendship George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic, Univ. of Virginia Press, 1999.
Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, Random House, 2012.
Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (or Portrait in Paradox), Harper & Brothers, 1959 (Borrow on archive.org)
* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
