It has been ably argued by Mr. Lanier, in the Virginia Assembly, that the distinction between _army_ and _militia_ is, that the first stands on _contract_ or _voluntary enlistment_, and the second on _the law compelling parties to serve_; that this simple test determines the character of the service, Did the party enter _voluntarily_ or by _operation of law_? If voluntarily, then he is in the "army"; if compulsorily, or by operation of law, then he is in the "militia." This distinction is palpable, and is true, I think, beyond question, with regard to the "army" and "militia" under existing laws. I am not prepared to say that Congress, under the clause authorizing it "to raise and support armies," may not, following the example of other countries, enforce a conscription, or levy, which shall act compulsorily throughout the country, being in this respect like the _militia_, although unlike it in other respects. Such a plan was recommended by Mr. Monroe, when Secretary of War, October 17, 1814, who speaks of it as follows. "The limited power which the United States have in organizing the militia may be urged as an argument against their right to raise _regular troops in the mode proposed_. If any argument could be drawn from that circumstance, I should suppose that it would be in favor of an opposite conclusion. The power of the United States over the militia has been limited, and that for raising regular armies granted without limitation. There was, doubtless, some object in this arrangement. The fair inference seems to be, that it was made on great consideration,--that the limitation in the first instance was intentional, the consequence of the unqualified grant of the second. "But it is said, that by drawing the men from the militia service into the regular army and putting them under regular officers you violate a principle of the Constitution _which provides that the militia shall be commanded by their own officers_. If this was the fact, the conclusion would follow. But it is not the fact. The men are not drawn from the militia, but from the population of the country. _When they enlist voluntarily, it is not as militia-men that they act, but as citizens._ If they are drafted, it must be in the same sense. In both instances they are enrolled in the militia corps; but that, as is presumed, cannot prevent the voluntary act in one instance or the compulsive in the other. The whole population of the United States, within certain ages, belong to these corps. If the United States could not form regular armies from them, they could raise none."[205] [205] Niles's Register, Vol. VII. p. 139: November 5, 1814. If Mr. Monroe's views are sound, the "army" of the United States, as well as the "militia," may be raised by draft. It may consist of _regulars_ and _irregulars_.