History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;

1807-1812.] CALEB STRONG. 599
wlii(;h she had so recently assisted the United States in
maintaining ;
while the federalists viewed with distrust the
increasing power of Napoleon and looked upon England as
the conservator of such principles of law and order as are
essential to the well-being of any nation ; being disposed to
forget the recent injustice which the mother-country had
shown them. It was as a representative of the federalist
party that Caleb Strong was elected chief magistrate of his
native State, and as such he served her interests until 1807.
In that year the opposition party had become so strong that
he was defeated, though by a small majority. Mr. Strong
hailed this defeat as a welcome release from the "storm
and stress '' of public life ; and in 1812, it was with the
greatest reluctance, and only at the urgent solicitations of
his friends, who recognized that his was the only hand in
all the party, firm and steady enough to guide the helm
through these troubled seas, that he consented once more
to serve the Commonwealth,
In the summer of 1812 he was confronted with the pain-
ful necessity of deciding as to which of two conflicting
claims made upon him was paramount. The feeling
against England had grown until, on the 18*'' of June of
that year, war was declared against her. Six days previous
to this declaration came a call from the President to
the Governor of Massachusetts for troops to be subject to
the reciuisition of Maj.-Gen. Dearborn. Governor Strong
turned to the federal constitution, which declares that : —
" Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel in-
vasions." — and also " to provide * * * 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."
The Governor argued that no one of the three exigencies,
under which the State militia might legally be called out
and furthermore that Maj.-
by the President, here existed ;
Gen. Dearborn, as an outsider, could not be placed over
State troops ; hence that in complying with this demand of
the President, he would be acting contrary to his duty to
the State. In this decision the Supreme Court of Massachusetts
fully sustained him, and he refused to obey the
command. This interpretation of the constitution has