A Clarification of Roles

From The Federalist Papers, #74. The caps are part of the original text. The italics and bold are mine. Anyone want to argue Constitutional interpretation with Alexander Hamilton?

...or James Madison or John Jay - each contributed to the Papers.

THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

UPDATE:

After posting this, I re-read all Federalist Papers delineating the different responsibilities of the legislative and executive branches and I was struck by how the Founders considered standing armies a necessary evil that threatened the liberties of the people. If you read papers 24 through 27 it is clear that they intentionally made it difficult to raise and maintain armies and it truly requires both branches with a clear purpose to implement.

On the other hand, once the mission has been established and the armies raised, they are also quite clear that Congress should be hands-off on the use of the armies.

What's also interesting is that it is also clear that States were assumed to raise their own militias and band together against a Federal government that enacted laws "odious" to the States. As history teaches us, when a bunch of States actually tried to do that, it didn't work too well; in fact, Lincoln's use of force to restore the Union against the States wills would have been viewed as tyrannical by the Federalists.