while in the federalist no. 46, madison argued that a standing army of 25,000 to 30,000 men would be offset by "a militia amounting to near a half million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves ..." [119] the antifederalists were not persuaded by these arguments, in part because of the degree of control over the militia given to the national government by the proposed constitution. the fears of the more conservative opponents centered upon the possible phasing out of the general militia in favor of a smaller, more readily corrupted, select militia. proposals for such a select militia already had been advanced by individuals such as baron von steuben, washington's inspector general, who proposed supplementing the general militia with a force of 21,000 men given government- issued arms and special training. [120] an article in the connecticut journal expressed the fear that the proposed constitution might allow congress to create such select militias: "[t]his looks too much like baron steuben's militia, by which a standing army was meant and intended." [121] in pennsylvania, john smiley told the ratifying convention that "congress may give us a select militia which will in fact be a standing army", and worried that, [p.34] with this force in hand, "the people in general may be disarmed". [122] similar concerns were raised by richard henry lee in virginia. in his widely-read pamphlet, letters from the federal farmer to the republican, lee warned that liberties might be undermined by the creation of a select militia that "[would] answer to all the purposes of an army", and concluded that "the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms.