You are spot on.
A person needs to go back to the “original intent” and look at “standing army” compared to “militia.”
There was to be no “standing army” - an army always ready, armed and well regulated, to do the bidding of the federal government.
Instead, there were to be state militias, that could be mustered up by the federal government during times of national war. The states were in control of their militia, not the federal government. This gave the states more power and authority.
Recently (last 100 years or so), we now have a “standing army” in the power and authority of the federal government, which has obviously abused their power, over and over.
We clearly see this example during the civil war. Each “unit” was a state militia. They identified by the state where they had come from. There was no federal standing army.
Anyway, a lot has been written in the last 30 years or so on this topic regarding “original intent” of states militia, national guard, standing army, etc.
That is exactly right.
And it went beyond that. The militias - state chartered units - could be raised by anyone in the State.
My g-g uncle raised a North Carolina regiment on his own by recruiting locals he knew. Because he did that, they were assigned a company name and number and put under a State militia commander, but with G-G-Uncle as the Captain - a title he earned for having raised the company.
Federal control of the of the State militias - now called National Guard - starts with the Dick Act and was the slippery slope to an all Federal standing army which we now have, with the NG units as junior member subsidiaries.
They are the State militias and should be untouchable by the Federal commands until formally ordered into service for a conflict of declared war - by the Congress.