The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[kpete]

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis

................

..........In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

..................
MORE:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery?fb_action_ids=527613423937112&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22527613423937112%22%3A390307407725537%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22527613423937112%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179307/-The-Second-Amendment-was-Ratified-to-Preserve-Slavery

[onehandle]

1. It has always been clear to me that the 2nd is the legalistic tool of racist bullies. nt

[cali]

5. It has always been clear as can be that revisionist history is heinous dog shit

no matter who is doing it and no matter how "pure" their motives may be.

It always sucks.

[pipoman]

2. Complete revisionism

regardless how many times it is posted..

[NYC_SKP]

3. Dr. Bogus.....

That might be a very apt name.

I'll do some research but I smell bullshit right about now...

I love Truthout but this association of the 2A to slavery in any way deeper than a correlative one smacks of bullshit.

..........

[cali]

4. Revisionist history and stupid, but then I'm in the minority here

I often think Hartmann is full of shit.

[99Forever]

10. Let us all know when...

.. when your counter, peer reviewed dissertation gets published in the U.C. Davis Law Review, okay?

[cali]

12. wow. you mean if you don't have a peer reviewed dissertation any and all criticism

of anyone who does, is automatically discounted? Brilliant example of critical thinking their, sparky.

[99Forever]

14. No, I "mean" that...

.. given the choice as to who is far more credible between a University Professor with a well researched and documented dissertation, published in a respected Law Review and some anonymous yahoo on the internet who's entire argument consists of "nuh uh," it isn't much of a contest.

[whistler162]

18. SO you mean those doctoriaal thesis

that show the lower intelligence of minorities vs. whites and the ones that say being gay is a choice are all correct because someone got it peer reviewed!

OKAY!

[99Forever]

19. Uhhhh...

[IMG][/IMG]


Thanks for playing.

[GoneOffShore]

23. Very good - I like it!

The Delicate Flowers won't.

But that's ok.

[99Forever]

35. On loan from a likeminded friend...

... used with permission.

[CreekDog]

24. nice proof there, i guess we are stupid unless we just take your word for it

[Deep13]

28. I'd love to read you're dissertation on the subject.

A simple fact about history: historians have a far better understanding of it than the common person does.

[Ninga]

6. My daughter, a PhD in American History, vetted this and determined that it is

beyond reproach.

[cali]

8. care to divulge a bit more detail?

Forgive me, but I'm not about to buy this without some rationale. I said so is not a compelling argument. Ever.

[Ninga]

15. Of course. She read it, -and assured me it was fine to send out, but I will have to

email her to ask for more...it was stupid of me to think otherwise.

[Ninga]

25. Some quick thoughts from my daughter that may or may not speak to your question.

Our “Founding Fathers” had a pretty narrow definition of what constituted a “responsible citizen.” Remembering that when the Constitution went into effect, the only folks eligible to vote (i.e. participate in the governing process) were white, male land-owners. We’ve broadened that view quite a bit; however, as we ask ourselves what their intentions were when writing the elements of the Constitution, it is good to keep in mind just whom they were considering fit the mold. Can you imagine how they would have reacted to people outside their definition owning firearms?

2. The manufacture of firearms using interchangeable parts, and therefore making firearms that could be afforded by the “average citizen”, did not occur until 1845 (and was kicked into high gear by the Civil War). Research of wills in the era prior to the Civil War shows that when a firearm was owned it was a definitely listed as a key part of the estate (i.e. it was one of the more valuable items owned by the person making the will). The research also shows that very few wills included firearms—i.e. not a lot of people had them. Doesn’t support the concept that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea that every person was to be given the right to have personal firearms.

Am in the throws of research that the firearms used by these militias were owned by (in this case) plantation owners or the like and issued to the members of their militias when the militia was active—kind of like what happens with our National Guard today (they don’t get to take their assault weapons home with them either.

[JimDandy]

31. Too many problems with point 2. Guns were FREQUENTLY listed

in the inventory and sales lists of probated estates of the colonial and post revolutionary eras.

I was a genealogist for 25 years (professional for many of those years) and worked extensively with U.S. Probate records of the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s.

You stated: “The research also shows that very few wills included firearms—i.e. not a lot of people had them.”

First off, wills were RARE! (For various reasons, some of which are the same as reasons today, ie simply not getting around to writing one.) The most frequent and consistent items listed in wills of that time period were real property (land/houses), cash/notes, slaves, livestock and "all my other personal property", in that order. Which brings me to my second point: firearms were almost never listed in wills, not because a lot of people didn’t have them, but because they fell in the "other personal property" category.

Thirdly, most of our ancestors died intestate (without a will), so the majority of their estates were probated. The courts would probate the estates and assign an administrator to handle the probate. Debts and taxes owed by the deceased had to be paid first. The administrator was tasked with making a list (inventory) of all real and personal items of worth that the deceased owned. If there wasn’t enough cash to take care of the debts, then a public sale of the items was held to raise the cash to do so. It is in these inventory and sale lists where you will find firearms/guns FREQUENTLY listed.

Firearms, mostly hunting rifles, in that era were ubiquitous because your ability to feed yourself and family depended on owning one.

Check back with your daughter on all this. I think she will concur. By the way, I am an anti-gun violence/pro-gun control member.

[Still Sensible]

7. Not necessarily revisionist. This scholar makes a pretty good case

as he examines how Madison ultimately crafted the amendment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2181678

[MadrasT]

9. That is pure bullshit in my opinion. n/t

[obamanut2012]

13. Mine too

[1-Old-Man]

11. No it wasn't.

That assertion is simply preposterous. "Dr. Bogus" indeed.

[Demo_Chris]

16. Ridiculous

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. This is the same publication which insisted that Karl Rove had been indicted:

http://archive.truthout.org/article/karl-rove-indicted-charges-perjury-lying-investigators

[stevenleser]

21. Not a fair comparison. The issue with the Rove indictment was the fault of the particular journalist

Thom Hartmann wrote this article. I dont always agree with him, but I dont think he fabricates evidence.

What you wrote would mean everything that the NY Times puts out should be disregarded too, along with the New Republic.

Both have had issues with individual journalists.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Truthout actually gave a promotion to Leopold

He is now the Lead Investigative Reporter: http://truth-out.org/about-us

[99Forever]

30. Wrong. Impossible.

The dissertation was published in the U.C. Davis Law Review, in 1998. You linked to something from Saturday May 13, 2006.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Truthout is an organization which has a history of having trouble with the truth

[99Forever]

34. Thom Hartmann didn't use ...

.. Truthout as a source, so what does that matter?

Good grief. I care fuckall what "Truthout's history " is.

[Kingofalldems]

36. Fail.

Again

[jmg257]

20. Makes sense - to an extent. Of course there were other roles for the State Militias,

and suppressing insurrections (both white and black) was a vital one.

But let's not ignore repealing invasion and enforcing the laws, establishing justice & domestic tranquility, the common defence and securing the blessing of liberty. Or that whole 'large standing army' thing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. This is unpersuasive, I'm afraid

the purpose of the Second Amendment I think is better understood in the historical context of anti-Federalist sentiment in the South and resistance to an overly powerful central government; the relatively recent experience of British disarmament of Scotland and disbandment of the Scottish militias was probably quite relevant. See this, for instance: http://www.guncite.com/journals/KonigMissing.pdf

[Still Sensible]

26. And one of the key drivers of the anti-Federalist sentiment

was the fear that the Federalists would try to abolish slavery. The militias in the South were the single most effective mechanism that policed slavery in Virginia and the Carolinas.

[Deep13]

27. Come on now! It was to kill Indians, too.

Also, I think they had Shay's rebellion in mind too and the state's need to suppress insurrection.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. That is part of it, but not as large as...

But it as certainly part of it.