The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[CreekDog]

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

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state.

...

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.
Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

...

George Mason expressed a similar fear:
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?
"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."

...

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[rightsideout]

1. Aha, this explains why most gun nuts are white

It also explains why alot of them hate Obama and the reason why extremist militia groups increased in large numbers after Obama was elected.

But this is really the first I heard of the "protection against slave uprisings" being the reason for Second Amendment. Is this in any of American school history books? I don't recall.

So all this gun nonsense is the fault of white folks who brought in slaves that could possibly rise up against their owners. Too bad the American Indians and the black folks couldn't get together and plan one big revolt and send the white folks back to Europe.

Sometimes I think my white race is the scourge of this planet. Slavery, rape (legitimate), war mongering, control of resources at the expense of the environment . . .

[jmg257]

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

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

[jimmy the one]

3. slavery & 2ndA

.. real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country".. was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.
.. In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

Perhaps true in a sense, dunno, but which side does it help? Who's gonna believe what?

.. Most American adults are not gonna believe that, because of this slavery uprising fear, the 2ndA intended only militias to have guns, the militia based interpretation of 2ndA. Au contraire, it's gonna make them more inclined to disapprove of militia based right to bear arms (RKBA), and more inclined to stick with the false interpretation of 'the people' disconnected from state militias.
Militia = police state to them, Individual RKBA = liberty, the simplistic way to look at it.

.. imagine what fun nra propaganda could have with this.
The 2nd Amendment was inherently designed to CHANGE so ALL individuals, black or white, man or woman, could keep & bear arms to defend themselves against tyrranical slave masters!
If the 2nd A was ratified to protect slave patrols then blacks would still be in chains!
Do you really think our founding fathers wanted a police state when they wrote the bill of rights?!

So even tho this slavery issue might've been true as applied to southern states, it's not going to help much, in making modern americans understand the reasoning or the original intent of the 2nd amendment, that being a militia based right to bear arms for collective defense of the states as well as the State.

real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country'

While I agree with the underlying premise that 'state' in the 2ndA stood for the several states, and not 'country', scalia in his 2008 ruling on 2ndA, ruled that 'State' was indeed synonymous with 'country' or, in other words, that State stood for 'United States', not the several states.
As in hillary clinton is/was secretary of the State Dept., the secretary of the State, of the United States.
Alas, revisionist history at it's finest from scalia. (or worst).

[Glaug-Eldare]

4. So, uh, does this also explain

why RKBA was specifically guaranteed by the Constitutions of free states?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. regarding...

Why it says ..."State" instead of "Country"...

Before the US was formed a "State" was a country. The US "States" (per the 10A) were sovereign entities becoming subject to the union only as far as remaining in confederation with and freely trading and transacting with the other States.

Each State had its own militia.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. This view is not widely held

[CreekDog]

7. that's the best you got?

it's not wrong, just not widely understood.



ridiculous post.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Why are you convinced it it correct?

The support is weak and the vast majority of historians reject it as poppycock

I can see some pushing it since it supports their agenda of the day...take a look at the similar thread.

[CreekDog]

9. you're saying the constitution doesn't include provisions to allow or account for slavery?

talk about poppycock.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. No I am saying that Hartmann's article is without serious support

Push this as you wish...it may be well received in some circles, but historians know it is nonsense and will treat it as such.

Memes not facts seem to be the rule these days.

[CreekDog]

12. you're speaking as a professor of history yourself?

[Glaug-Eldare]

13. As much as I like Hartmann,

he's dead wrong on this'n. Like the time he trotted out the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania's RKBA clause, and claimed that it meant everybody's guns should be in the town armory. It guaranteed a right "to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." I'm very curious how Thom thinks a person could bear arms for his own personal defense while they're under lock and key in another part of town.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Bogus OP!

series!

[gejohnston]

10. according to Carl T. Bogus

who once sat on the board of directors of Handgun Control Incorporated, AKA the Brady Campaign. Bogus' claim is that Mason et al were speaking in code, but offered little in the way of primary source evidence. Bogus wrote this in 1998 on Joyce Foundations dime. He even took part in a rather dull symposium with a certain disgraced historian.

http://www.vpc.org/press/9805bog.htm

[NYC_SKP]

14. No, it wasn't. That's a sweet piece of revisionist history is what that is.

Very convenient to pull a race card race baiting strategy when your side is losing (not you, CreekDog, personally).

I don't blame you, but it's actually a teensy bit racist to pull this trick.

I hadn't heard it, in fact, until today which is an indication that the gun grabbers are pulling out all the stops.

Slavery indeed.

Oh well.

[CreekDog]

16. calling it the 'race card' doesn't make it revisionist history

sure, it could be.

but i'm not taking your word for it.

what's the quote that is false?

[NYC_SKP]

17. Of course, you're correct.

Calling it some thing doesn't make it so.

But neither does any particular quote make it a valid assertion.

You know that all historical arguments are prone to generalization.

That *some* parties in the day used militia to discourage slave uprisings does not mean that the second amendment was all about slavery.

I know that you don't think such a thing is true.

Attempts to suggest that are, to me, examples of playing a "slavery card", if not a race card.

Cheers, and Happy New Year, CreekDog!

[AverageJoe90]

20. I agree with you on one thing:

It does seem like revisionism. Now, it may indeed be true that some parties tried to use the 2A as an excuse to protect the big planters but the truth is, taking laws out of context has been a problem in this country for a very long time.
Hell, there used to be plenty of extreme right-wing reactionaries who tried to claim that the U.S. was created for white folks only, for example(there still are a fair number of 'em, btw, and they ain't all on Stormfront, either.)....or, look at today's Fundie nutters who claim that America was intended to be a "Christian Nation".....

[CreekDog]

23. are you against black people or other people suggesting racism is the explanation for certain things

is there a list that we need to run by you, in order to make sure we are using an example that has your approval as sufficiently proven racist to actually use a racial explanation?

because you, the white person here, who are you to listen to black people complaining about racism?

where do they come off doing that?

why don't they just get over it, racism IS OVER.

yeah, i know, it was like, the law, it was allowed in the constitution, in one form or another for like, ALL of our history, but now that's COMPLETELY in the past and racism is referred to you as "using the race card" because racism is NOW only a false complaint by black people.

let me applaud your objectivity and your absolute disapproval of ANY USE OF THE "RACE CARD".

because the worst thing, even worse than racism itself, is saying in these United States, that racism or prejudice is EVEN PRESENT IN ANYTHING.

heaven forbid.

[gejohnston]

24. Carl Bogus is white and sat on the board of directors of HCI

and he wrote it partly because legal scholars started to accept the individual rights theory aka "standard model" in the 1990s. His paper has been buried in a stack of other less than stellar papers for almost 15 years.
Race is not an issue.

[CreekDog]

25. the term "race card" used by NYC SKP is an attempt to discredit ALL discussion of racism

period.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Wait, whose side is losing?

I'm pretty sure Obama's side is winning - both with action and in terms of public support. If anything, it's the gun nuts, the anti-Obamaers & the NRA who are losing their power grip. So...

[NYC_SKP]

28. I think we're winning the media game right now, but don't know how many in congress....

...are on board.

But I don't think that it matters to the question at hand:

Do "scholars" ever float theories that support their POV but are thin on evidence?

Even with evidence, do they ever inflate the role played by their specific theory?

I think they do and I think this business of the 2A being about suppression of slave uprisings is just such a case.

[hack89]

29. I would hold off on the happy dance until actual legistlation is passed

Washington (CNN) -- Unlike most issues these days that divide along party lines, the immediate fate of President Obama's new gun proposals will depend not as much on Republicans as his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that passing any new legislation will be extremely difficult because more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing.

These Democratic sources say the most likely legislation to pass will be strengthening background checks, since it is the least overt form of gun control and it also appeals to gun rights advocates' emphasis on keeping guns away from people with mental health and criminal problems.

Democratic leadership sources say they intend to spend next week -- the first week the Senate is in session -- canvassing red-state Democrats to see what, if anything, is doable. Democratic senators who advocate various gun control measures will be lobbying their colleagues as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-gun-legislation/index.html

[AverageJoe90]

18. Some decent points here, but.....

The honest truth is, it's more than a bit of a stretch to claim that protection slavery was the primary motivation for the 2nd Amendment's creation, or even A motivation, period.....

In fact, I'll go a bit further: this whole premise smells like historical revisionism.....and, sadly, not of the good kind, either.

[gejohnston]

19. it was based on a paper written in 1998

by a law professor named Carl T. Bogus who worked at Joyce Foundation funded Second Amendment Research Center. Before that, he was on the board of directors of Handgun Control Incorporated.

[AverageJoe90]

21. Who was the disgraced historian you were referring to?

Was it Garry Wills, or somebody else?

[gejohnston]

22. Michael A. Bellesiles

[NYC_SKP]

31. The story of Michael A. Bellesiles is like a smoking gun leading to debunking of the Bogus study.

I have only recently begun to check into the slave suppression claim that I never knew existed until Thom Hartmann came out with it.

And, I've started compiling links to return to when I do have time. The right to bear arms for collective defense AND personal defense has roots that clearly demonstrate that any connection to slavery was remote and tangential to the main intent.


http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30368-democrats-who-strongly-support-the-second-amendment/3/

http://perrinlovett.com/2013/03/26/more-ancient-legal-doctrines-of-self-defensepreservation/

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

http://hnn.us/article/1185

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights

http://www.history.com/news/facts-about-the-bill-of-rights-on-its-220th-anniversary

http://www.theroot.com/views/2nd-amendment-passed-protect-slavery-no

http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1998/4/kop.pdf

http://www.law.gwu.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/CV/Carl_Bogus.pdf

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/04/18/pryor-stands-up-to-the-american-people

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/from-fertile-to-fertilizer-a-debunking-of-the-revisionist-history-of-the-origins-of-the-second-amendment/#more-2726

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022181678#post25

Bogus ignores the fact that the right to arms was first proposed by Pennsylvania and new Hampshire and not Virginia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022202527#post33

[NYC_SKP]

30. That is what it is, AverageJoe90.

And pretty well documented to have been a propagandist revisionist smear.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. lost some respect for Hartman on this ...

care for a pretzel, anyone?

[gejohnston]

33. Same here, but

when he started to push the anti Mormon bigotry (and a direct attack on my heritage), my respect for hem became non existent. Now I just view him as kind of a Glen Beck left.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/vegasman56/blog/2012/07/when-constitution-%E2%80%9Changs-thread%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-white-horse-prophecy-modern-mormoni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy