It can hardly be stated how seriously the issue of slavery was to the founding of this country. More than being an important part of much of the colonial economy (especially in the South), it was a deeply ingrained and fundamental part of society.
That was by necessity. Slavery is brutal, even at its best. The only way for a society to condone such brutality is to devote most of their energy to justifying it as an important and worthwhile endeavor. And despite how much the brutality has often been diminished in revisionist history, slavery is such an inherently abusive institution that the people who engaged in it were obsessed with subjugating their slaves and maintaining order, since resistance was inevitable. Runaways and rebellions were a constant threat, as was the risk that people who saw the obvious wickedness in the system would subvert it from a distance.
Point being, the advocates for slavery were terrified of two things: That their slaves would revolt and kill them all; and that outsiders would grow disgusted by their institution, ride in, and overthrow the whole thing.
It is in this context that the constitution must be read if it is to be understood. And it is in this context that one can observe the many ways that the constitution pacified these fearful slavers while simultaneously being so aghast at the horrors of the institution that it is never explicitly mentioned:
W<script id=“gpt-impl-0.383024476718276” src=“https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/gpt/pubads_impl_124.js”></script>hat if slaves run away to free soil? Article IV, Section 2 requires runaway slaves (I’m sorry, I meant persons “held to Service or Labour”) to remain slaves, no matter where in the country they end up. (“No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due”)
What if abolitionists want to choke off the supply? Article I, Section 9 prevents Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves (I’m sorry, I meant “such Persons”) for 21 years (“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”)
What if the slaves rebel? Article I, Section 8 ensures Congress the power to quash slave rebellions (I’m sorry, I meant “Insurrections”). (“The Congress shall have the Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions).
It is with this backdrop that I invite you to consider the Bill of Rights. While we think of the first 10 Amendments as important individual rights, they were not necessarily thought that way when they were first proposed. Sure, some individual liberties were protected. But in many cases states already preserved those rights for their people. More broadly, the Bill of Rights was an appeasement to skeptical states that their sovereignty was not being trampled upon by a federal government too reflective of the recently defeated monarchy.
Thus, we have amendments like 9 and 10 which, although relatively obscure and underappreciated today, are assurances to States of their important role in American governance (so, too, Amendment 11, ratified in 1791, which also concerned state sovereignty).
I submit that the 2nd Amendment is a similar assurance to the States of their authority, and specifically the ability of slave states to maintain their horrible practice. You just need to read between the lines and remember that slavery was never going to be explicitly discussed in the Constitution, even while it was the most important issue settled by the document.
The Constitution had already made promises to try to assure the slavers that the federal government would resist their obvious treachery and not become a beacon of abolitionism. But what if the Federal government simply looked the other way and didn’t rescue a state subjected to slave uprisings? Or what if the Federal government finally grew so disgusted with this despicable scourge and decided to eradicate it once and for all?
The 2nd Amendment was the promise that this wouldn’t, or couldn’t happen.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Militia – as reflected elsewhere in the Constitution, this is specific to a state-level military force. The amendment is affirming the right of states to have their own armed enforcers.
Security – this is a euphemism for preventing or stopping slave revolts or uprisings. Remember, the authors of the constitution used coded language to refer to slaves and slave institutions. So “security” is about keeping slaves subjugated.
Free – In the perverted language of slavery, “free” is a reference to the ability of a state to preserve slavery. A free state is a state free to maintain slavery even if the federal government has other designs.
Basically, the 2nd Amendment is a promise to the slave states that their ability to keep and maintain slavery (which was always done by maintaining a constant threat of violence) will not be subverted (the Civil War, of course, being a generation away).
“Originalists” may want to gloss over the words at the beginning of the amendment and just say that it ensures the right to own a gun. But, the 2nd Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) was a sale job to get the Constitution ratified. The “mere precatory language” at the beginning of the amendment is telling us, in admittedly obscure wording, that slavery is the cost of governance.
[Note: I am not suggesting that the 2nd amendment should not provide a right to own a gun; I believe it does, as the meaning of the amendment has come to be understood. That is separate from what it originally meant.]