# The 2nd Amendment was written to calm fears about ending slavery

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [July 11, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965 "2017-07-11T00:07:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/21 "2017-07-11T14:49:21Z")

</div>

> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#):
>
> On the face of it, it seems odd that residents of the colonial-era South, worried that the federal government might declare slaves to be free citizens, would seek to enshrine into fundamental law a right for free citizens to own guns.

Not so much that the feds would free the slaves, but they would try to prevent whites from being able to protect themselves from slave revolts or interfere with them when they tried to do so. That it would make the capture of run-away slaves more difficult.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/22 "2017-07-11T18:13:35Z")

</div>

For those who point out that the individual states regularly enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions, I would say that observation underscores my point: The 2nd Amendment doesn’t merely copy that plain language - it would be a simple bit to state that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Cryptically, however, it includes a clause that explains the right - “A well regulated Militia, necessary for the security of a free state…” It is my argument that this language is best understood within the larger context of the constitutional debate - it is a statement of assurance to Slave states that they would have an independent power to a) put down slave revolts and b) protect the institution from those who might try to overtake it.

[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]  
I came here to post all the other state constitutional guarantees of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but MEBuckner and Sage Rat seem to have that handled, so I guess I’ll just add that I find it a rather twisted view of the Constitution to claim that slavery “was the most important issue settled by the document”.  
[/QUOTE]

Let me rephrase, then. The biggest compromises required to enable the passage of the Constitution concerned slavery. Those compromises consisted of giving rights and protections to the slave-holding class. The 2nd Amendment is just part and parcel of that practice.

> [@](#):
>
> I wonder, Moriarty, do you see some slavery dog-whistle hidden in the rest of the Bill of Rights? Or just the 2nd Amendment?

My OP already gave other examples of “dog whistles” in the constitution concerning slavery. It was so abhorrent a practice - even then - that they couldn’t bring themselves to use clear and unambiguous language in the document, so slaves ended up being referred to as “such Persons”, slavery ends up being  
“held to Service and Labour”, and revolts become “insurrections.”

It is in this context that the Bill of Rights exists; it is continuing the pattern of using euphemisms to discuss slavery.

[QUOTE=Carnalk]  
People back then weren’t exactly shy to discuss the merits of slavery and racism. If this theory had any merit then you should be able to find someone in the historical record advocating for the second amendment on this basis. Since you didn’t do that, and as pointed up thread the history of the second actually contradicts your theory, I can’t help but think this is a rather blatant attempt to villify the pro-gun argument.  
[/QUOTE]

People back then were not shy about discussing the merits of slavery and racism, yet you can’t find an explicit mention of it in the entire document (even though, as I’ve demonstated in the OP, it refers to the practice several times). Why is that? It’s my argument that it was a horrid and despicable thing, even then, while also being the most important thing in a slave holding society. So you won’t read it expressly, but it provides the undercurrent for the entire negotiations.

And it is not an attempt to vilify the pro-gun argument; I thought I made that clear in my OP, where I confirmed that I believe the 2nd Amendment should be read to include a right to own guns (it IS right in the amendment, after all). I don’t deny that text. Instead, I am interested in understanding the rather odd predicate to the amendment - why was it written with a justification included? I posit that this can be explained by being another offering to the slave states.

If I’m wrong, why else is the unnecessary language about the purpose of the amendment included? It’s not like the 1st amendment says “Public discourse being essential to effective government, Congress shall make no law…” The only amendment that has a “reasoning” included is #2.

[QUOTE=Ravenman]  
Reading the OP made me think of the recent alt-right progaganda nonsense that turned a DC pizza parlor into a child sex ring headquarters, because “cheese pizza” equals “CP” equals “child porn.” Sure, it all makes sense if you buy into the alt-definition of various words. But I need more evidence than “if you read a certain word to mean this other thing then you have cracked the code!”  
[/QUOTE]

What do you think the Constitution meant when it referred to “Persons held to Labour and Service”? Why does it not say “slave”? What do you think it meant when it referred to “insurrections”? Were there other people in the new states who were so at risk of “insurrection” that the federal government needed an express power to quash it? I’ve presented evidence that the document uses “coded” language - I’m just extending it to additional text.

[QUOTE=John Mace]  
Not so much that the feds would free the slaves, but they would try to prevent whites from being able to protect themselves from slave revolts or interfere with them when they tried to do so. That it would make the capture of run-away slaves more difficult.  
[/QUOTE]

Exactly! The Constitution, in its original form, makes sure that a slave state’s rights will be respected by the other states and the federal government. But what if, facing the great weight of morality, the federal government turns a blind eye to a state that is dealing with a mass slave revolt (remember, Haiti had such a thing happen nearly contemporaneously with these times)? Where’s the assurance that the state retains the sovereignty to protect itself, even if the federal government (despite the best efforts of measures like the 3/5 compromise) becomes dominated by abolitionists?

The 2nd Amendment is that assurance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state” = Slave states are free to maintain preparations to suppress revolt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/23 "2017-07-11T18:18:52Z")

</div>

“Insurrections” also meant Indians. Other than that, This.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/24 "2017-07-11T18:54:53Z")

</div>

> [@Ravenman](#):
>
> Is there a single framer who can be quoted as exposing the supposed link between maintaining slavery and the Second Amendment?

[Here’s](http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm#henry-12) Patrick Henry (Virginian) fretting over the ability of the States to deal with slave revolts, given the federal government has the power to call up the militias. Sounds like he needs some reassurance that the States will retain this power of controlling their slaves.

> [@](#):
>
> The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded.” If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. 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. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.
> 
> There are three clauses which prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. The clause giving Congress power to call them out to suppress insurrections, &c.; that which restrains a state from engaging in war except when actually invaded; and that which requires Congress to protect the states against domestic violence, — render it impossible that a state can have power to intermeddle with them. Will not Congress find refuge for their actions in these clauses? With respect to the concurrent jurisdiction, it is a political monster of absurdity. We have passed that clause which gives Congress an unlimited authority over the national wealth; and here is an unbounded control over the national strength. Notwithstanding this clear, unequivocal relinquishment of the power of controlling the militia, you say the states retain it, for the very purposes given to Congress. Is it fair to say that you give the power of arming the militia, and at the same time to say you reserve it? This great national government ought not to be left in this condition. If it be, it will terminate in the destruction of our liberties.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/25 "2017-07-11T18:59:43Z")

</div>

> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> Let me rephrase, then. The biggest compromises required to enable the passage of the Constitution concerned slavery. Those compromises consisted of giving rights and protections to the slave-holding class. The 2nd Amendment is just part and parcel of that practice.

Unlike the other passages you cited, the 2nd Amendment didn’t uniquely benefit slave-holders.

> [@](#):
>
> Instead, I am interested in understanding the rather odd predicate to the amendment - why was it written with a justification included? I posit that this can be explained by being another offering to the slave states.
> 
> If I’m wrong, why else is the unnecessary language about the purpose of the amendment included? It’s not like the 1st amendment says “Public discourse being essential to effective government, Congress shall make no law…” The only amendment that has a “reasoning” included is #2.

In Madison’s original draft, the language of what would become the 2nd Amendment included the militia clause:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

He also included a “rationale clause” in what would become the 1st Amendment:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting\*\* for their common good\*\*, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.

My bolding.

As you can see, in the subsequent debates and re-working of what would become the Bill of Rights, the text of Madison’s draft was changed a fair amount, mostly to make each Amendment shorter and clearer.

I would argue that the militia clause is better explained by the Founders’ antipathy toward standing armies, and the then-recent events of the Revolution, than as a coded message to the slave power.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/26 "2017-07-11T19:16:01Z")

</div>

> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> 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](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.]

You are repeating a debunked piece of anti-gun conspiracy theory/propaganda

> **[2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!](https://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965)**
>
> (The Root) — Recently Thom Hartmann published an essay on Truthout titled "The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery." Hartmann, who is described on the Internet as a radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur and a...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/27 "2017-07-11T19:28:53Z")

</div>

> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> “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.

(my bold)

The biggest problem I see with your premise is that the dates don’t line up. The constitution was ratified in 1788. The 2nd amendment was drafted in 1789.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/28 "2017-07-11T19:55:52Z")

</div>

> [@Moriarty](#):
>
> .  
> People back then were not shy about discussing the merits of slavery and racism, yet you can’t find an explicit mention of it in the entire document (even though, as I’ve demonstated in the OP, it refers to the practice several times). Why is that? It’s my argument that it was a horrid and despicable thing, even then, while also being the most important thing in a slave holding society. So you won’t read it expressly, but it provides the undercurrent for the entire negotiations.  
> .

Why is that? Because it was a consensus agreement and some people didn’t like slavery. At points they had to be vague to be in agreememt but there’s no good reason to assume they were talking in riddles like you suggest.

And you didn’t address the big onion in your ointment: plenty of states that expressly outlawed slavery in their constitutions also included a right to bear arms with reference to militias.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/29 "2017-07-11T20:02:12Z")

</div>

> [@Bone](#):
>
> The biggest problem I see with your premise is that the dates don’t line up. The constitution was ratified in 1788. The 2nd amendment was drafted in 1789.

They had seven states, but in order to win the additional states, a compromise was reached in February 1788 in which MA and some others would agree to ratify with the assurance that the BOR would be immediately proposed.

It is indeed generally accepted history that the BOR was a compromise offered to win ratification.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/30 "2017-07-11T20:02:14Z")

</div>

> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> You are repeating a debunked piece of anti-gun conspiracy theory/propaganda
> 
> [2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!](http://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965)

No, I’m not. I am not saying that “militias” are “slave patrols”. I made no claim that the 2nd amendment was to hunt down slaves. Rather, I argue that the 2nd Amendment was a measure to ensure that the states could, independent of the federal government, control their slaves. From your own link

> [@](#):
>
> But the Second Amendment was directed solely at the federal government, which was prohibited from disarming state militias, and thus allowed the states to arm their militias if the federal government did not do so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/31 "2017-07-11T20:04:46Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> The militia, not “the military”. Militia were state run and, as already noted, were intended as an alternative to a federally managed, standing army in peacetime. In that case, the federal government could indeed disarm a state militia.

Again, **disband** sure. Disarm? What use disarming a militia, particularly if they’re all allowed to own weapons anyways?

The problem is that people are presuming a difference between the words “citizen” and “militia”. To some extent, there is a difference, but not as much as we might assume.

Through English history, every town had a militia and its militia were all of the able-bodied men of the town. They were expected to defend against invasions and to protect the town against bandits and mercenary bands. As “able-bodied men”, we could technically say that the word “militia” excludes women, children, and the infirm, but for government concerns (at the time) none of those mattered much anyways.

The militia is not the state military. States coordinated and promoted the militia system and, maybe even by the late 18th century, it had become a de facto state organization, but I don’t think that’s an implicit assumption of the 2nd Amendment, at that moment in time. If you read newspapers talking about the militia and the right to bear arms, in 18th century America, there’s no ambiguity that the militia is just “everyone” (ignoring women, children, and the infirm - because the heck with those guys) and the goal of the militia is to be able to fend off tyranny and targeted oppression. And again, from reading about the founders and how they were often the ones coordinating the militia _in their town_, I do not feel like the idea that the militia was principally a state-organized pursuit is an accurate one. They took use of it and coordinated it, but it was mostly a town matter.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/32 "2017-07-11T20:17:40Z")

</div>

> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> They had seven states, but in order to win the additional states, a compromise was reached in February 1788 in which MA and some others would agree to ratify with the assurance that the BOR would be immediately proposed.
> 
> It is indeed generally accepted history that the BOR was a compromise offered to win ratification.

There was probably lots of horse trading going on, however in July 1788, the necessary 9 states ratified the constitution. By the end of the year, all of them. The draft proposed as the second amendment would follow in 1789. I think this weakens the theory that the 2nd amendment was a sale job to get the Constitution ratified. The constitution was already ratified before the 2nd amendment was drafted. Maybe some promise or commitment to include an amendment about arms, but that’s a stretch to conclude hidden motivations about a ratification that had already occurred with an amendment who’s wording was still being debated.

This is the 2nd biggest problem I see with the theory:

> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> And you didn’t address the big onion in your ointment: plenty of states that expressly outlawed slavery in their constitutions also included a right to bear arms with reference to militias.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/33 "2017-07-11T20:31:27Z")

</div>

> [@Bone](#):
>
> The constitution was already ratified before the 2nd amendment was drafted. Maybe some promise or commitment to include an amendment about arms, but that’s a stretch to conclude hidden motivations about a ratification that had already occurred with an amendment who’s wording was still being debated.

The historical record is more clear than you think about the nature of the compromise.

This is the classic work on the subject: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1465114](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114)

Not saying it is totally convincing, but I think the history is more compelling than you allow.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/34 "2017-07-11T20:59:24Z")

</div>

> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> The historical record is more clear than you think about the nature of the compromise.
> 
> This is the classic work on the subject: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1465114](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114)
> 
> Not saying it is totally convincing, but I think the history is more compelling than you allow.

I read the Bogus (unfortunate name, right there) paper quite a long time ago, but I’d have to refresh my memory on the specifics. None of it was compelling IIRC. I note that Bogus was or is on the board of the Violence Policy Center, Handgun Control, Inc., The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. In the linked paper, he seems to endorse an erroneous view of previous holdings in Miller (page 316 of the article, page 10 of the downloaded pdf).

I’ll peruse it further about the historical record, but if the above is any indication I’m skeptical.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/35 "2017-07-11T22:52:49Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Again, **disband** sure. Disarm? What use disarming a militia, particularly if they’re all allowed to own weapons anyways?
> 
> The problem is that people are presuming a difference between the words “citizen” and “militia”. To some extent, there is a difference, but not as much as we might assume.
> 
> Through English history, every town had a militia and its militia were all of the able-bodied men of the town. They were expected to defend against invasions and to protect the town against bandits and mercenary bands. As “able-bodied men”, we could technically say that the word “militia” excludes women, children, and the infirm, but for government concerns (at the time) none of those mattered much anyways.
> 
> The militia is not the state military. States coordinated and promoted the militia system and, maybe even by the late 18th century, it had become a de facto state organization, but I don’t think that’s an implicit assumption of the 2nd Amendment, at that moment in time. If you read newspapers talking about the militia and the right to bear arms, in 18th century America, there’s no ambiguity that the militia is just “everyone” (ignoring women, children, and the infirm - because the heck with those guys) and the goal of the militia is to be able to fend off tyranny and targeted oppression. And again, from reading about the founders and how they were often the ones coordinating the militia _in their town_, I do not feel like the idea that the militia was principally a state-organized pursuit is an accurate one. They took use of it and coordinated it, but it was mostly a town matter.

I think we’re talking past each other. You seem to be wanting to disagree with me, but I’m not finding anything in your post to disagree with. Yes, the militia was “all able bodied men”. But the distinction is between that and a standing army backed by the federal government, not the states.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/36 "2017-07-11T23:04:04Z")

</div>

> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> The historical record is more clear than you think about the nature of the compromise.
> 
> This is the classic work on the subject: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1465114](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114)
> 
> Not saying it is totally convincing, but I think the history is more compelling than you allow.

Before I spend a bunch of time on it, does Bogus address the fact that several abolitionist staes adopted the right to bear arms?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/37 "2017-07-12T00:34:40Z")

</div>

> [@Bone](#):
>
> I read the Bogus (unfortunate name, right there) paper quite a long time ago, but I’d have to refresh my memory on the specifics.

You and me both.

> [@Bone](#):
>
> In the linked paper, he seems to endorse an erroneous view of previous holdings in Miller (page 316 of the article, page 10 of the downloaded pdf).

Erroneous or just contested in a way that was ultimately resolved against him? IIRC, there was nothing especially controversial about the historical evidence he cites. The controversy was in his interpretation of it.

> [@CarnalK](#):
>
> Before I spend a bunch of time on it, does Bogus address the fact that several abolitionist staes adopted the right to bear arms?

I’m not sure. I’d have to re-read it myself.

But I’m not sure I understand your argument. Even if it were the case that there were states that abolished slavery and then subsequently adopted the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (and it’s not clear to me that this happened), that would only be evidence that it’s possible to support that right for reasons other than slavery. But we already know that’s true. The question, I think, was about the primary motivation for putting it in the US Constitution.

Indeed, even then, it seems like weak evidence. After all, slaves still lived and worked in so-called free states long after abolition. They just weren’t imported or sold there. So to the extent fear of slave insurrection motivated the right to bear arms, I’m not sure that fear is entirely ameliorated by the steps NY and others took in the 1780s.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/38 "2017-07-12T00:57:11Z")

</div>

> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> Even if it were the case that there were states that abolished slavery and then subsequently adopted the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (and it’s not clear to me that this happened), that would only be evidence that it’s possible to support that right for reasons other than slavery.

As noted above, there are multiple examples of states which never had slavery, because their very first state constitutions explicitly banned it, and where those same constitutions also explicitly protected an individual right to keep and bear arms (for both self-defense and in order to act as part of the militia–“the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state” or “every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state”).

And, Rhode Island [did have slavery, but abolished it (by gradual emancipation) beginning in the 1780s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rhode_Island#Slavery_in_Rhode_Island). When Rhode Island [finally adopted a modern state constitution in 1843](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Rhode_Island) (replacing the [original colonial charter](http://sos.ri.gov/divisions/Civics-And-Education/charter-1663)), it both codified the ban on slavery (Article I, Section 4: “Slavery shall not be permitted in this state”) and also provided that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Article I, Section 22).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/39 "2017-07-12T01:13:45Z")

</div>

I don’t see why that evidence is inconsistent with the argument that the chief reason that right made it into the U.S. Constitution was that Southern states feared the federal government would weaken their militias, which were essential to put down slave insurrections. [Again, to be clear, not saying I accept that theory, but this doesn’t strike me as a strong disproof.]

At most, it seems to establish that there can be other possible motivations for such amendments. And even that is limited, since the contexts of preventing the state from taking such action and the federal government from doing so are quite different, and since many of the free states still had plenty of slaves. Even Vermont had slaves well into the 19th century. Nat Turner’s rebellion was, what, a couple of dozen guys?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\
**Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/40 "2017-07-12T01:22:24Z")

</div>

> [@Richard\_Parker](#):
>
> At most, it seems to establish that there can be other possible motivations for such amendments. And even that is limited, since the contexts of preventing the state from taking such action and the federal government from doing so are quite different, and since many of the free states still had plenty of slaves. Even Vermont had slaves well into the 19th century. Nat Turner’s rebellion was, what, a couple of dozen guys?

Well, according to the Wikipedia article, Rhode Island had a grand total of five slaves in 1840, and when they (finally) adopted an actual constitution that proclaimed that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it would appear they also freed the remaining single-digit numbers of slaves left in the state (“Slavery shall not be permitted in this state”). But, gee, I dunno, I guess those five people might still have been a threat, even after they were freed. Maybe one of them was Samuel L. Jackson’s great-great-great-grandfather. Everybody in the motherfuckin’ state had better arm themselves!

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965.md?page=3)