# The 2nd Amendment was written to calm fears about ending slavery **URL:** \ **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:** 3
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/41 "2017-07-12T01:25:52Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > 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! I take your point, of course, but I don’t think you’re really addressing my argument. Is OP or anyone else claiming that anti-insurrection is the sole possible motivation for these amendments, as opposed to merely the chief motivation for the Second Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/42 "2017-07-12T01:50:05Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > [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. I don’t think Henry’s speech supports your posit given that the militias already existed, and disarming/disbanding them wasn’t being discussed. It’s specifically about the ability to ‘call up’ the militias, who possessed that power, and in what situations they had it. ---
**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, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/43 "2017-07-12T02:02:01Z")
Well, of course slavery was part of the backdrop of the Second Amendment; it was part of the backdrop of everything in America. But, the right to keep and bear arms has roots in Anglo-American political and constitutional thought at least as far back as the 17th century and the [1689 English Bill of Rights](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp) in the wake of the “Glorious Revolution”: > [@](#): > > That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; And the immediately preceding clause of the English Bill of Rights, which indicates a likely connection between a belief in a popular right to arms and a distrust of professional armies: > [@](#): > > That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; This connection was often seen in later guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms (including the Second Amendment, of course). Of course the English Bill of Rights guarantee of a right to arms was pretty heavily qualified (“Protestants…suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”), and being only an Act of Parliament, it was never constitutionally entrenched in the way a provision of (or amendment to) a written constitution is. But the notion that the people have a right to be armed wasn’t something that just sprang up out of nowhere in 1791. So, such ideas about the people having a right to arms were in English political thought previously connected with the idea of resistance to tyranny from above in the form of a standing army; [William Blackstone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone) in his [_Commentaries on the Laws of England_](http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-101/) also discusses a right to arms as being connected to “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” (Book 1, Chapter 1, “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals”; again, this is the rather heavily qualified–though at that stage still not completely nonexistent–English idea of a “public allowance, under due restrictions” for the people to have “arms…suitable to their condition and degree”.) With all of this Anglo-American history, from both before and after the adoption of the Second Amendment, of wanting to protect a right of the people to be armed as a collective defense against tyranny and as an individual defense against unlawful violence, it seems a real stretch to say that the “chief motivation” for the Second Amendment was as a cryptic pro-slavery measure. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/44 "2017-07-12T02:06:14Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > . . . why was it written with a justification included?. . . . These were people who had had foreign soldiers forcibly billeted in their own homes. These were people who used the word Monarchist! as a vile epithet. These were people who had tried to force Washington to make do with militias and who, in the end, sent a lot of Continental Army soldiers home without the back pay owed to them. They took every opportunity they could to repeat “no standing army.” > [@Moriarty](#): > > . . . 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? . . . . Let’s see. First, they had rebelled against their own government, so they were aware that others could band together to rebel against them. Very aware. The first major insurrection in the new country was the [Whiskey Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion), which was a northern, rural rebellion that included a number of Continental Army veterans. The founding fathers did not need to wait for Pogo to know that the enemy was them. Second, States did not trust other States. I don’t think there’s ever been an invasion of one State by another - well, except for that Civil War thing ([Bleeding Kansas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas)was only a territory), but there was some saber rattling. Third, they were aware of the dangers from England and France and would have wars or quasi-wars with both fairly soon. Spain also held Florida and territory further west. Although the wars with Spain would be later. Parallel to these three fears were the fear of Indian attacks or wars and the fear of slave rebellions. [Indian wars were recurrent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars#Colonial_period), as were [slave rebellions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion#North_America), although the slave rebellions tended to be smaller, or in the Caribbean. It’s not that the fear of Indian or slave attack wouldn’t have been enough for the founding fathers to have wanted to preserve gun ownership; it’s that even without fear of Indians and slaves they would have made Militias Good!/Armies Bad! a pet slogan. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/45 "2017-07-12T02:18:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I take your point, of course, but I don’t think you’re really addressing my argument. Is OP or anyone else claiming that anti-insurrection is the sole possible motivation for these amendments, as opposed to merely the chief motivation for the Second Amendment? Maybe we need a some evidence whatsoever that a slave insurrection was even hinted as a major motivation for the second let alone the chief motivation. Quite obviously, it wasn’t the chief motivation in anti-slavery states and wasn’t mentioned as a chief motivation by any historically relevant people quoted so far. I doubt anyone here doubts slave owners would have used their guns in the case of a slave revolt but everything I see seems to enforce the commonly held view: it was for self defense and the common defense against tyranny/evils of a standing army. The thread title is “The 2nd Amendment was written to calm fears about ending slavery”, and we have nothing but word games to back it up. ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/46 "2017-07-12T02:28:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe we need a some evidence whatsoever that a slave insurrection was even hinted as a major motivation for the second let alone the chief motivation. I think pages 349-354 of the paper I linked earlier show it was a major motivation. Patrick Henry observed that if only the federal government can call forth an armed militia, then the states could not defend themselves from slave insurrection. Madison responds by assuring the Virginia convention that the Constitution would not prevent states from arming their militias. I find the argument a little tendentious, but I think most of you are dismissing it far too blithely. **MEBuckner** : I’d be curious to hear your take on Bogus’s arguments on the common law history. ---
**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 12, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/47 "2017-07-12T02:35:44Z")
Nothing in the Second amendment describes which level of government is in charge of the militias. Why are Patrick Henry’s comments on that subject relevant to the second amendment’s purpose? ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/48 "2017-07-12T04:15:27Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > What do you think the Constitution meant when it referred to “Persons held to Labour and Service”? Why does it not say “slave”? Almost certainly it refers to both slaves and indentured servants. It’s possible it refers to apprentices as well, though that is much less likely. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/49 "2017-07-12T04:49:20Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > 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! Well, as the article notes, there was an armed rebellion (by white people) against the state government in Rhode Island in 1842, which led to the new state constitution (including the right to bear arms) in 1843. ---
**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, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/50 "2017-07-12T14:49:03Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Nothing in the Second amendment describes which level of government is in charge of the militias. Why are Patrick Henry’s comments on that subject relevant to the second amendment’s purpose? The history is quite clear–especially at the Virginia ratifying convention–that this was all about who controlled the state militias and whether their role might be usurped (or merely neglected by) the federal government in its creation of a national militia or a standing army. Here’s Henry: > [@](#): > > Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power ‘To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ > > By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. **If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress.** The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed, is ridiculous: so that this pretended little remnant of power, left to the States, may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended; since I have already shown, that a very small minority may prevent it. I think the only real debate is whether the principal value of the state militias was in preventing federal tyranny, suppressing domestic insurrection (chiefly slave insurrection in the south), or arming men for general welfare and self-defense. But here too Henry’s comments are instructive: > [@](#): > > 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. So I think it’s a pretty fair characterization that the leaders of the Virginia convention at least were concerned that their state militia might be prevented from putting down slave insurrection because of federal control over how they are armed and when they may be employed. The Second Amendment addresses at least part of that concern. Now, there’s plenty of room to argue that Henry is an outlier, or that slave insurrection was not seen as the chief threat. In particular, while there is a lot of historical evidence that slave insurrection was seen as the #1 threat, this really ramped up _after_ the Haitian revolution. Before the Haitian revolution, I think the concern was as much insurrection as the federal government imposing abolition on the South. If that’s right, then it gets very difficult to untangle motivations involving preventing federal tyranny from slavery motivations. ---
**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 12, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/51 "2017-07-12T15:01:51Z")
**Richard** : Is it possible that some folks are having trouble understanding this because, when the constitution was ratified, states and localities did not have police forces that were charged with keeping domestic order? People might ask: Why does a state need a militia? If they had a police force or something like it, they wouldn’t, but the fact is, they didn’t have a police force. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/52 "2017-07-12T15:14:17Z")
A defense of the institution of legally sanctioned slavery is probably one of several ancillary justifications for the right to keep and bear arms, but as others have pointed out, that right already existed in at least one Northern state’s Constitution. The Second Amendment was a reaction against giving power to a central power that could rival and threaten individual states. It’s true that Southern states were preoccupied with the threat of slave rebellion, but this wasn’t lost on northerners as well, many of whom at least sympathized with the concerns of Southern whites even if they had objections to the slave-based economy of the South. ---
**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 12, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/53 "2017-07-12T15:38:19Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. Regarding Miller, both erroneous and resolved against his position. Here is what [Bogus says about Miller in 1998](https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=840017005024117076098108100116115069035015009020000075110100089096007028074120006010028032100126054048009106097119094066116087055044090011064100010002123125082087068078052071005009119012064102013005005087113003110096112105110090098104023007006086020&EXT=pdf): > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment has been the subject of so little judicial activity because courts have unanimously adopted what is generally referred to as the “collective Rights” theory. According to this view, the Second Amendment grants people a right to keep and bear arms only within the state-regulated militia. In contrast, those who advocate an “individual rights” theory believe that the Second Amendment grants individuals a personal right to keep and bear arms. This model has long been advocated by the firearm industry, shooting organizations, and political libertarians. **However, state and federal courts consistently adhered to the collective rights interpretation,** and it became clear that further head-on assaults would likely be counterproductive. (omitted internal footnotes, and added bold). For the bolded part that says “federal courts”, Bogus cites Miller with the following footnote: > [@](#): > > In _United States v. Miller_, the Supreme Court reviewed Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the Lion’s share of responsibility, including the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and wrote: “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” \*Miller \*was consistent with the two prior Supreme Court cases dealing with the Second Amendment: _Presser v. Illinois_, and _United States v. Cruikshank_. While these cases are not without some ambiguity, the lower courts have unanimously interpreted them and the language of the Second Amendment itself to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to doing so within the state-regulated militia. (omitted internal citations) \*Miller \*did not adhere to the collective rights interpretation. If the 2nd amendment right was predicated on being a member of the militia, then the court could have dispensed with the case simply by noting that Miller was not part of the militia. The correct way to interpret Miller would be to recognize that the case was about the nature of the arms in question, namely the short barreled shotgun, not the person wielding it. Heller recognized this when it said: _Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen._ So when Bogus claims that federal courts consistently adhered to the collective rights interpretation, that view has been repudiated by the Heller court after he made his claim, and based on the evidence, was not accurate at the time he made the claim. I flesh this out because given that, and his membership on the board of various gun control groups, it colors his conclusions. I’m up for a busy week at work so I’ll have to get back to the actual paper and its slavery implications later. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/54 "2017-07-12T15:43:42Z")
You don’t need to imagine so much. It’s worthwhile to look at the Articles of Confederation, IOW the actual constitution that was actually in effect and that actually shaped the understanding of the people trying to supersede it. > [@](#): > > No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. That does seem to make it clear that the purpose of the 2nd was to ensure an effective military force on short notice without having a standing army (something that was soon created anyway). No inferences that it’s really about self-defense or slave rebellions, despite its actual explanatory text, need be made. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/55 "2017-07-12T15:51:35Z")
Bogus’s reading of _Miller_, if not correct, is at least very reasonable, notwithstanding Scalia’s efforts to avoid having to overrule _Miller_ in _Heller_. The _Miller_ court reasoned as follows: > [@](#): > > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. > > The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power – > > To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. > > With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. Now, maybe you think Scalia is right and Breyer is wrong about what that language meant. I find the argument that the Court wouldn’t have needed to address X to be quite weak, since courts quite often make arguments not strictly relevant to their holdings. But Bogus’s is certainly not an unreasonable reading of _Miller_. As for his institutional affiliations, sure. He favors some level of gun control, clearly. But the same ad hominem could be made against Scalia. I’d be more interested if he were demonstrated to have made some plain legal or historical error. To be clear, I don’t think his historical analysis is all that great. It’s just as tendentious as Scalia’s historical analysis. But I also don’t think it can be so easily dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/56 "2017-07-12T16:18:46Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > 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. A primary problem with this and any theory that holds that the 2nd was intended to secure “militia rights” for states, is that no example exists of a state ever claiming this immunity – even when the fed’s incurred upon state militia powers. From 1820 on, federal preemption of state militia powers was sustained (_Houston v Moore_). There was no mention in _Houston_ or any case of any protection of state militia powers afforded by the 2nd Amendment – the powers granted to Congress in clause 15 & 16 are not diminished or restrained by the 2nd Amendment. Where was this theory during Reconstruction when Congress disbanded southern states’ militias? The action of disbanding official state militias was in response to their role as enforcers of The Black Codes with arms prohibitions for Blacks being the most enthusiastically and brutally enforced . . . How can your theory be true when the time came to claim the right to operate their militias free of federal interference, no state claimed the immunity? How about the federalization of the state guards in 1903? Not one state wanting to preserve their powers thought of claiming these supposed “2nd Amendment rights” to repel the federal takeover of their militias? Your theory has zero presence where it is expected to actually perform as claimed. It’s only reason for existence is as an alternate theory to the individual right “standard model” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/57 "2017-07-12T16:37:12Z")
Interesting. But it seems like your argument about _Houston_ might misunderstand Bogus’s (and Patrick Henry’s) argument. Henry’s concern, as I understand it, was that in the absence of a clause guaranteeing to the states their right to arm their militias, the various powers in Article I would be read to be exclusive to the federal government. Unable to arm the militia themselves, they would have to appeal to the federal government for upkeep. He and his compatriots also had related concerns about the state militias being deployed in national service, or being prevented from being deployed in insurrection, but those concerns presumably were not answered by the Second Amendment like the arms issue was. That view on the role of the Second Amendment would not seem to be implicated at all by _Houston_, would it? ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/58 "2017-07-12T16:42:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. Bogus doesn’t just misinterpret, he misrepresents. > [@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. Some rebel states specifically called out their RKBA exclusively for white men. Arkansas: “_That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence_.” Tenneesee: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” To be readmitted to the Union they were forced to rewrite their constitutions to remove the discriminatory language and conform with the federal 2nd Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/59 "2017-07-12T17:36:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Bogus’s reading of _Miller_, if not correct, is at least very reasonable, LOL. What exactly is Bogus’ “reading of _Miller_”? He never really gets to any specifics parsing _Miller_ and telling us what each sentence means and its legal implications and effect . . . Bogus quickly (lazily) falls into arguments focused on the “reading of _Miller_” of various lower federal courts. At this point in 2nd Amendment law, those lower federal court “readings” of _Miller_ (and _Cruikshank_ and _Presser_ on the point of incorporation) have been invalidated and abrogated by higher authority (\*Heller \*and _McDonald_). To be having a discussion today that Bogus’ “reading of Miller” is valid on any level, is foolishness. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > notwithstanding Scalia’s efforts to avoid having to overrule _Miller_ in _Heller_. Why would Scalia need to purposely avoid disturbing _Miller_? All Heller did was invalidate lower federal court “collective right” inventions / perversions of prior SCOTUS rulings (beginning with _Cases_ and _Tot_). Sure, _Miller_ is poorly written but it does cite the primer for the holding. Trying to understand _Miller_ (or even discussing it) without acknowledging and including _Aymette_ in the discussion, is stumbling in the dark. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The _Miller_ court reasoned as follows: And? . . . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965/60 "2017-07-12T18:01:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > In summary, [no](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms). The philosophy of the right to bear arms precedes the US and American slavery, the [anti-Federalist papers](http://thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29) argued for such a right on the basis that it was to prevent tyranny and genocide (and it was in response to the anti-Federalist papers that the Bill of Rights was proposed), and the Bill of Rights were largely [accepted in bulk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison#Father_of_the_Bill_of_Rights) by James Madison, not argued over contentiously like the Constitution itself had been. I’ll also note that several states had right-to-arms conditions in their state Constitutions at the time, and this was not unique to the South. > > [State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions](http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm) > > Maine: 1819 > Massachusetts: 1780 > Pennsylvania: 1790 > Rhode Island: 1842 > Vermont: 1777 > etc. Yep. However- it _is_ interesting tho to see this. The idea seems to be to poison the Second Amendment by linking it to Slavery. It is another backdoor method of Gun Control. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2nd-amendment-was-written-to-calm-fears-about-ending-slavery/790965.md?page=4)