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.
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.
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.
“Insurrections” also meant Indians. Other than that, This.
Here’s 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.
Unlike the other passages you cited, the 2nd Amendment didn’t uniquely benefit slave-holders.
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.
You are repeating a debunked piece of anti-gun conspiracy theory/propaganda
(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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
Before I spend a bunch of time on it, does Bogus address the fact that several abolitionist staes adopted the right to bear arms?
You and me both.
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.
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.
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. When Rhode Island finally adopted a modern state constitution in 1843 (replacing the original colonial charter), 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).
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?
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!