The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[peach174]

Read what the law says and not the lies put out there
2nd Amendment

The only thing ratified by the states in what congress passed was the capital letter M in militia and the placement of the comma.

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the States: 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.

Why the states ratified the 2nd amendment.
It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.

It had nothing to do with Slavery.
The States changed the meaning for individuals to keep and bear arms, not just the militia.

Your analysis is flawed, except it is true that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with slavery.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

These were all state militia and the states didn't make those changes in capitalization and punctuation. In a state militia people feed themselves and volunteer their time for training and conducting militia business. There was universal support to not have a standing army, because they feared it could be controlled by a tyrant. There was no money to pay or feed a standing army. They weren't able to pay the soldiers the money they owed from the Revolutionary War.

The wording of amendments was worked out in committee, before being sent to the houses of Congress for approval. During the process changes were made, like capitalization and punctuation. It's a little known fact, but there were 13 amendments in the Bill of Rights and 3 didn't passed. Once the Bill of Rights passed, the amendments were sent to the states. Some of the original documents survived in state records and what you are seeing are the differences in the documents that have survived from the US Congress and states. Once the amendments were approved by Congress in the form agreed upon, copies of that form were made and sent to the states for approval.

The original proposed 2nd Amendment was:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They couldn't agree on what to do about the religious exemption, so they dropped it and left it to the states to decide. They also dropped "composed of the body of the people" because it was unnecessary.

The original copy of the Bill of Rights as approved by Congress is in the National Archives.

What you put up, is what happened in Congress. It is true what you wrote and part of our History.
What happened after it went to the States to be ratified is what I put up, also true and part of our History.
It is not analysis, it is part of our U.S. History.

 

[Dubya]

Read what the law says and not the lies put out there
2nd Amendment

The only thing ratified by the states in what congress passed was the capital letter M in militia and the placement of the comma.

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the States: 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.

Why the states ratified the 2nd amendment.
It’s difficult to determine the difference between having a capital M and a lower-case m in the word militia. Generally, a capital letter means a proper noun. In that case, the upper case M, as in the Congressional version, references a particular militia, that being the armed forces of the United States. The lower-case m in the second version would refer to a group of individuals who form an ad hoc army, most likely to oppose the armed forces of the United States. Therefore, it would be okay to keep and bear arms only as part of the official armed forces of the United States. This argument supports a limited version of the right to bear arms; only when serving in the official armed forces of the United States.

The comma in the first version (between the words Arms and shall) also changes the meaning of the amendment. The first version with the comma maintains the reference to the official armed forces of the United States. That is further evidence that the right to bear arms is limited to serving in the official military of the United States. The lack of a comma (between arms and shall) in the second version, implies that there is equality or parity between bearing arms for the official forces of the United States and for personal use of firearms.

It had nothing to do with Slavery.
The States changed the meaning for individuals to keep and bear arms, not just the militia.

Your analysis is flawed, except it is true that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with slavery.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

These were all state militia and the states didn't make those changes in capitalization and punctuation. In a state militia people feed themselves and volunteer their time for training and conducting militia business. There was universal support to not have a standing army, because they feared it could be controlled by a tyrant. There was no money to pay or feed a standing army. They weren't able to pay the soldiers the money they owed from the Revolutionary War.

The wording of amendments was worked out in committee, before being sent to the houses of Congress for approval. During the process changes were made, like capitalization and punctuation. It's a little known fact, but there were 13 amendments in the Bill of Rights and 3 didn't passed. Once the Bill of Rights passed, the amendments were sent to the states. Some of the original documents survived in state records and what you are seeing are the differences in the documents that have survived from the US Congress and states. Once the amendments were approved by Congress in the form agreed upon, copies of that form were made and sent to the states for approval.

The original proposed 2nd Amendment was:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They couldn't agree on what to do about the religious exemption, so they dropped it and left it to the states to decide. They also dropped "composed of the body of the people" because it was unnecessary.

The original copy of the Bill of Rights as approved by Congress is in the National Archives.

What you put up, is what happened in Congress. It is true what you wrote and part of our History.
What happened after it went to the States to be ratified is what I put up, also true and part of our History.
It is not analysis, it is part of our U.S. History.

I'm basing what I know on copies of the Bill of Rights sent to the states. Those documents still exist in many states and they came from Congress. The states weren't involved in writing those documents.

 

[squeeze berry]

In other words, there is no good reason not to place you on an ignore list, because you aren't even funny and aren't a good read. Go waste someone elses time with your nonsense!

I'll take a slice O that! Put me on your ignore list too!

I had to take them off to give them negs.

then you really weren't ignoring them anyway

 

[Dubya]

I'll take a slice O that! Put me on your ignore list too!

I had to take them off to give them negs.

then you really weren't ignoring them anyway

I had them on ignore, but when I decided to start giving negs, they were the first on my list. All you have to do is find one of their posts, these three were always wrong. They'd get a zero grade on the true/false test.

 

[Antares]

Get off of your lazy ass and do your own research.

A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

http://www.famousquotes/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

When did these people say this? How long ago was it?

 

[Antares]

People who have no unserstanding of the 3/5 clause should never bring it up.

Perhaps the slaves could have changed their circumstances if they had invoked their rights under the 2nd Amendment. But what good is 3/5's of a gun?

 

[peach174]

Your analysis is flawed, except it is true that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with slavery.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

These were all state militia and the states didn't make those changes in capitalization and punctuation. In a state militia people feed themselves and volunteer their time for training and conducting militia business. There was universal support to not have a standing army, because they feared it could be controlled by a tyrant. There was no money to pay or feed a standing army. They weren't able to pay the soldiers the money they owed from the Revolutionary War.

The wording of amendments was worked out in committee, before being sent to the houses of Congress for approval. During the process changes were made, like capitalization and punctuation. It's a little known fact, but there were 13 amendments in the Bill of Rights and 3 didn't passed. Once the Bill of Rights passed, the amendments were sent to the states. Some of the original documents survived in state records and what you are seeing are the differences in the documents that have survived from the US Congress and states. Once the amendments were approved by Congress in the form agreed upon, copies of that form were made and sent to the states for approval.

The original proposed 2nd Amendment was:



They couldn't agree on what to do about the religious exemption, so they dropped it and left it to the states to decide. They also dropped "composed of the body of the people" because it was unnecessary.

The original copy of the Bill of Rights as approved by Congress is in the National Archives.

What you put up, is what happened in Congress. It is true what you wrote and part of our History.
What happened after it went to the States to be ratified is what I put up, also true and part of our History.
It is not analysis, it is part of our U.S. History.

I'm basing what I know on copies of the Bill of Rights sent to the states. Those documents still exist in many states and they came from Congress. The states weren't involved in writing those documents.

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

 

[Dubya]

What you put up, is what happened in Congress. It is true what you wrote and part of our History.
What happened after it went to the States to be ratified is what I put up, also true and part of our History.
It is not analysis, it is part of our U.S. History.

I'm basing what I know on copies of the Bill of Rights sent to the states. Those documents still exist in many states and they came from Congress. The states weren't involved in writing those documents.

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.

I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the 21st century, someone made it the title of the thread you are posting on. Of course, you don't bother to discuss the topic of a thread, do you?

In other words, nothing.

In other words, there is no good reason not to place you on an ignore list, because you aren't even funny and aren't a good read. Go waste someone elses time with your nonsense!

The only people that have ignore lists are those that are afraid of learning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, there is no good reason not to place you on an ignore list, because you aren't even funny and aren't a good read. Go waste someone elses time with your nonsense!

I'll take a slice O that! Put me on your ignore list too!

I had to take them off to give them negs.

Please, don't neg me, it would hurt my feelings, and I would never get over losing 12 points off my rep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm basing what I know on copies of the Bill of Rights sent to the states. Those documents still exist in many states and they came from Congress. The states weren't involved in writing those documents.

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.

I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

The truth is actually pretty simple, there were no rules for punctuation, spelling, or capitalization in the 18th century. It wasn't until the invention of the printing press that the need to standardize written English became apparent, before then people were free to do whatever they want. That is why I love it when people quibble about commas in the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

I'm basing what I know on copies of the Bill of Rights sent to the states. Those documents still exist in many states and they came from Congress. The states weren't involved in writing those documents.

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.




I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

 

[Dubya]

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.




I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

Have you seen this:

NC Copy of Bill of Rights

 

[peach174]

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.




I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

Have you seen this:

NC Copy of Bill of Rights

I remember hearing about it. I thought it was great that they had found again.

 

[Dubya]

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

Have you seen this:

NC Copy of Bill of Rights

I remember hearing about it. I thought it was great that they had found again.

According to what it says:

RALEIGH, N.C. -- George Washington sent it to North Carolina in 1789 as an inducement to the hesitant colony to join a new union, and it was snatched away in the chaos following a tumultuous Civil War to restore that same union.

In the years that followed, North Carolina's missing copy of the original Bill of Rights passed from a Yankee soldier's rucksack to an Indianapolis family to a Connecticut antique dealer. It hung in a bank building, a library, even a nursing home, and was secreted around the country in apparent attempts to sell it to the highest bidder.

This month, the long, strange trip of the prized parchment valued at up to $40 million came full circle when it was carried by federal marshals back into the same Greek-revival Capitol from which it was taken.

"North Carolina's stolen Bill of Rights may have been out of state for nearly 140 years," Gov. Michael Easley declared as he took custody of the fragile animal skin, "but never out of mind."

Tar Heel tenacity was, in part, behind Washington's decision to send the 13 original states handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights.

Source: NC Copy of Bill of Rights

These copies weren't changed by the states and they are the documents I'm referring to. It's my understanding many of these documents exist in other states.

 

[beagle9]

According to the right wing folks, we have the 2nd amendment so people that don't agree with the decisions of their elected officials will be able to form militias and take'em out and install their own government.

Nope, it's just that when their elected officials move to do things that are against the constitution or their rights under the constitution, then the right to bare arms (acts) as a means symbolically to help defend against these actions that may be taking shape against them, in which are sometimes ominous positions being taken by these officials. It all acts in concert with the checks and balances needed to keep our nation's powers in check (symbolically).

 

[beagle9]

I never said that the states wrote any of them.
I said that States changed the capital M to a small m and changed the comma, when it was sent to them to be ratified.This change made by them, made it so that it strengthened it for the individual people and not just the militia.

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.




I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

They are trying to change those books these days also or re-interpret them to mean something else, but I guarantee you that some thing's that work for the vile changers will always remain in tact. We should monitor every attempt of change or change that there is, in order to keep fairness and balance within it all, so it is that certain people should always keep their seat at the table without waver no matter what.

 

[Dubya]

North Carolina recently had a copy of the Bill of Rights returned to them. According to the people who have examined these documents, these are documents sent to the states from the Congress, so the states couldn't have changed them. My guess is William Lambert, the scribe who wrote the copy of the Bill of rights in the National Archives just liked to make capital letters, because they looked good.




I'm no expert and am just basing what I say on the evidence presented over the internet.

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

They are trying to change those books these days also or re-interpret them to mean something else, but I guarantee you that some thing's that work for the vile changers will always remain in tact. We should monitor every attempt of change or change that there is, in order to keep fairness and balance within it all, so it is that certain people should always keep their seat at the table without waver no matter what.

How does the fact that I'm talking about actual documents fit in? I'm just going by what the historians and experts who examined these documents say. I deal with what is, whether I like it that way or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

And now people are on the defensive and want to defend the Constitution to RESIST becoming slaves to a govt that doesn't answer to it.

Same with the First Amendment, it was written to defend religious freedom from govt intrusion, and now it is used to reject any deemed religious reference from mixing in or being included/endorsed by govt.

The point is NOT to abuse laws or force to oppress, but only use for defense of the law and one's rights. We need to maintain checks and balances to prevent abuse by either side of any conflict, political religious or otherwise. We can't jsut take one side and railroad over the other, that's biased and just as oppressive; we need to include all interests equally to be constitutionally inclusive by the 14th Amendment. We can't lose sight of what the laws mean.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


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

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

 

[Dubya]

And now people are on the defensive and want to defend the Constitution to RESIST becoming slaves to a govt that doesn't answer to it.

Same with the First Amendment, it was written to defend religious freedom from govt intrusion, and now it is used to reject any deemed religious reference from mixing in or being included/endorsed by govt.

The point is NOT to abuse laws or force to oppress, but only use for defense of the law and one's rights. We need to maintain checks and balances to prevent abuse by either side of any conflict, political religious or otherwise. We can't jsut take one side and railroad over the other, that's biased and just as oppressive; we need to include all interests equally to be constitutionally inclusive by the 14th Amendment. We can't lose sight of what the laws mean.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


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

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

The only check you'll be involved with is when they check you into the nuthouse. No wonder you are worried about losing those guns!