The Ugly Racial Truth About the Wording of the 2nd Amendment

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
106,923
Reaction score
13,366
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
 

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,809
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
And the 14th was ratified to allow the Freed Man the right to bear arms.
 

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,809
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people—but its scope was disputed before it even went into effect.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to violence against black people within the Southern States. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,809
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
I'm so glad you brought this up because so many don't have a grip on the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on McDonald vs Chicago. McDonald being an African American fought this all the way to the top and won.

And the key here is not just that the SCOTUS ruled on the Second but lo and behold they cited the Fourteenth. YAY!

"Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OP
Asclepias

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
106,923
Reaction score
13,366
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
And the 14th was ratified to allow the Freed Man the right to bear arms.
I agree but that has nothing to do with the OP.
 

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,809
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
And the 14th was ratified to allow the Freed Man the right to bear arms.
I agree but that has nothing to do with the OP.
I went to your link and read it thru with interest. It's quite biased unfortunately in their interpretations as shown quite clearly in the very last paragraph.

"Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren."

Disappointing because the author does bring up some interesting quotes. But because of the bias I'm going to take the time over the next few days and attempt to understand absolutely everything in context.

Thought provoking though.
 
OP
Asclepias

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
106,923
Reaction score
13,366
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
And the 14th was ratified to allow the Freed Man the right to bear arms.
I agree but that has nothing to do with the OP.
I went to your link and read it thru with interest. It's quite biased unfortunately in their interpretations as shown quite clearly in the very last paragraph.

"Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren."

Disappointing because the author does bring up some interesting quotes. But because of the bias I'm going to take the time over the next few days and attempt to understand absolutely everything in context.

Thought provoking though.
I agree its a little biased but are you seriously trying to claim you didnt read the quotes by Henry and Madison speaking about Black slaves in the OP?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,742
Reaction score
15,457
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
This analysis is a bit weak. THere was never an intent for Congress to retain militias -- they ALWAYS were under the purview of the Individual States. Just like it states in the 2nd Amendment.

Then in Article 8 of the Constitution, the terms and conditions for the FEDS calling up the militias are clearly laid out.

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;

Guess to make this "theory" fly -- you'd have to have some previous draft or proof that there was EVER serious consideration of Federalizing the militias. And therefore -- arming citizens was EVER for the benefit of the US and NOT the states.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,742
Reaction score
15,457
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
P.S. I'm sure doing weapons inspections on plantations was akin to the more drole tasks of the Nat Guard today.

Don't know what "civil service" was used to drill the troops in the North. Maybe doing the same thing with the Indians. Betcha those suggestions are in the "Congressional Instructions for Militia Training".
 
OP
Asclepias

Asclepias

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
106,923
Reaction score
13,366
Points
2,195
Location
Breathing rarified air.
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
This analysis is a bit weak. THere was never an intent for Congress to retain militias -- they ALWAYS were under the purview of the Individual States. Just like it states in the 2nd Amendment.

Then in Article 8 of the Constitution, the terms and conditions for the FEDS calling up the militias are clearly laid out.

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;

Guess to make this "theory" fly -- you'd have to have some previous draft or proof that there was EVER serious consideration of Federalizing the militias. And therefore -- arming citizens was EVER for the benefit of the US and NOT the states.
I dont think you read that very well. Basically it says the state can appoint officers and train the militia according to what congress decides. To this date militia is determined by congress and currently they have decided its the national guard. However, none of that has much to do with my point about how the 2nd amendment was worded or why.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,742
Reaction score
15,457
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Everybody is up in arms about gun control and lots of people are citing (or rather misreading) the 2nd amendment. i got curious as to the wording and found out that the 2nd amendment was worded to be a state right instead of a federal right simply because of the fear of white southerners such as Patrick Henry. In short the 2nd amendment is largely based on slave militias and the power of the state to arm them.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. 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 . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free."
This analysis is a bit weak. THere was never an intent for Congress to retain militias -- they ALWAYS were under the purview of the Individual States. Just like it states in the 2nd Amendment.

Then in Article 8 of the Constitution, the terms and conditions for the FEDS calling up the militias are clearly laid out.

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;

Guess to make this "theory" fly -- you'd have to have some previous draft or proof that there was EVER serious consideration of Federalizing the militias. And therefore -- arming citizens was EVER for the benefit of the US and NOT the states.
I dont think you read that very well. Basically it says the state can appoint officers and train the militia according to what congress decides. To this date militia is determined by congress and currently they have decided its the national guard. However, none of that has much to do with my point about how the 2nd amendment was worded or why.
Just because the Feds could impose "minimum standards" for training does not mean the militias were federalized. He who PAYS for the militia (and their training) pretty much controls the militia. Much like the "UNFUNDED mandates" that we argue about today.

Your "theory" seemed to assert that the word "STATE" in the 2nd Amendment was some kind of sinister nod to Patrick Henry and slave holders. While in reality -- it was never ever contemplated AT THE TIME to be any other way. UNLESS you have discussion or debate about this that is CLEARER that what was in the linked material.

For instance contemplation of changing that phrase "free STATE" to Congress or COUNTRY. or some damn thing. Remember also that Constitution was a done deal before the Bill of Rights were penned. So when you are talking about the rights of the PEOPLE --- how could carrying arms ever have been contemplated as a NATIONAL essential given Art. 8?
 

SuperDemocrat

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
8,200
Reaction score
867
Points
275
The wording was referring to a power of the congress to call forth the miltias of the United States. Only under an invasion can it do so but not under a slave revolt. He was using that as an example.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top