Weekend Open Thread: Just a Second — Were Gun Rights Intended to Preserve Slavery?


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Second Amendment and Slave Patrols

“”Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?”, asks Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in *Django Unchained*. Maybe it’s because they knew that the slave patrols, aka state-based “well-regulated militias,” would violently prevent it? (Image from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nakrnsm/8406056124/)

Commentator Thom Hartmann posted a column in January, based on the research of Carl T. Bogus, arguing that the Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery by ensuring that states could provide for militias that they could force white citizens to join in order to capture runaway slaves and prevent a slave revolt.  (There were exceptions to mandatory service for critical professions such as judges and bloggers.)

I just came across the article again again and decided that it will surely provide us fodder for a rollicking discussion this weekend.  Give it a read — maybe 10-15 minutes — then come back.  (If you don’t, then the discussion will be full solely of people who disagree with you.  You don’t want that, do you?)  Here’s a taste:

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.

I suspect that a lot of RKBA (aka “pro-gun”) activists will take offense at this.  I probably would be, in their place.  And yet, in a way that doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Is the slave-holding history of our nation — the fossils of which are imprinted all over our Constitution — by now some sort of surprise to us?  Look at the compromises embedded in our nation’s founding: if true, is this really any sort of surprise?  The surprise, rather, is that we don’t hear about this.  Either fact or (at worst) theory, it’s more plausible than many ideas that are part of the public discourse.

I’m having to skip a lot here that I’d rather not (e.g., about the example of Georgia, about Django Unchained), but I’ll skip ahead to some of the constitutional history itself:

[The Southerners'] 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.

Patrick Henry is quoted as stating to Virginia’s decisive ratifying convention:

“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.”

Wild stuff.  Makes a tremendous amount of sense, though.  But here’s the thing: I taught American Government classes and never recall seeing this in a textbook — or hearing it in any discussion before reading this article.  Google only gives {“second amendment” “slavery”} 145,000 results, which is small beans for a gun-related issue.  Is this something that RKBA advocates know but the rest of us don’t?  Or is this something that not even most RKBA advocates know?

To me, by the way, even if the Second Amendment started as a collective right reserved for states — that “being necessary to the security of a free state,” it says — that doesn’t mean that it’s not also an individual right for at least the sorts of limited self-defense and home-security protection purposes that Justice Scalia set forth in the Heller decision.  But it does suggest that the individual right it’s not quite so constitutionally immune to prudent regulation.

Read the whole thing!  This is your Weekend Open Thread:  talk about this or something else, whatever you’d like within broad bounds of decency and decorum.


About Greg Diamond

Prolix worker's rights and government accountability attorney and General Counsel of CATER. His anti-corruption work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, leading them to work with the Democratic Party of Orange County Chair and other co-conspirators (who had long detested the internal oversight his presence provided) to remove him from the position of DPOC North Vice Chair of in violation of party rules and any semblance of due process. He also runs for office sometimes. Unless otherwise specifically stated, none of his writings prior to that lawless putsch ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level. He tries to either suppress or openly acknowledge his partisan, issue, ideological, and "good government" biases in most of his writing here. If you have a question about any particular writing, just ask him about it and (unless you are an pseudonymous troll) he will probably answer you at painful length. He lives in Beautiful Bountiful Brea, but while he may brag about it he generally doesn't blog about it. A family member works as a campaign treasurer for candidates including Wendy Gabriella in AD-73; he doesn't directly profit from that relatively small compensation and it doesn't affect his coverage. He does advise some campaigns informally and (except where noted) without compensation.