Second Amendment was meant to protect slavery

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery?

We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery.

What is ignored in the NRA’s arguments is that, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the militia in the south was known by another name: the slave patrol, and virtually all men of age served in its ranks at one point or another. As far back as 1680 in Virginia, the militias were organized to prevent:

“…the frequent meetings of considerable numbers of negroe slaves, under pretence of feasts and burialls is judged [to be] of dangerous consequence.” (sic)

In other words, the Virginia Militia was tasked with breaking up slave rebellions by busting any slave who might be organizing one. It even gave ‘incentive’ to men to serve on the militia: any freed colored person (black, Native American, or any other), if caught fleeing by the Militiaman, would be turned over to them as property, enslaved. A very effective incentive in colonial Virginia.

By 1755, the Militia was established not only as a foundation to enforce slavery in the south, but it was a structure which it could be expanded if need be. Countless records of captured free people of color, even people such as the Irish, were pressed as slaves under the system.

With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was concern among slave holders that their militias, their slave patrols, would be usurped by the new federal government using the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Patrick Henry in particular was quite vocal on the subject, saying:

Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power 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. . .

By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence 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 remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.

He also is quoted as saying:

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

He was not alone either, with George Mason joining him in concern:

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them.

In other words, the U.S. Congress could disarm the patrols needed to keep slaves in line, eliminating slavery with one bold and quick move overnight. The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias. Which is why when Thomas Jefferson had James Madison draft up the 2nd Amendment, he had the language changed, from this:

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.

To the language we know today:

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.

A serious redesign, would you not say? The focus shift from a civil, non-conscripted force to a state-regulated entity which can be conscripted into service fit the needs of the slave holders. In a stroke of irony, when Abraham Lincoln did free the slaves, he used the very power which Patrick Henry and George Mason feared the government would, only at that time, by the Confederate states acting in revolt, they had abandoned their voting positions within the United States and therefore were unable to block the legislation. Their petty revolt resulted in their institution of slavery being wiped away. It still was a bloody civil war, but their “right to bear arms” destroyed what they had hoped to preserve.

When people call themselves patriots, or say they’re standing for what the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they’re arguing for the right to press people into involuntary, lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/16/founding-fathers-words-reveal-2nd-amendment-was-to-preserve-slavery/

So, we abolished slavery, which was written into the Constitution. Perhaps we can eliminate a few other things in the Constitution.

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

"....and liberal advocate."

from the "about" on the facebook page of the author of that tripe.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"....and liberal advocate."

from the "about" on the facebook page of the author of that tripe.

So, just because he is a liberal, you think he made all that stuff up?

[^_^ 5,021]

So, just because he is a liberal, you think he made all that stuff up?

This paper out of UC Berkeley describes the evidence for the 2A as being pro-slavery as being mostly circumstantial.

Berkeley Law

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository

Faculty Scholarship

1-1-2000

Disarmed by Time: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism

Daniel A. Farber

Carl Bogus (The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309, 343 (1997) has suggested that a major motivation for the Second Amendment may have been the militia's role in suppressing resistance by slaves. Most of his evidence is admittedly circumstantial, "based on the known weakness of the militia as a military force compared with its usefulness in slave patrols and putting down slave revolts. Besides the circumstantial evidence, however, Bogus does cite at least one disturbing piece of more direct evidence, in the form of Patrick Henry's concern that Congress might prevent the use of the state militia "

f there should happen an insurrection of slaves." If Bogus's evidence is not enough to brand the Second Amendment as proslavery, it is at least enough to remind us that not all of the framers' motives were equally worthy of our respect.

Edited January 18, 2013 by ^_^

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...enough to remind us that not all of the framers' motives were equally worthy of our respect.

Exactly!

[JohnR! 5,495]

Perhaps we can eliminate a few other things in the Constitution.

Absolutely. The US Constitution contains instructions as to how it can be amended.

source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358523685' post='5929187]

This paper out of UC Berkeley describes the evidence for the 2A as being pro-slavery as being mostly circumstantial.

Berkeley Law

Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository

Faculty Scholarship

1-1-2000

Disarmed by Time: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism

Daniel A. Farber

Carl Bogus (The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309, 343 (1997) has suggested that a major motivation for the Second Amendment may have been the militia's role in suppressing resistance by slaves. Most of his evidence is admittedly circumstantial, "based on the known weakness of the militia as a military force compared with its usefulness in slave patrols and putting down slave revolts. Besides the circumstantial evidence, however, Bogus does cite at least one disturbing piece of more direct evidence, in the form of Patrick Henry's concern that Congress might prevent the use of the state militia "

if there should happen an insurrection of slaves."

If Bogus's evidence is not enough to brand the Second Amendment as proslavery, it is at least enough to remind us that not all of the framers' motives were equally worthy of our respect.

Carl Bogus?

Edited January 18, 2013 by The Patriot

[^_^ 5,021]

Carl Bogus?

That's his name. Is your last name reflective of who you are?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358529122' post='5929350]

That's his name. Is your last name reflective of who you are?

Yes.

[^_^ 5,021]

Yes.

You can set the trap but you can not make me step in it.

Edited January 18, 2013 by ^_^

[Danno 1,228]

To focus on such a minor security issue is to only look at one ingredient in a recipe and to claim you know what the dish is or in this case what the motivation for the 2nd was all about.

Compile for us a list of countries where Slavery did not exist at the time.... it won't take long, especially if you focus only on "nations of color".

I would imagine, after what happened just a few years later in the slave revolt down in Haiti, (thousands killed. raped and tortured)

they might have wondered if that had given enough consideration to the real possibility that the Slaves

might also want their freedom here and what a horror show that would be.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To focus on such a minor security issue is to only look at one ingredient in a recipe and to claim you know what the dish is or in this case what the motivation for the 2nd was all about.

What was the big issue at the time the Constitution was written, that required a compromise? It was slavery. The less populated slave states wanted to count all human beings in the decennial census for the purpose of seating representatives in the legislature, if they could not have equal representation, and the more populated free states only wanted to count white freemen. So, to suggest the slavery was not at the heart of the second amendment, and the rest of the Constituion is to ignore history

[Danno 1,228]

What was the big issue at the time the Constitution was written, that required a compromise? It was slavery. The less populated slave states wanted to count all human beings in the decennial census for the purpose of seating representatives in the legislature, if they could not have equal representation, and the more populated free states only wanted to count white freemen. So, to suggest the slavery was not at the heart of the second amendment, and the rest of the Constituion is to ignore history

You are ridiculous to think with Slavery was a main element to the 2nd.

You only find this stuff on looney blogs, its not even worth wasting time on.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are ridiculous to think with Slavery was a main element to the 2nd.

You only find this stuff on looney blogs, its not even worth wasting time on.