Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  2nd amendment written to maintain slavery?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   2nd amendment written to maintain slavery?
katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 01:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35
By Thom Hartmann, Truthout | News Analysis

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.
At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
"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."
George Mason expressed a similar fear:
"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 [under this proposed Constitution] . . . "
Henry then bluntly laid it out:
"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."
Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they'd use the Constitution to free the South's slaves (a process then called "Manumission").
The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):
"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?
"This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it."
He added: "This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."
James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.
"I was struck with surprise," Madison said, "when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not."
But the southern fears wouldn't go away.
Patrick Henry even argued that southerner's "property" (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:
"In this situation," Henry said to Madison, "I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone."
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.
His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "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 [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
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.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 26208
From: Saturn next to Charmainec
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 10:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pure nonsense from a radical liberal who wants to take away our guns.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 10:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well i understand how you feel about hartmann, but tho i don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, he does do his research...

I wonder if it is possible to put down the labels and think about what he said? Lotta quotes from founding fathers supporting his hypothesis..

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 40186
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted March 17, 2013 11:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is stooopid

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 11:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Really, ami? Would you care to explain why - to us morons here? Which part is stoopid, d'you think?

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 40186
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted March 17, 2013 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If a person sees everything through a racial lens, that person will much of what is ACTUALLY happening. There is a larger lens than skin color. MLK knew this and that is why he was so great. We need him badly, today

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

juniperb
Moderator

Posts: 6273
From: Blue Star Kachina
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for juniperb     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ami Anne:
If a person sees everything through a racial lens, that person will much of what is ACTUALLY happening. There is a larger lens than skin color. MLK knew this and that is why he was so great. We need him badly, today



Context in the opening post.
The war and slavery was seen through a racial lens.

------------------
We need to listen to our own song, and share it with others, but not force it on them. Our songs are different. They should be in harmony with each other. ~ Mattie Stepanek

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 12:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
who says "slaves" is a racial concept? did you know about all the white europeans who were brought over as slaves? this is not about race but about POLITICS, specifically the politics of keeping some people as PROPERTY by force of FIREARMS.

now maybe read the post without YOUR racial lens on?

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake

Posts: 2142
From: 1,981 mi East of Truth or Consequences NM
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 12:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Node     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the post kat

Even the venerable T Jefferson suffered from the politics of the time. He advised a neighbor to invest in slaves. Complicated man, with complicated views. Considering those times and his own investiture, we are still trying to figure out the man. His language in the DOI [Declaration] needed to be vague at times, for the man had far reaching vision. We are still interpreting that vagueness to this day.


....reading it.

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 40186
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted March 17, 2013 03:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The highest level person does not see race, but a person's heart. I can say that I don't see race, not that I am the highest level of a person because I am not, but through my walk with God, He has taken away my sense of racial or gender divisions between people.I have gay friends who I forget are gay and they have to remind me when I do the charts. I am not bragging, just saying that God has done this for me.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 03:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dp

IP: Logged

PixieJane
Knowflake

Posts: 1846
From: CA
Registered: Oct 2010

posted March 17, 2013 06:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for PixieJane     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I imagine it was a consideration, but not the primary reason. That is to say as there was no real military while facing many enemies local and abroad the militia had to be a force the state could count on to maintain the social order...which would include, among many other things, slavery. But that's not the same thing as saying "the founding fathers wanted to make sure the slaves didn't get uppity." There were far greater concerns at the time than that.

However, after the successful slave revolt in Haiti turned into the horrific Haitian Revolution (just a few decades later) THEN it became much more of a concern and laws started being passed that make sure the oppressed, especially slaves, could not own guns save under stringent conditions which would ultimately lead to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the SCOTUS which denied that blacks, free or slave, had the rights of assembly, firearms, etc, which was based on the fear of the horrid karma in Haiti being repeated in America.

But anyway, back to Hartmann, I'm surprised he would say this. I heard him in December on the radio (a guy giving me a ride was listening to him) talk about things like the Whiskey Rebellion (in which Washington used the militia in overkill to crush tax resistors) so that he would now just focus on the likes of Patrick Henry seems either dishonest or delusional as he KNOWS the militia was used for other purposes as well. That's not to say that what he states isn't true, but rather that it's ignoring a lot which perverts the actual context and ignores that such people had limited influence. Patrick Henry, for example, also wanted a Christian nation and believed that America was doomed to fall without a clear allegiance to a mythical entity stated but was shouted down by others who didn't want the horror of the Christian wars (primarily Catholics vs. Protestant) in Europe (that had driven many of them to the colonies in the first place) to come to America's shores. He was also challenged on his hypocrisy of his "give me liberty or give me death" while owning slaves (and he even admitted he was a hypocrite to Abigail Adams).

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 07:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well we tend to look back at those times as simpler and more noble, but politicians and politics were in many ways the same then...a bill often had to give something to those who opposed it in order to pass...like the credit reform bill.that also held a sop to the gunfolk allowing rights to carry in federal parks, tho it seems totally unconnected ... Lobbyists agreed the real bill could be acceptable because it gave that away...

The 2nd and the whiskey rebellion took place at the same time and just possibly the right to bear arms was codified because Washington knew the slave owning states would see it as a gift to them, but it also gave him backup in taking the militia to deal with the whiskiers...just speculating, really,

But what i like about hartmann despite his tendency fo go too far with thjngs is he has enough INTELLECTUAL honesty to revise his thinking when he uncovers new info...so maybe that is what he is doing here, or maybe he is just adding to his picture, not altering it.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 17, 2013 07:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
d

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 7142
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 18, 2013 06:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I read a different article with the same point. I believe the thesis is correct. Ambiguous terms to allow for militia keeping slaves in order.

Indeed, "State" rather than "Country." Here's a UC Davis legal review of the topic: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

    The evidence that the Second Amendment was written to assure the South that the federal government would not disarm its militia is, I suggest, considerable. However, the evidence is almost entirely circumstantial.[303] Madison never expressly stated that he wrote the Second Amendment for that purpose. If the thesis is sound, why is no direct evidence to be found supporting it?

    There are a number of possible answers to that question. The most important concerns the genesis of the Amendment. It originated in a political struggle, one in which the combatants attempted to use issues for their own purposes. Mason and Henry fanned the flames of Southern paranoia to manipulate the ratifying Convention, and Madison later became a fire fighter to protect both the Constitution and his own political career. These were games of masquerade and innuendo. No one's purpose was served by laying cards upon the table. The history of the Second Amendment was hidden by design.

    This, however, may not be the only reason for the absence of direct evidence. Another reason is that the available records are woefully incomplete. No notes whatever were made of the Senate's debate in the First Congress, and the stenographer for the House of Representatives was a drunkard whose mind often wandered for long periods of time during which he filled the journals with doodles and sketches instead of the remarks of the members.[304] Similar problems plague the transcripts of the Virginia ratifying convention.[305] In fact, after reviewing transcripts [Page 373] of the state ratifying conventions, Elbridge Gerry said that he found them "generally partial and mutilated."[306] It is therefore possible that express statements were made but no longer survive.

    Another reason for the absence of more explicit statements concerning the true purpose behind the Second Amendment is that the slave comprise and slave control were sensitive topics. Although the Founders incorporated the terms of the slavery compromise into the Constitution, they did so obliquely. The words "slaves" or "slavery" do not appear anywhere in the document.[307] "The delegates carefully chose language designed to make the Constitution more palatable to the North,"[308] even going so far as to employ "inscrutable language that the people could not readily understand," Paul Finkleman writes.[309] Indeed, the Founders themselves admitted to this deception.[310]

    ...

(There's plenty to read there.)

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 9667
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 18, 2013 08:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yes and they banned slavery back then too, but as is still a popular tactic, they deferred the actual enactment till 18 something, when most of them would be past reprimand because they would likely be dead! courageous, transparent and honest to a man lmao.

they were politicians and they played politics, though i have to give them credit for working things out and getting things done!!

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2013

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a