Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the 2nd Amendment Really Intended as a Safeguard from Tyranny? (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is much more at the links posted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    backell, Sharon Wraight
    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."

    http://truth-out.org/...



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:08:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This scholarly article is a must read: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      backell, Sharon Wraight

      http://www.saf.org/...

      Excerpt:

      This left only Virginia. The stakes were enormous. Not only was Virginia critical as a possible ninth state, but because it was the largest[73] and one of the most prosperous and respected states[74] -- the home of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others -- it was by no means clear that the United States could succeed without it.[75] However, the prospect of Virginia's ratification was uncertain.[76] Madison would serve as the principal advocate for ratification, and no one understood the new Constitution better than Madison. Yet the opposition was equally formidable.

      ::

      The anti-Federalists were prepared to raise any argument that would win votes against ratification.[79] Their strongest ally was fear, and they raised a multitude of concerns about the potential calamities under the new Constitution.[80] Among these was one topic about which Virginia was already concerned and fearful -- the subject of slavery.[81]

      ::

      One of Virginia's main concerns was that the federal government would abolish or directly interfere with the slave system. During the Constitutional Convention, Pierce Butler of South Carolina declared: "The security the Southn. States want is that their negroes may not be taken from them which some gentlemen within or without doors, have a very good mind to do."[82] Most believed that question had been settled in Philadelphia. The Southern states had made it plain that they would not join the Union if emancipation was an open issue and insisted that the Constitution protect the slave system.[83]

      Though the Constitution did not do so expressly, it included a number of provisions directly related to slavery. Taken together, these provisions evidenced an agreement that neither Congress nor the Northern states[84] would attempt to interfere with slavery in the South. [85] Most believed this was sufficient. Charles [Page 328] Pinckney, one of South Carolina's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, went home and told the state house of representatives:

      We have a security that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such authority is granted and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several states.[86]
      Others wanted this principle expressly included in the Constitution and would soon seize upon the opportunity to include such a provision in a bill of rights. A little over a year later, for example, William L. Smith of South Carolina wrote a letter urging adoption of a proposed bill of rights because "if these amendts. are adopted, they will go a great way in preventing Congress from interfering with our negroes after 20 years



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 02:24:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site