2013-01-15 "The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery" by Thom Hartmann from "Truthout" [http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery]:
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 [http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm],
"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.
Patrick Henry to the Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 1788), archived at [http://jgiganti.myweb.uga.edu/henry_smith_onslavery.htm]:
With
respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not
granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it
will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a
thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it
to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the
consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the
effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this
committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they
please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among
ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be
engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves if they please. And
this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common
interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your
interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a
national government was national defence. That power which is said to be
intended for security and safety may be rendered detestable and
oppressive. If they give power to the general government to provide for
the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the
means in the possession of the people must be given to the government
which is intrusted with the public defence. In this state 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; and yet,
if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are
numberless, they may call forth every national resource. 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. Another thing will contribute to bring this
event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects—we deplore
it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some
future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that
urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of
national defence,—let all these things operate on their minds; they will
search that paper, and see if they have power of manumission. 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. As much
as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny
that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided
majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling
for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The
majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.
In
this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of
Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone. I repeat it
again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my
fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that
decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to
lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage.
But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without
producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to
possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as
their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But
we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy
fate. I know that, in a variety of particular instances, the
legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation.
Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add that this, as well as
every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put
in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This
is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to
Congress.
Melancton Smith to the New York Ratification Convention (1788), archived at [http://jgiganti.myweb.uga.edu/henry_smith_onslavery.htm]: The
rule of apportionment of the representatives is to be according to the
whole number of the white inhabitants, with three fifths of all others;
that is, in plain English, each state is to send representatives in
proportion to the number of freemen, and three fifths of the slaves it
contains. He could not see any rule by which slaves were to he included
in the ratio of representation. The principle of a representation being
that every free agent should be concerned in governing himself, it was
absurd in giving that power to a man who could not exercise it. Slaves
have no will of their own. The very operation of it was to give certain
privileges to those people who were so wicked as to keep slaves. He knew
it would be admitted that this rule of apportionment was founded on
unjust principles, but that it was the result of accommodation; which,
he supposed, we should be under the necessity of admitting, if we meant
to be in union with the Southern States, though utterly repugnant to his
feelings.
I am convinced that this government is so constituted that
the representatives will generally be composed of the first class in
the community, which I shall distinguish by the name of the natural
aristocracy of the country. I do not mean to give offence by using this
term. I am sensible this idea is treated by many gentlemen as
chimerical. I shall he asked what is meant by the natural aristocracy,
and told that no such distinction of classes of men exists among us. It
is true, it is our singular felicity that we have no legal or hereditary
distinctions of this kind; but still there are real differences. Every
society naturally divides itself into classes. The Author of nature has
bestowed on some greater capacities than others; birth, education,
talents, and wealth, create distinctions among men as visible, and of as
much influence, as titles, stars, and garters. In every society, men of
this class will command a superior degree of respect; and if the
government is so constituted as to admit but few to exercise the powers
of it, it will, according to the natural course of things, be in their
hands. Men in the middling class, who are qualified as representatives,
will not be so anxious to be chosen as those of the first. When the
number is so small, the office will be highly elevated and
distinguished; the style in which the members live will probably be
high; circumstances of this kind will render the place of a
representative not a desirable one to sensible, substantial men, who
have been used to walk in the plain and frugal paths of life.
Besides,
the influence of the great will generally enable them to succeed in
elections. It will be difficult to combine a district of country
containing thirty or forty thousand inhabitants, — frame your election
laws as you please, — in any other character, unless it be in one of
conspicuous military, popular, civil, or legal talents. The great easily
form associations; the poor and middling class form them with
difficulty. If the elections be by plurality, — as probably will be the
case in this state, — it is almost certain none but the great will be
chosen, for they easily unite their interests: the common people will
divide, and their divisions will be promoted by the others. There will
be scarcely a chance of their uniting in any other but some great man,
unless in some popular demagogue, who will probably be destitute of
principle. A substantial yeoman, of sense and discernment, will hardly
ever be chosen. From these remarks, it appears that the government will
fall into the hands of the few and the great. This will be a government
of oppression. I do not mean to declaim against the great, and charge
them indiscriminately with want of principle and honesty. The same
passions and prejudices govern all men. The circumstances in which men
are placed in a great measure give a cast to the human character. Those
in middling circumstances have less temptation; they are inclined by
habit, and the company with whom they associate, to set bounds to their
passions and appetites. If this is not sufficient, the want of means to
gratify them will be a restraint: they are obliged to employ their time
in their respective callings; hence the substantial yeomanry of the
country are more temperate, of better morals, and less ambition, than
the great. The latter do not feel for the poor and middling class; the
reasons are obvious — they are not obliged to use the same pains and
labor to procure property as the other. They feel not the inconveniences
arising from the payment of small sums. The great consider themselves
above the common people, entitled to more respect, do not associate with
them; they fancy themselves to have a right of preeminence in every
thing. In short, they possess the same feelings, and are under the
influence of the same motives, as an hereditary nobility. I know the
idea that such a distinction exists in this country is ridiculed by
some; but I am not the less apprehensive of danger from their influence
on this account. Such distinctions exist all the world over, have been
taken notice of by all writers on free government, and are founded in
the nature of things. It has been the principal care of free governments
to guard against the encroachments of the great.
No comments:
Post a Comment