The second amendment

[Sparko]

I listen to the whole podcast. The fact is in that she made claims that she did not back up with actual references/quotes. Not saying she was wrong, but we need original sourcing and quotes. Her main point was that the desire for state militias (as opposed to federal) had to do with the idea that the southern states needed the state militias in case of slave revolts. And that without the acceptance of state militias the Bill of rights or at least the Second Amendment would not pass. I grant that that could have been a consideration - but the main driver? I see no evidence of that. There could be many more important reasons to want to keep the militias under state control.

They just finished kicking out the British using militias. I would think the Revolutionary War would be the main driver for the 2nd Amendment. To stop the British from trying to take the country back or any one else from trying to take advantage of the new country.

[firstfloor]

Patrick Henry was opposed to the entire Constitution. Ironically his opposition may have helped to motivate the formation of the Bill of Rights

I believe Anderson agrees. Fear of slave revolts and the need to put them down by use of the militia was his motivation for the wording of the second amendment, so allowing the state to act independently.

[firstfloor]

George Mason and Patrick Henry both feared the destruction of the slave patrols.

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 to the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias. He knew the majority in the North opposed slavery, and he worried that they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “manumission”).

[seer]

George Mason and Patrick Henry both feared the destruction of the slave patrols.

Again FF, you are still not giving links to original quotes in context. Nor does any of this demonstrate that slave revolts were a MAIN consideration for wanting state militias.

[Mountain Man]

Again FF, you are still not giving links to original quotes in context. Nor does any of this demonstrate that slave revolts were a MAIN consideration for wanting state militias.

"But a racist historian said...! "

[seer]

Henry's actual concerns about militias

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

5 June 1788Elliot 3:51--52 A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

Let me here call your attention to that part 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--reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." 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. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/foun...1_8_16s10.html

[rogue06]

I believe Anderson agrees. Fear of slave revolts and the need to put them down by use of the militia was his motivation for the wording of the second amendment, so allowing the state to act independently.

To over-simplify but still remain accurate, Patrick Henry was staunchly anti-Federalist and as such was opposed to the entire Constitution. IOW, he had nothing whatsoever to do with writing the 2A.

The anti-Federalists, including Henry, objected to a strong federal government that would strip the people of their rights which led to the formation of the Bill of Rights, which was written to pacify this fear.

If slave patrols were even a minor factor then we should see that being expressed in the various pamphlets and letters -- particularly the Federalist Papers. Also later as private correspondences and diaries were catalogued by biographers and historians.

[firstfloor]

Again FF, you are still not giving links to original quotes in context. Nor does any of this demonstrate that slave revolts were a MAIN consideration for wanting state militias.

Fair comment; I am still reading to make sure I have a good grasp of the argument. It is a fascinating period and one difficult to access because of its nature; slavery, war and so on.

What is clear is that slaves generated huge wealth and they were a rebellious lot, and had to be contained by force and great brutality. The situation was potentially explosive and anything that upset the delicate balance was to be avoided at all costs.

[rogue06]

Fair comment; I am still reading to make sure I have a good grasp of the argument. It is a fascinating period and one difficult to access because of its nature; slavery, war and so on.

What is clear is that slaves generated huge wealth and they were a rebellious lot, and had to be contained by force and great brutality. The situation was potentially explosive and anything that upset the delicate balance was to be avoided at all costs.

Meanwhile, back in reality, many of the Founders were fighting tooth and nail getting slavery outlawed where they lived and fighting it being allowed to spread west into the Ohio Valley and elsewhere. Some devoted the rest of their lives to it.

And yet you want us to believe that the same folks passed the 2A to help enforce slavery.

[seer]

Fair comment; I am still reading to make sure I have a good grasp of the argument. It is a fascinating period and one difficult to access because of its nature; slavery, war and so on.

What is clear is that slaves generated huge wealth and they were a rebellious lot, and had to be contained by force and great brutality. The situation was potentially explosive and anything that upset the delicate balance was to be avoided at all costs.

Well I gave the recorded speech of Henry at the Convention - nothing about slavery there. It seems that they were more worried about a tyrannical Federal government.

[rogue06]

Well I gave the recorded speech of Henry at the Convention - nothing about slavery there. It seems that they were more worried about a tyrannical Federal government.

Exactly. He was a staunch anti-Federalist and was opposed to the government that the constitution crafted

[firstfloor]

Well I gave the recorded speech of Henry at the Convention - nothing about slavery there. It seems that they were more worried about a tyrannical Federal government.

The slave economies worried that a standing army controlled by the federal government would not put down a slave revolt. That does not exclude other reasons, but it is unlikely that a state militia would ever be able to stand up against a professional army if the Federal government decided to apply force in that state. So we should be skeptical about that justification.

[rogue06]

The slave economies worried that a standing army controlled by the federal government would not put down a slave revolt. That does not exclude other reasons, but it is unlikely that a state militia would ever be able to stand up against a professional army if the Federal government decided to apply force in that state. So we should be skeptical about that justification.

So where are all the communications expressing this worry? And saying that they needed an amendment recognizing the right for the citizens to bear arms in order to prevent slave revolts?

It is easy to claim such things but as of yet all you have presented is naked assertions without a scrap of corroboration.

[seer]

The slave economies worried that a standing army controlled by the federal government would not put down a slave revolt. That does not exclude other reasons, but it is unlikely that a state militia would ever be able to stand up against a professional army if the Federal government decided to apply force in that state. So we should be skeptical about that justification.

But it doesn't mean that the slave revolt thing was the main reason. Which your author was suggesting. I linked Patrick Henry's speech at the Convention - the slave thing was not even mentioned.

[Gondwanaland]

The slave economies worried that a standing army controlled by the federal government would not put down a slave revolt. That does not exclude other reasons, but it is unlikely that a state militia would ever be able to stand up against a professional army if the Federal government decided to apply force in that state. So we should be skeptical about that justification.

More claims and asertions without a shred of evidence. As has been repeated to you again and again, if this were the case there would be clear evidence in the communications and pamphlets and writings of the time indicating this.

And again, you're getting your info from a racist whackjob, with a long history of rabid racism, so anyone with a brain should be skeptical about your assertions without evidence.