I read this and found it interesting, thoughts?
In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of
the Second Amendment," Roger Williams University School of Law
Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the
way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the
Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would
not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were
then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.
The story begins in Richmond, Virginia in the summer of 1788. Since
it had been proposed by the convention in Philadelphia two years
earlier, the Constitution of the United States had been the focus of
an intense struggle. By its own terms, the Constitution required
ratification by at least nine states; if that were not achieved the
United States would not come into being. The Federalists were working
hard for ratification, but anti-Federalists were opposing them with
equal vigor. Although eight states had ratified the Constitution,
most of the remaining states seemed to be leaning the other way, and
it was uncertain whether a ninth state would be found. The last and
best hope was Virginia, where the Federalists and anti-Federalists
were about equally divided.
It was with high drama, therefore, that the Virginia ratifying
convention convened in Richmond in June 1788. Madison led the forces
for ratification, and as its principal author, no one understood the
Constitution better. Yet the opposition was equally formidable. The
anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, the most intellectual of
the anti-Federalists, and Patrick Henry, who was considered the
greatest orator of the day.
Mason and Henry made many arguments against ratification, but one of
the strategies they devised was particularly shrewd. Virginia was
nearly half black, and the white population lived in constant fear of
slave insurrection. The main instrument of control was the militia.
So critical was the militia for slave control that, in the main, the
southern states refused to commit their militia to the war against
the British. The Constitution, however, would transfer the lion's
share of the power over the militia to Congress. Slavery was becoming
increasingly obnoxious to the North, and southern delegates to the
Philadelphia convention demanded and got an agreement, somewhat
cryptically written into the Constitution, that deprived the federal
government of authority to abolish slavery. Mason and Henry raised
the specter of Congress using its authority over the militia to do
indirectly what it could not do directly. They suggested that
Congress might refuse to call forth the militia to suppress an
insurrection, send southern militia to New Hampshire, or—and on this
they harped repeatedly—disarm the militia. For Virginia and the
South, these were chilling prospects.
The Federalists prevailed, but just barely. Although Virginia
ratified the Constitution, Madison limped out of the Richmond
Convention. Half of Virginia was still anti-Federalist, and the anti-
Federalists were determined to end Madison's political career. Losing
a bid to the United States Senate, Madison was reduced to running for
a House seat. Patrick Henry had Madison's congressional district
gerrymandered to include as many anti-Federalist areas as possible,
then recruited a rising young star—James Monroe—to run for the seat.
Monroe campaigned as a champion for a bill of rights. Madison had
previously been opposed to a bill of rights, but it was not a popular
view. Cognitive dissonance set in, and Madison persuaded himself that
he had only been opposed to a bill of rights prior to ratification.
He promised the electorate he would support adding a bill of rights
to the Constitution.
Madison won the election, and he went to Congress politically
committed to supporting a bill of rights. When he drafted that
document, he included a provision that with minor modifications
became what is now the Second Amendment: "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."
In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence—
including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an
understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's
Declaration of Rights—strongly suggests that Madison wrote this
provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that
Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states
of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was
not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to
governmental tyranny—but slave control.
The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two
reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not
grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own
purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the
militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under
the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time,
the southern states extensively regulated their militias and
prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden
history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think
about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on
an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by
a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a
musket in the hands of the slave holder.
VPC - Second Amendment History
Second Amendment And Slavery
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!
Linear Mode
