US: 2nd Amendment Enabled Private Armies to Put Down Revolts
One mass shooting after another, one accidental child death after another tears through this country on an almost daily basis. Once again, lawmakers hide behind “thoughts and prayers,” while clinging to an amendment that has been twisted beyond recognition. But to understand why the Second Amendment exists at all, we must strip away the myths and confront a brutal truth: it was not written to safeguard freedom, but to preserve slavery.
The militias it enshrined were never about defending homes from tyrants abroad but about keeping human beings in chains at home. Until America reckons with this history, we will remain shackled to its bloody legacy.
So, let’s clear a few things up.
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, an action necessary to get Virginia’s vote to ratify the Constitution.
It had nothing to do with making sure mass murderers could shoot up public venues and schools. Founders, including 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 called “slave patrols” and 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 required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As 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?” It was a largely rhetorical question because every Southerner of the era knew the answer: Well-regulated militias kept enslaved people in chains.
Sally E. Hadden, in her brilliant and essential 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 the 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 uprisings by enslaved men and women. As I detail in my book The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment, slavery can only exist in a police state, which the South had become by the early 1700s, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.
Southerners worried that if the antislavery folks in the North could figure 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 enslaved men into military service from the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, along with the Southern economic and social “ways of life.”
These two possibilities worried Southerners like slaveholder James Monroe, George Mason (who owned more than 300 enslaved humans), and the Southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (Virginia’s largest slaveholder), who said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
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 an army, and could also allow that federal army to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free their enslaved men, women, and children.
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 the newly forming United States offering them 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 236,000 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 attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they’d use the new Constitution they were then debating to ratify 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 [the Constitution] 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 [Southern] matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.”
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and a slaveholder himself, 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 slave masters’ fears wouldn’t go away. Patrick Henry even argued that Southerners’ “property” (enslaved humans) 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 to one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous and 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 its present 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 would use his slave-patrol militia amendment to protect their “right” to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder people in schools, theaters, and stores, and use the profits to own their own political party.
In today’s America, you have the “right” to a gun, but no “right” to health care or education. In every other developed country in the world, the reality is the exact opposite.
Pointing out how ludicrous this has become, David Sirota (and colleagues) wrote in his Daily Poster newsletter (now called The Lever) on March 22, 2021: “Last week, the National Rifle Association publicly celebrated its success in striking down an assault weapons ban in Boulder, Colorado. Five days later, Boulder was the scene of a mass shooting, reportedly with the same kind of weapon that the city tried to ban.”
The Second Amendment was never meant to make it easier for mass shooters to get assault weapons, and America needs a rational gun policy to join the other civilized nations of this planet that aren’t the victims of daily mass killings.
It’s long past time to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller, which Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly argued the court should do, and abolish today’s bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was never meant to sanctify weapons of war in the hands of mass killers. It was crafted to protect the institution of slavery and the men who profited from it. Today, its distortion fuels daily carnage in schools, streets, and supermarkets. No other developed nation accepts this as “normal,” and neither should we. To honor the lives lost and to finally break free from a history steeped in violence and oppression, America must confront the real origins of its gun culture, overturn dangerous misinterpretations of the law, and choose life over death, freedom over fear, and truth over myth.
Thom Hartmann is America’s number one progressive talk-show host and the New York Times bestselling author of The Hidden History of American Healthcare and more than 30 other books in print. He is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute.
Courtesy: Independent Media Institute
.jpg)
Semiconductors are essential elements of modern cars as well as the machines used to make them © ANDER GILLENEA / AFP
