New Book: The Second Amendment is not about guns -- it's about anti-Blackness

[Glitch]

"By contrast, James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, wrote his amendment with his eye firmly fixed on practical politics. He introduced the amendment during Virginia’s debate over the ratification of the Constitution because Virginia Governor Patrick Henry saw danger lurking in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” militias.

Henry feared that without checks upon it, Congress could undermine the ability of militias in Virginia and elsewhere in the South to suppress slave uprisings and pursue runaway slaves.

The militia issue was important enough for Henry to see it as grounds for opposing ratification of the Constitution. The positive power Congress had over militias, Henry reasoned, could easily be turned into restrictive power. “By this sir, you see that their control over our best defence is unlimited,” Henry warned his fellow Virginians."

I don't know what source you are supposedly citing, but it is very inaccurate. James Madison did not write the Second Amendment. George Mason did. George Mason was the Chairman of the Anti-Federalists of the Amendments Committee during Virginia's ratifying convention in 1788.

 

[CaughtInThe]

"The Second Amendment was approved in 1791, and until the Civil War such state militias were maintained through conscription of free white men for slave patrols to put down slave revolts, to recapture plantation owners' escaped "property," and to take land away from indigenous people to give to the settlers."

 

[CaughtInThe]

"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 Dunmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape the American South and join his forces. “Liberty to Slaves” was stitched onto the pocket flaps of the escapees’ jackets. During the war, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington’s army."

 

[Rexedgar]

The only thing that was settled was your obvious lack of knowledge of American history. There was no US in 1784, despite your erroneous claims to the contrary.

Gonna go all chicken and egg on me, eh wut?

 

[mrjurrs]

Actually, there was.

At the request of President George Washington the US Army was reinstated by Congress on September 29, 1789. The Second Amendment would not be ratified until December 15, 1791.

You're right, I corrected my error in another post.

 

[CaughtInThe]

"At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Patrick 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.”

 

[Glitch]

"The Second Amendment was approved in 1791, and until the Civil War such state militias were maintained through conscription of free white men for slave patrols to put down slave revolts, to recapture plantation owners' escaped "property," and to take land away from indigenous people to give to the settlers."

You clearly need a better source, because what you are posting is riddled with historical inaccuracies. Like the above ignorant statement. The States have never imposed any form of conscription. Only the federal government has done so, and even then only rarely and never for any "slave patrols."

You are simply making this BS up out of whole cloth now. Absolutely nothing you post from this bogus source is credible.

 

[Glitch]

You're right, I corrected my error in another post.

The Navy and Marine Corps, even though they were both founded in the same year as the Army in 1775, would not be reinstated until the Naval Act of 1794.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Your position is inconsistent. You are right that the Second Amendment was initially about federal-State balance and didn't apply its strictures to State laws, and correct that it was not seen as an "individual right" until that construction was created out of whole cloth by Justice Scalia in 2010. But then dismiss the whole point of its collective nature in the next post.

Well, suspense is over . . . Neither of those two positions you have assigned to me are mine.

The 2ndA wasn't "about federal-State balance" . . . There was no balance, there was the right under the federal Constitution and the right under state constitutions.

There is the federal right to arms recognized in Presser that forbids states from disarming their citizens, but that right does not rely on the 2ndA, so no "balance" there.

As for me being, "correct that [the 2ndA] was not seen as an "individual right" until that construction was created out of whole cloth by Justice Scalia in 2010" . . .

That certainly isn't something I would ever say and I certainly wouldn't get the year wrong.

.

 

[CaughtInThe]

"Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress."

 

[CaughtInThe]

"Slave rebellions were a constant threat. Fresh in white Southerners’ minds was the 1739 slave rebellion in Stono, South Carolina. This is known in Black oral history as the Stono’s Rebellion. Enslaved Black people from the Central African Kingdom of Kongo, rose up and literally took white people’s heads."

 

[maxparrish]

I've been successfully making this argument for years. Probably would have written the book myself, if I wasn't so obsessed with murder and kidnapping.

The Second Amendment is not about guns -- it's about anti-Blackness, a new book argues

In a new book, scholar Carol Anderson argues that the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment to keep African-Americans powerless and vulnerable.

www.cnn.com

Actually few things in America are more self-evident than that the 2nd was the white man's way to hold the black one at bay.

Two dozen earned LOLs, yet another variant of 1619 crackpot history - this time by a black studies prof. who, like most in ethnic studies departments, have an axe to grind. Frankly, "studies" departments all have one thing in common, second rate scholarship.

Real scholars (not these identity propogandists) in legal history, constitutional law, and early American history would know this as creative bunk. Akhil Reed Amar, a liberal constitutional scholar (and one of the best) in his book “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction” (1998)" explains the actual considerations that Anderson slights, particularly “deep anxiety about a potentially abusive federal military.”

Perhaps I can supply you with a reading list?

 

[Glitch]

Two dozen earned LOLs, yet another variant of 1619 crackpot history - this time by a black studies prof. who, like most in ethnic studies departments, have an axe to grind. Frankly, "studies" departments all have one thing in common, second rate scholarship.

Real scholars (not these identity propogandists) in legal history, constitutional law, and early American history would know this as creative bunk. Akhil Reed Amar, a liberal constitutional scholar (and one of the best) in his book “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction” (1998)" explains the actual considerations that Anderson slights, particularly “deep anxiety about a potentially abusive federal military.”

Perhaps I can supply you with a reading list?

This reminds me of what these delusional "woke" leftists claimed that blacks couldn't go to National Parks because the trees were racist.

When trees are considered 'racist'

Residents of a mostly black neighborhood whose land borders a Palm Springs public golf course want a stand of Tamarisk trees removed because they represent racism and segregation. The residents claim that the trees were planted in the 1960s to del...

www.americanthinker.com

Well, Apparently, Trees Might Be Racist Now, Too

A high school in Portland, Ore., has postponed changing its mascot to the evergreen tree after a com

pjmedia.com

They like making things like this up, because they are utterly clueless and have no grasp of reality. They just assume every one else is as stupid and ignorant about American history as they clearly are.

 

[Rich2018]

What’s that got to do with the thread topic?

Because the US gun supply system is overwhelmingly influenced by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[calamity]

...

They like making things like this up, because they are utterly clueless and have no grasp of reality. They just assume every one else is as stupid and ignorant about American history as they clearly are.

"They"?

 

[Rich2018]

"They"?

...them....those people.

 

[NWRatCon]

Well, suspense is over . . . Neither of those two positions you have assigned to me are mine.

The 2ndA wasn't "about federal-State balance" . . . There was no balance, there was the right under the federal Constitution and the right under state constitutions.

There is the federal right to arms recognized in Presser that forbids states from disarming their citizens, but that right does not rely on the 2ndA, so no "balance" there.

As for me being, "correct that [the 2ndA] was not seen as an "individual right" until that construction was created out of whole cloth by Justice Scalia in 2010" . . .

That certainly isn't something I would ever say and I certainly wouldn't get the year wrong.

.

Well, since I was quoting your post, I beg to differ:

"...NOBODY had a claimable "2nd Amendment" right to keep and bear arms until 2010."

I was, perhaps, interpreting your statement generously to conform to reality. Please, feel free to elaborate. In my view, the 2nd Amendment was explicitly about balancing the authorities of the State and federal authorities. Both the text and history establish this beyond peradventure.

With regard to Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), it is appropriate in this context to point out that it held, "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." (Of course, it was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago in, I note, 2010.) Without going too far off topic (as happens in EVERY 2nd Amendment discussion), I note that the limitation you mention in Presser, is both dicta and notional but was based (again, explicitly) on the State/federal balance I previously referenced:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. (Emphases mine)

Just sayin' (I should also note that the history on this issue goes back to United States v. Cruikshank, which, of course, has its own "issues" regarding Constitutional interpretation, and the race-centric basis for the law in question.

The case arose from the hotly-disputed 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election and the subsequent Colfax massacre, in which dozens of black people and three white people were killed. Federal charges were brought against several white insurgents under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which prohibited two or more people from conspiring to deprive anyone of their constitutional rights. As noted in the cited article: "As constitutional commentator Leonard Levy later wrote in 1987, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan."

Given the subject of this thread, that background seems... shall we say, "relevant"

 

[NWRatCon]

On a more general note, I think that the book in question overstates the case, but is, in many respects correct that some portion of the supporters/promoters of the Amendment were, indeed, concerned with the ability to maintain slave patrols. There were other considerations as well.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Well, since I was quoting your post, I beg to differ:

I was, perhaps, interpreting your statement generously to conform to reality. Please, feel free to elaborate.

Interpreting it divorced from the context of the post you chopped it from and forced to conform to your reality.

The entire post was focused on the fact that the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on the state laws that operated on Slaves and then Freemen and then citizens and how the 14th was intended to change that.

You chopped off the first half of my statement which framed the second half . . . While the OP (and other's) goofy theory tells us the 2nd Amendment was the facilitator of white oppression because it protected the gun rights of Whites, the fact I stated was, NOBODY, White or Black had a claimable "2nd Amendment" right enforceable on any state, until McDonald held for incorporation in 2010.

The complete sentence you chop quoted:

• "While the 14th Amendment intended in 1868 to make the 2ndA enforceable on states, NOBODY had a claimable "2nd Amendment" right to keep and bear arms until 2010."

In my view, the 2nd Amendment was explicitly about balancing the authorities of the State and federal authorities. Both the text and history establish this beyond peradventure.

But the 2ndA doesn't 'do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. The 2ndA doesn't take notice of any "balance" between the state and federal, it only operates on the federal government and all it does is "restrict the powers of the federal government" (Cruikshank, Presser, Heller).

The 2ndA has never been inspected to inform or held to direct, maintain or protect any militia interests (rights or powers) whatsoever. There have been many cases decided by SCOTUS that have been focused on disputes and conflicts and issues of militia operations and the 2nd Amendment was mentioned only once in 201 years, in a dissent, and only to say the 2nd Amendment offered no guidance

.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

With regard to Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), it is appropriate in this context to point out that it held, "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." (Of course, it was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago in, I note, 2010.)

Yes, there is NO right for citizens to form themselves into an armed group and drill or parade with arms (whether they call themselves "militia" or not). This has no relationship to anything under discussion in this thread.

That particular legal fact was not overturned. Heller affirms Presser that the 2nd Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".

I note that the limitation you mention in Presser, is both dicta and notional but was based (again, explicitly) on the State/federal balance I previously referenced:

You talk about this "balance" as if it was self-evident and self-executing. Actually, that excerpt of Presser is exerting a uncontestable, absolute federal power to bind state action.

I don't know how this preemptive claim on a shared resource (the armed citizenry) can be described as a "balance"; the feds are claiming power to protect the arms possession of a state's citizens, repelling / invalidating a state's desire to disarm them. How is that a "balance"? And this all exists without any reference to the federal 2ndA, so whatever "balance" you see here, it sure isn't the same "balance" you invent for the 2ndA.

I should also note that the history on this issue goes back to United States v. Cruikshank, which, of course, has its own "issues" regarding Constitutional interpretation, and the race-centric basis for the law in question.

No doubt, the holding was a travesty. That doesn't negate the facts of the case and that the Court's explanations of the rights of Nelson and Tillman are interesting and instructive. (The same can be said for Scott v Sandford.)

Cruikshank recognizes the right of two Freemen, former slaves then citizens, to possess and carry arms for self defense in public from white oppressors in a state and at a time that the state had no militia (it being disbanded by the governor on the orders of Congress).

Cruikshank shows without any dispute that SCOTUS recognizes and endorses the 2nd Amendment securing an individual right independent of any militia association. These were two Black men who, even if Louisiana had a militia, they could not enroll (see Militia Act of 1792).

If the right to arms was militia contingent, the Cruikshank ruling on counts 2 and 10 for violating the right of bearing arms, would have not been decided on the same grounds as counts 1 and 9, for the violation of the right to assemble.

Given the subject of this thread, that background seems... shall we say, "relevant"

Without a doubt, the background, facts and circumstances are very relevant.

.

 

[TurtleDude]

Two dozen earned LOLs, yet another variant of 1619 crackpot history - this time by a black studies prof. who, like most in ethnic studies departments, have an axe to grind. Frankly, "studies" departments all have one thing in common, second rate scholarship.

Real scholars (not these identity propogandists) in legal history, constitutional law, and early American history would know this as creative bunk. Akhil Reed Amar, a liberal constitutional scholar (and one of the best) in his book “The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction” (1998)" explains the actual considerations that Anderson slights, particularly “deep anxiety about a potentially abusive federal military.”

Perhaps I can supply you with a reading list?

I personally discussed the BOGUS bullshit with Akhil twice in 2016 and he dismissed it as idiocy

 

[calamity]

I personally discussed the BOGUS bullshit with Akhil twice in 2016 and he dismissed it as idiocy

lol

 

[TurtleDude]

lol

really? If I were to send you a picture of Akhil and I together, would you perhaps reconsider your silly claim.

 

[Glitch]

"They"?

"They" in reference to anti-American leftist filth. The very same leftist morons who made-up the BS about trees being "racist" are the ones pushing this complete BS about the Second Amendment being based upon slavery. It is nothing more than a deliberate lie by anti-American leftist filth who have a deep-seated hatred for the US and are utterly clueless about American history.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yes, there is NO right for citizens to form themselves into an armed group and drill or parade with arms (whether they call themselves "militia" or not). This has no relationship to anything under discussion in this thread.

That particular legal fact was not overturned. Heller affirms Presser that the 2nd Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".



You talk about this "balance" as if it was self-evident and self-executing. Actually, that excerpt of Presser is exerting a uncontestable, absolute federal power to bind state action.

I don't know how this preemptive claim on a shared resource (the armed citizenry) can be described as a "balance"; the feds are claiming power to protect the arms possession of a state's citizens, repelling / invalidating a state's desire to disarm them. How is that a "balance"? And this all exists without any reference to the federal 2ndA, so whatever "balance" you see here, it sure isn't the same "balance" you invent for the 2ndA.



No doubt, the holding was a travesty. That doesn't negate the facts of the case and that the Court's explanations of the rights of Nelson and Tillman are interesting and instructive. (The same can be said for Scott v Sandford.)

Cruikshank recognizes the right of two Freemen, former slaves then citizens, to possess and carry arms for self defense in public from white oppressors in a state and at a time that the state had no militia (it being disbanded by the governor on the orders of Congress).

Cruikshank shows without any dispute that SCOTUS recognizes and endorses the 2nd Amendment securing an individual right independent of any militia association. These were two Black men who, even if Louisiana had a militia, they could not enroll (see Militia Act of 1792).

If the right to arms was militia contingent, the Cruikshank ruling on counts 2 and 10 for violating the right of bearing arms, would have not been decided on the same grounds as counts 1 and 9, for the violation of the right to assemble.



Without a doubt, the background, facts and circumstances are very relevant.

.

I'm actually having some fun with this. I haven't thought about these cases in ... well, honestly, decades. I was, perhaps a little hasty in interpretation of your points, and definitely unclear in my response, as I am distracted by real world considerations. I don't think we're all that far apart in reality, on the background of the circumstances and inapplicability of the 2nd A to much of the discussion, but I think our interpretations may vary somewhat. I will have to go back and do a little digging and spend a little more time developing my discussion, especially as I have not read those particular cases in quite some time, so I am going mostly from ancient memory.

I will, at this point, merely make a few observations of a general nature. I do believe in the individual right to "keep and bear arms" - as a general proposition - but that interest is not preserved by the 2nd Amendment, which was explicitly about regulation of militias on behalf of the governments of the United States. Rather it is resident in the 9th Amendment you referenced earlier. The entire discussions of the militias throughout the Constitutional convention were about the relative authorities of the State and federal (central) over the governance of them. That is the balance that I am referring to and that the 2nd Amendment, IMHO, was intended to clarify. As I said, I think the OP overstates the particular relevance of slavery to those discussions, but there is no doubt that it was resident in the background and within the minds of at least some of the framers.

Heller and McDonald are absolutely ahistorical and nonsensical opinions from that standpoint of the 2nd and the purposes of its language. Scalia shoehorned his belief system into the opinion because he abhorred the reality of the 9th Amendment and would do anything to avoid referencing that provision as support for any of his ideals. As a result, the argumentation is a mess and doesn't hold together. It really is a case of bad ideology making bad law. That particular problem is rampant in the courts, generally, and the SC in particular. Even more so, now.

It's late. I'm not sure I am being cogent, so I will leave the discussion at this point and may come back later to bring my thoughts closer to the basis of the thread.