Pages

Jump to bottom

6 comments

1 wrenchwench  Wed, May 8, 2013 11:34:44am

I’d like to see a book-length exposition of this. Of course, then I wouldn’t have time to read it, but it’s fascinating.

2 aagcobb  Wed, May 8, 2013 1:06:09pm

Well, the Constitution explicitly sets forth that one of the purposes of the militia is to be called up by Congress to suppress rebellions, and who, in a self-governing nation, would be more likely to rise up in rebellion than the slaves? The neo-confederates are still arming for the race war, only now the “enemy” is in the White House.

3 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, May 8, 2013 1:32:39pm

This has become quite the talking point with the anti-gun movement.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t think that way.

James Madison, writing as Publius in Federalist Paper # 46:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

The founding fathers did, in fact, see the militia as a replacement for a standing army by which tyranny was enforced in Britain and Europe. It was to stand as defense of the nation from both internal and external threats.

You’ll note that the federal government did call out the militia to put down a tax revolt by white farmers in 1791 (en.wikipedia.org ) but not in response to even Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the most serious slave uprising in our nation’s history (en.wikipedia.org ). That was handled by local militia.

That the militia turned out to be one of the greatest failures of the Constitution’s experiments in government is rather ironic. However, the 2nd amendment is built on the premise that individuals owning individual weapons would come together in times of emergency, chose their officers & go march to war. To change that will require a change in the amendment itself and that is not likely anytime soon given the polarization of the national discourse in all other areas.

4 EPR-radar  Wed, May 8, 2013 3:59:39pm

re: #3 William Barnett-Lewis

Good points. I’d add that the founders were not monolithic in their views, and Madison’s statements you’ve quoted are not necessarily representative of the views of the faction that agitated for including the second amendment. Especially since Madison apparently viewed these concerns of Patrick Henry as being groundless. A desire for state level control of the militia being a pressing issue for the South at the time of the founding is very plausible.

However, the reasoning of the founders in adopting the second amendment is irrelevant to me, no matter how noble or debased it might be. The only question I have about the second amendment is ‘does it presently work’?

5 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 8, 2013 8:02:42pm

re: #3 William Barnett-Lewis

This has become quite the talking point with the anti-gun movement.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t think that way.

James Madison, writing as Publius in Federalist Paper # 46:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

The founding fathers did, in fact, see the militia as a replacement for a standing army by which tyranny was enforced in Britain and Europe. It was to stand as defense of the nation from both internal and external threats.

You’ll note that the federal government did call out the militia to put down a tax revolt by white farmers in 1791 (en.wikipedia.org ) but not in response to even Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the most serious slave uprising in our nation’s history (en.wikipedia.org ). That was handled by local militia.

That the militia turned out to be one of the greatest failures of the Constitution’s experiments in government is rather ironic. However, the 2nd amendment is built on the premise that individuals owning individual weapons would come together in times of emergency, chose their officers & go march to war. To change that will require a change in the amendment itself and that is not likely anytime soon given the polarization of the national discourse in all other areas.

To this I’d add that it also possible that the 2nd Amendment was seen favorably in both the North and South, but for different reasons. Under this interpretation, states like Massachusetts and New York saw the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing their militia and their hard-won rights as free men. Those states genuinely saw it as egalitarian, as did James Madison. But many whites in southern states like the Carolinas could have seen it as protecting them from the threat of slave uprisings, by upholding the duty of the white population to be armed and enrolled in the militia..

So maybe the 2nd Amendment won wide support because most leaders saw in it what they wanted to see.

/One man’s analysis

6 Merkin  Sat, May 11, 2013 7:03:30pm

Dark Falcon, indeed, the true genius of the Constitution and the main reason that it has served us so well is its vagueness and ambiguity. This was no accident, it is a political document produced by a political process that had to be ratified by an election, a political process also. Much in it was intended to allow the reader of it to believe that it said something that it actually didn’t. The federalist papers weren’t a record of what the drafters of the Constitution really meant when they wrote the Constitution, they were election propaganda meant to interpret the Constitution differently for different interests in order to gain the widespread support needed to get it ratified.

It is this ambiguity and vagueness that has allowed the Constitution to be interpreted and reinterpreted to fit the needs of the country at different times.

The drafters of the Constitution represented a broad range of interests and opinions. It is impossible to say that they intended any part of it to mean something when it probably meant different things to different people at the convention. This is why original intent and textualism are such crocks.

I think that it is however, safe to say that they would all be united in one sentiment, that we should do what they did, forge the best path for the country now and not to worry about what they would have thought or done.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 107 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 271 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1