Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

Confirmed: Second Amendment Framers Wanted to Protect Slavery | BobCesca.com | Liberal Politics Blog and Podcast

search

Decius
Picture of Decius
Online Now
Decius's Pics
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

Decius's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
  Movies
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films
  Music
   Electronic Music
Business
  Finance & Accounting
  Tech Industry
  Telecom Industry
  Management
  Markets & Investing
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
  Parenting
Miscellaneous
  Humor
  MemeStreams
Current Events
  War on Terrorism
Recreation
  Cars and Trucks
  Travel
Local Information
  United States
   SF Bay Area
    SF Bay Area News
Science
  Biology
  History
  Math
  Nano Tech
  Physics
Society
  Economics
  Politics and Law
   Civil Liberties
    Internet Civil Liberties
    Surveillance
   Intellectual Property
  Media
   Blogging
Sports
Technology
  Computer Security
  Macintosh
  Spam
  High Tech Developments

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
Confirmed: Second Amendment Framers Wanted to Protect Slavery | BobCesca.com | Liberal Politics Blog and Podcast
Topic: Miscellaneous 9:49 am EST, Jan 26, 2013

I found this interesting - the southern states used militia to suppress slave revolts. The right to a militia independent of the federal government was important to them because of both the need to act quickly to suppress slave revolts as well as the risk that a federal army influenced by free states might not do so.

Focusing too much on this single datapoint in understanding the Second Amendment is surely an oversimplification. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated that they wished to protect the right of recently liberated slaves to keep arms for self defense. It is, nevertheless, an interesting window into the reasons for the Second Amendment and the context of the passage of the Constitution.

Patrick Henry:

The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded.” If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. 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. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

Confirmed: Second Amendment Framers Wanted to Protect Slavery | BobCesca.com | Liberal Politics Blog and Podcast



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0