«

»

Jun 15

The Racist Roots of the Second Amendment

In Brief—The Second Amendment has been warped from its original intent by a partisan and inattentive Supreme Court coupled with pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in thrall to the gun manufacturers. A new examination of history reveals that the Second Amendment was created by the founding fathers to win the support of the slave-holding South for nationhood.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-Amendment II:

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.

 Southern White Militias vs. Slaves

It pays to closely read history, something not many people do, particularly the conservative members of the Supreme Court who in 2008 held in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that every citizen was entitled to possess and carry arms, i.e., that every qualified citizen was allowed to own a gun. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), they clarified the Heller case by holding that the states had a limited right to enact reasonable restrictions to the ownership of firearms. Still, gun ownership extremists, in thrall to the firearms manufacturers and National Rifle Association, insist that they have a right to possess even high-powered weapons. And the killing goes on and the firearms manufacturers continue making billions of dollars.

Supreme Court decisions aside for the moment, the purpose of this piece is to point out uncomfortable facts that were ignored or, to be fair, simply unknown by Justice Scalia and the other conservatives when the Heller opinion was written, namely, that the militias referred to in the Second Amendment were designed to keep the slaves from rebelling.

Michael Waldman’s scholarly new book, The Second Amendment: A Biography (2014), points out the obvious reasons that the founding fathers purposely spoke in terms of a “well regulated militia.” They intended to make the keeping and bearing of arms dependent upon the states having a way to maintain their militias for protective purposes.

Mr. Waldman’s analysis is correct as far as it goes, but he neglected to look behind the necessity for the militias and which states were most adamant in demanding the right for arming their militias. Slaves were considered property and they were not just deprived of their freedom but were known to be murdered or mistreated by slave owners. It is natural and eminently understandable that the slaves would occasionally rebel against their oppression. This, like today’s fear of terrorism propagated by the United States government, drove the fearful slave owners in the South to establish white militias to intimidate the slaves and keep them in line.

These militias were comprised of armed white men who believed that a slave, another human being, was to be counted as only three-fifths of a person and that the whites had the right to keep them in their subservient condition by any and all means. That’s right, these are the militias referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Here’s where a proper reading of history would have been helpful to Justice Scalia and the other conservatives who joined him in the 5 to 4 decision in the Heller case. But it is doubtful that knowledge of this fact would have altered their thinking.

The simple fact is that the Second Amendment was added as a way to get the fearful Southerners to ratify the Constitution. Though largely tiptoed around, the word “slave” was rarely used, but everybody involved in the negotiations knew exactly what was being talked about. Patrick Henry, the famed Southern orator famous for “Give me liberty or give me death,” insisted that Virginia would not ratify the Constitution unless the South could be guaranteed that they would have the right to keep and maintain their militias in order to keep the slaves in line. It’s there in the books and papers of the era for all to see if they wanted to look. It appears the conservatives on the Supreme Court didn’t want to look.

Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, gave the South what they wanted in order to get the Constitution ratified. Thus, the Second Amendment became a part of the Constitution so the South could keep its militias that were charged with the duty of keeping restive slaves from rebelling.

It pays to read history, not just the history in the books you read as a high school student, but the history of how the constitution and Bill of Rights came into being. While Michael Waldman has shed important light on the intentions of the founding fathers, he needed to look beyond the surface at the negotiations underlying the creation of the United States. What is revealed are the racist roots of the Second Amendment.

Stated more plainly, the Second Amendment would not even be there in the Bill of Rights were it not necessary to win the South’s support for the creation of the United States of America. To get that support, the South wanted assurance that they could keep their white militias to prevent the slaves from casting off their chains. Oh, the shame!

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Donna

    Good history lesson. How, then, did the National Rifle Association get so powerful that they effectively oppose any and all restrictions on guns?

    1. Don Bay

      As I have said, it pays to read a bit deeper in history than a high school history book. It’s all there if you’re willing to look. The five Supreme Court conservatives and their clerks didn’t bother to look. As Linda Greenhouse, astute analyst of the Supreme Court, recently pointed out, the five conservative members of the court have become so partisan that I believe they can justly be called “The judicial wing of the Republican Party.”

      As for the National Rifle Association (NRA), I recommend you Google “Coup National Rifle Association.” There you will read that on May 21-22 of 1977 the NRA was taken over by a group of radicals that turned a simple sportsmen’s organization allied with the Boy Scouts into a radical, one-issue organization allied with the Republican Party and the gun manufacturers. Known as the “Cincinnati Revolt,” one night brought about the plotted ouster of the rational then-current board and its replacement with anti-government radicals intent on putting all sorts of firearms into the hands of gun worshipers. Since then, they haven’t looked back and have become one of the most effective radical lobbying organizations in the country. Please read it. It will make your blood run cold and illustrate how easily a coup comes about.

  2. Jim Newton

    Oh, the shame indeed. Well clarified. And the further question is why conservatives, Supreme Court or otherwise, are unwilling to look beyond the words and intent of the amendment.

    1. Don Bay

      I have very little idea why the Supreme Court decides as it does, but I agree with Linda Greenhouse, an astute observer of the Court, that today’s conservatives on the Court are ideological in the extreme to the extent that in my view they are the judicial wing of the Republican Party. I urge you to read Linda Greenhouse’s May 29 New York Times article, “Polar Vision.”

      A look at the cases the Court decides to take tells us a lot about just how ideological they are. They gutted the popular Voting Rights Act at the invitation of a radical states-right group (a Republican position). They gutted reasonable efforts to rein in big corporate money by giving big money corporate donors the same free speech rights you and I have (a Republican position). They have enabled union-busting by corporations (a long-standing Republican position). You name it, they have sided with the elite and the Republican Party against Main Street at an astonishing rate. They are Republicans in life-tenured black robes sitting on the highest court in the land.

      As Linda Greenhouse, normally restrained in her analyses, points out, the Supreme Court conservatives are endangering respect for not just the Court but for the rule of law. I wholeheartedly agree except I go further: I believe they have already lost the respect of thinking Americans in the Court and the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>