You 2nd ammendment guys love sticking to the principle of it, so I assume you still support the slave trade?
Article 1 Section 8 of the 1787 Constitution puts Congress in charge of "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". It should be noted that the militias were all that the newly founded country had in the way of armed forces. In the south these militias had their roots in slave patrols, while in the north they had formed at the beginning of the Revolutionary War.
During the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, several southern representatives, lead by Patrick Henry from Virginia, took issue with that section. Here's are some excerpts of what Henry had to say:
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.
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections [under this 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 Constitution], can call forth the militia.
In this state [Virginia], there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand 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.
[Abolitionists] will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission. 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 speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.
In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.
And so Madison drafted the second amendment to satisfy them. It was never about the citizens being able to protect themselves from the government, it was about the states being able to protect their slavery from the federal government. The right has twisted the 2nd amendment's history pretty much the same way many of them try to twist the history of the civil war, claiming it was about "states' rights" and failing to mention that the only "state right" they were interested in was their "right" to keep slaves.
Source: Bogus (unfortunate name), Carl T.; Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law (Winter 1998). "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment". U.C. Davis Law Review. 31: 309–408. SSRN 1465114. moismyname.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
