Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Right Hatred, Wrong Target? (15+ / 0-)

    The Declaration of Independence describes an active domestic enemy:

    He has ... endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    Slavery was only a southern issue; the Native problem ran south to north, and unlike almost all slaves, they were regularly fighting back and were formidable foes when the Bill of Rights was being debated, and for a hundred years after.

    (This comment does not reflect viewpoints of the Native side.)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:01:16 PM PST

    •  Except that federal troops (9+ / 0-)

      rather than militias were used to repress the natives.

      •  Individual colonies, and then individual (7+ / 0-)

        states, raised and supported troops to protect settlements against the Indians.  The nearly constant wars on the frontiers from the beginnings of white settlement until the French and Indian War were not fought by British professional troops.

        During the Revolutionary War, the fact that the British government sought out help from tribes that had a history of being pro-British, particularly among the Iroquois Confederacy and the "Civilized Tribes" of the southeast, was a rallying point for Americans in rebellion.  That fact that said rebellious Americans also sought Indian allies (the Stockbridge, the Catawba, the Mohawk and Oneida- which split the Iroquois) was conveniently ignored.

        Create. Build. Serve. Encourage. Teach.

        by algebrateacher on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 07:26:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was talking about federal troops (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          La Gitane, Cassandra Waites

          after the ratification of the constitution.

          •  The wars in the Northwest Territory and (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            leu2500, mightymouse

            against the "Civilized Tribes" of the Southeast were conducted by federal troops and significant numbers of state- and territory-raised troops.  For example, Andrew Jackson did not command federal troops against the Creeks and other tribes.  He did not command federal troops until the War of 1812.  He raised his troops locally.

            Only a small portion of William Henry Harrison's army at the Battle of Tippecanoe was "federal."  The majority of his troops were Kentucky militia.

            Create. Build. Serve. Encourage. Teach.

            by algebrateacher on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:01:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Where are you getting this history from? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:27:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think you left out a "not" in your comment... (5+ / 0-)

      ...perhaps you meant to write that "Slavery was not only a southern issue..."

      I mean, according to the 1790 US census, about 140,000 slaves - 20% of all slaves - were enslaved within the northern states.

      'Course, that doesn't really speak to the issues of the components of the slave trade that were based in northern ports and financial centers.


      •  I Didn't Mean to Leave It Out, I Didn't Know -- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        luckydog, wu ming


        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:01:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's interesting what gets lost to history (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I would wager that most northerners are unaware of the fact that just about every single state in the country still had slaves up to the Civil War. The northern states never actually abolished slavery. They instead passed laws whereby children born after a certain date would no longer be considered slaves, and that once the slaves already alive reached a certain age they would be set free. By the time the Constitution was being written, slavery was no longer economically sound for the northern states due to a change in what crops they could grow and sell. Tragically, most of the slaveowners in the North ended up selling their slaves to the Deep South before they hit the age of freedom, often right before.  

          Also, the Virginia delegates at the Convention were of the mind that slavery was on the way out because they were also going through the same economic changes the more northern states were. So men like Jefferson were willing to accept compromises those from colonies further South were not.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 08:16:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, sfbob, Chitown Kev

            The states abolish slavery one by one. It was done by setting a future cut off date. Since there were relatively few slaves to begin with the economic impact was not major.

            •  That should read (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Chitown Kev

              The northern states abolished slavery

            •  The cutoff was for the children (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn, Chitown Kev

              Abolishing slavery means that you end it not only for those about to be born, but for current slaves as well. That's what the US Congress did in 1865. But no state did that except, I believe, Vermont. They instead offered gradual emancipation. This, in turn, allowed the owners to sell their slaves further South rather than setting them free. The most northern states sold their slaves to Maryland and Virginian. And then when those two states began to depend far less on slaves, they in turn sold them to the Deep South.

              However, just because something is the law does not mean all people actually follow it. Rhode Island "ended" slavery in the 1780s, yet slaves were still showing up on census records in that state in the 1840s and beyond. Same for other states in the North.

              And while many northern states had very few slaves, there were some, like NY, NJ and RI, which heavily depended on slaves for several years. NY in particular had many thousands of slaves until the state experienced an economic change that removed the need for slaves.

              Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

              by moviemeister76 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:04:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  not every northern state (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse, Wilmguy, Robobagpiper, sfbob

            had slavery up to the civil war. The Northwest Territory Act prohibited slavery and OH, IN MI, IL, WI, IA & MN all came into the union w/o slavery per that act. Also, ME came in as no.-slave.

            When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

            by kaminpdx on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:44:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You're counting the wrong states. (4+ / 0-)

        According to your link, it should be about 36,000 slaves, or about 5%. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, not "northern" states.

        •  different folks count 'em differently... (0+ / 0-)

          ...point remains.


          •  Maryland and Delaware were part of the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Tirge Caps, Wilmguy

            Tidewater culture that included Virginia, and not the Quaker mid-Atlantic or Yankee New England. Counting them with the northern states, simply because of how they (barely) fell in the Civil War is anhistorical.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:26:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  google the question - "how do you define..." (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ..."northern states" in the US?"...

              See, on the first page of hits, 7 out of  the10 mainstream references draw their definitions based on participation in the Civil War.

              Rather than "anhistorical", the term as I applied it is common usage.

              Of course, that definition of the term doesn't embrace the fullness of the history and complexity.


          •  Helpful points, but not buying the argument (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, oldpotsmuggler

            I'm not sure how you would count two of the three states defining the Chesapeake Bay as anything other than southern states.  Those two English fellows Mason and Dixon helped draw their borders.

            And no, the point doesn't remain. Yes, there were slaves north and south, but the false equivalence of 'everybody was doing it' avoids the meaningful differences around slavery by region in the antebellum period.

            •  no one claimed "everybody was doing it"... (0+ / 0-)

              ...and no one claimed that there were no meaningful differences 'tween the regions. Matter of fact, I pointed to data that demonstrated some of the numbers behind the differences.


              •  The numbers were wrong (0+ / 0-)

                You were off by 1790 and that number plummeted as slavery disappeared from northern states.  

                I'm not sure I get your point.  It sounded like you tried to argue "slavery was a BFD north and south" but once you look at the bigger picture and corrections on this thread, it's not convincing.

                •  no, not really, I wasn't off at all... (0+ / 0-)

                  Common usage of "northern states" in the US generally means those states in the Union at the time of the Civil War. This was also the context in which Gooserock made a statement about slavery being a southern thing.

                  In 1790, there were 140,000 slaves in those northern states. So, my point to Gooserock, 'way above, was that there were slaves in the northern states at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights. And, guess what? there were.

                  So, maybe you can tell us how that means that slavery was just a southern states thing.

                  Simple point, made and supported with data from a pretty good source - the 1790 US Census.

                  Trying to make the point into something that it isn't - that's what you seem to be about. Talk about "not convincing".

                  And course, no one seems to be addressing the issue of northern financial and shipping interests that were heavily involved in the slave trade.


    •  Probably some of both (11+ / 0-)

      but whether for slave patrols or what you call the Native problem there were definite racist overtones.

      There is an interesting article in the Georgetown Law Journal on this subject.  While the main thrust is that the militias were for the Indian wars it also has a lot of information on the slavery angle.  It makes a good case that the right to bear arms was only for white males.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site