Slavery And the Second Amendment (George Curry Hates Condi, AGAIN!)

The Atlanta Daily World (whatever the hell that is...) ^ | 6/6/05 | George E. Curry

[section9]

Slavery And The Second Amendment

By GEORGE E. CURRY, NNPA SPOTLIGHT June 03, 2005

My column two weeks ago took Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to task for misinterpreting the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In retrospect, I realize I owe her an apology. From the bottom of my heart, I apologize to Secretary Rice - for being too light on her.

For those who missed it, Rice appeared on CNN's Larry King Live May 11 and talked about her father and his friends arming themselves against nightriders in Birmingham, Ala. in 1962 and 1963. She said, "...We have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that our Founding Fathers thought very important. And on this one, I think that they understood that there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

I took issue with her. Since then, a reader directed me to a fascinating 100-page article in the University of California-Davis Law Review [Winter 1997] by Carl T. Bogus titled, "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment." The Second Amendment reads: "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."

Bogus, an associate professor at Roger Williams University Law School, wrote: "The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control."

He explains, "The Second Amendment's history has been hidden because neither James Madison, who was the principal author of the Second Amendment, nor those he was attempting to outmaneuver politically, laid their motives on the table."

In 1779, Virginians met in Richmond to decide whether to ratify the United States constitution. With eight of the needed nine colonies already on board, all eyes were on Virginia, the home of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry. Whether the newly-formed union would eradicate slavery was uppermost on their minds.

Professor Bogus writes, "'Slavery was not only an economic and industrial system,' one scholar noted, 'but more than that, it was a gigantic police system.' Over time the South developed an elaborate system of slave control. The basic instrument of control was the slave patrol, armed groups of white men who made regular rounds. The patrols made sure that blacks were not wandering where they did not belong, gathering in groups, or engaging in other suspicious activity.

"Equally important, however, was the demonstration of constant vigilance and armed force. The basic strategy was to ensure and impress upon the slaves that whites were armed, watchful, and ready to respond to insurrectionist activity at all times. The state required white men and female plantation owners to participate in patrols and to provide their own arms and equipment, although the rich were permitted to send white servants in their place."

The article noted, "The Georgia statues required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

Bogus said it was clear that the Second Amendment was drafted to protect Southern militias, not broadly allow individuals to arm themselves.

"In the South, therefore, the patrols and the militia were largely synonymous," he discovered. "...The militia was the first and last protection from the omni-present threat of slave insurrection of vengeance."

When Americans think of militias, they tend to think of minutemen at Lexington and Concord and "the shot heard around the world." Bogus explains, "Some assume the Founders incorporated the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights because an armed citizenry had been important to security in colonial America and is essential to throwing off the yoke of British oppression. Much of this is myth."

He concluded, "It cannot be overemphasized that slavery was the central feature of life in slave holding states, and that the South depended on arms and the militia itself against the constant danger of a slave revolt...Southerners had to be infinitely more concerned about slave control than abstract, ideological, or contingent beliefs about liberty and guns."

In other words, Condi, they were not interested in arming your father and his Black buddies.

George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. He appears on National Public Radio (NPR) three times a week as part of "News and Notes with Ed Gordon." In addition, his radio commentary is syndicated each week by Capitol Radio News Service (301/588-1993). To contact Curry or to book him for a speaking engagement, go to his Web site, www.georgecurry.com.

[section9]

Okay, aside from giving you guys this fellow's contact site, can anyone see the logic hole in his column? The Second Amendment formed to control the slaves?

Anyway, this guy has been on a tear about Condi and guns for a while. If you'd like, go visit this clown and tell him that it would have been hard for the Va. Legislature to be meeting in 1779 to ratify a Constitution that couldn't have been drawn up until 1787.

His entire argument rests on the fiction that the Framers were interested in arming black folks. They weren't. Rice has never said that. However, her father took advantage of the Second Amendment to defend his home. That's what Curry is missing.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Dan from Michigan]

Carl Bogus is his source. That's all I need to know. He is or one of the top lawyers with HCI/Brady. Bogus is Bogus.

[mvpel]

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

...

[rhombus]

...an associate professor at Roger Williams University Law School, wrote: "The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control."

I find this hard to believe. A little something happened at the Concord bridge. The red coats intent was to remove guns from private households. I find it hard to believe that at the very least this incident was not in the minds of the founders.

[boris]

"Bogus" is appropriate.

Also, the Second Amendment contains but a single comma.

--Boris

[stainlessbanner]

bttt

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There's apparently a good reason why he's named Bogus.

[RAY]

Curry misses the point that the states would not have ratified the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, which included the 2nd Amendment.

[section9]

Oh hell, I wrote Curry and told him in advance not to use Bellesilles. I bet he does. You watch! He's probably foolish enough not to know that Bellesilles is a scam artist.

Didn't know about Bogus' connection to the Brady outfit, but now your revelation explains Curry's eagerness to accept Bogus' interpretation of history.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[justshutupandtakeit]

I see no reference to the FF wanting to arm Blacks. Nor have I ever seen any indication that arming Slavers was the principle intent. After all there were still Indian tribes throughout the midwest which were not too keen on having swarms of white folks taking their lands and were prepared to fight.

[blackie]

The lunatic left and their toadies in the MSM are brain dead and need to be eradicated!

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[martin_fierro]

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in writings by "Professor Bogus."

[Steve_Seattle]

I've never heard this argument presented before, but I HAVE seen numerous comments from the Founding Fathers regarding the desirability of an armed citizenry. I suspect that the appropriately named Mr. Bogus's argument is bogus, an attempt to discredit gun ownership by associating it with slavery and racism.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

"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."


What is the subject of this sentence?

The right.

Verb?

Shall not be infringed.

What right?

The right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms(military weapons)

All the rest of the sentence is superfluous.
Third grade english classes would get this right.

[cvq3842]

Also, he said that the "real, racist" reason for the Second Amendment was "hidden" because the framers didn't lay it on the table.

In otherwords, there's no evidence for it . . . because there's no evidence for it.

What a bunch of crapola. Really, some people are losing it.

[Carry_Okie]

What I am seeing here is consensus in the ambiguity of language. It could well be that Northern and Southern States adopted the Second Amendment, each for entirely different reasons.

That doesn't make Dr. Rice's understanding of its affect and application invalid; indeed, quite the contrary.

[groanup]

bump for later

[Bombardier]

You'll note that noone who wants to disarm the American people refers to Federalist 46. Read that, and there you will find the real reason for the Second Amendment. All these dripping infections (Curry, Bogus, Sarah Brady, Up-Chuck Schumer, Feinswine.....) are doing is blowing smoke at the iggerunt publick who have no clue what the Constitution even says!

As much as I find Sean Hannity to be annoying, and even though he intends his "Man in the Street" segments to be comedy, the sheer stupidity and ignorance they reveal on the part of most voters is what scares me more than anything else. Listen to these boobs sometime! THOSE are the morons who keep sending the RATs back to Congress and who elected Clinton! Fraudulent academics don't scare me.....they can be refuted. Ignorant fools DO scare me, because they're the ones who vote, and the candidates they vote for are the ones who will rob us of our liberties!

[rdb3]

Paleo-negroes strke again. They are a joke, a characature, and pure Stepin Fetchits.

The two most dangerous black women in the United States are Secretary of State Condi Rice and a possible Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown.

[Lazamataz]

[Attorney] Carl Bogus is his source.

Carl Bogus.

Well, at least he's obeying Truth-In-Advertising laws.