The Second Amendment And Slave Patrols

The second amendment was conceived primarily as a means to allow slave holding states to maintain their slave patrols. It is important to remember this history and not fall into the trap of believing that the second amendment is about protecting the nation at all.

I will demonstrate this by referring to the words of the founding fathers themselves.


In 1772, the English High Court struck down slavery in England and Wales. King George openly began talking of imposing this on the colonies. Word of King George's sympathy to the slaves spread and this fostered slave revolts. Do you remember the phrase "he has fomented rebellions among us" from the Declaration of Independence? That was what that phrase referred to - slave revolts.

As such, the southern states saw a need to maintain their own "militias", not against invasion but against slave rebellions. Remember, the first draft of the 2nd amendment placed the militias under the president, not the states. The southern states protested loudly. Why?

During the 1787 Ratifying convention, Patrick Henry laid all this out quite clearly and his words are recorded history.

"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."

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution].... "

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new 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 new Constitution], can call forth the militia."

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

"In this state," he said, "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."

Patrick Henry also loudly complained that the northern states had the power to overturn slavery in the new constitution and he saw this as a bad thing.

"[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission," said Henry. "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."

Henry was correct too. The northern states did see, in the constitution, the means to end slavery once and for all, and they used it just over 80 years later.

As you can see, the above are all words from the founders themselves as to why the 2nd amendment exists and why it is for "states" instead of the entire nation. The 2nd amendment is a relic of slavery. It needs to go the way of other parts of the constitution that supported slavery. Other OECD nations are just as free or even more free than the United States but have no second amendment. We have the world's largest standing military. We do not need the second amendment, and once it is gone, we can have adult conversations about what responsible gun ownership should look like in this nation.

Note that not one single OECD nation bans firearms entirely. Restrictions exist and vary between countries but in every case, ownership of firearms is a privilege, not a right, and carries immense responsibilities and legal requirements. This is the path that the US should take here. It will take years to enact the entirety of what is needed, but we need to start somewhere.